A near clone of someone else who frequents this place...

SNIP
>
>Your capacity for disinformation and inaccurate statement makes my capacity for insult fade to insignificance, dear.
>
And just where was *my* "capacity for disinformation" exhibited in the exchange you needed to INSULT me about??? Mr. Lipow said: "The only thing I know on this is that Microsoft says the more RAM the better" and I said "I believe the more RAM the better.... Just where is the disinformation in that???

>I recommend that anyone who would like a dose of reality on hardware issues try some reliable sites - I'd recommend www.tomshardware.com (aka sysdoc.pair.com) or www.intel.com - I made the simple statement that I'm not 100% up to speed on the current Slot1/Socket370 technologies, especially in conjunction with RAMBUS and the Intel 840 chipset AFA reduction in speed as a result of addressing non-cacheable RAM. Of course, I'm certain you've far better recommendations, since you've no need to reference reality to make statements. YMMV. I find that reading the docs helps prevent hoof-in-mouth disease.
>
I've been to the tomshardware site several times, specifically to check out the differences between PIII/Athlon and RAMBUS/SDRAM and 133FSB/200B and related things.
You used some marginally related factors about cacheable RAM solely as an excuse to be able to say: "goes against the recommendations of the 'experts' here who make an unqualified statement of "more is better"" and "THey are about as knowledgable about this as they are about subatomic physics" and "as opposed to those who might like to believe they're gawd's gift to hardware". That's all - your *need* to insult.

>You've made your point Mr. Nelson - facts are far less important than displays of temper and posturing when you're called on issues not subject to interpretation.
>
No, I think you've made a point here, Ed... that your need to insult overrides anything else all the time. Mine was not a display of "temper", but rather a simple statement to TELL you to STOP with this crap of insults all the time. It is TIRESOME in the extreme. What "posturing"??? What "issue" did you call me on??? - Are you saying that RAM beyond cacheable is useless and that HD is the better way to go?

Sorry, Ed, but your stating 'temper' and 'posturing' and 'called on issues...' does not make it a fact, and there was no posturing and there was no temper and your "call" was not a "call" at all.

Funny how the guy who mentioned a "twit-filter" more frequently than anyone else just cannot seem to use it for those who he clearly feels are twits. Does his need to insult override cutting out the noise????

Finally, this is the second time you've hurled insults through a reply to another without even copying those of us who were insulted on the reply. This is bad form, wouldn't you say.

Jim N

>>It is truly sad to see someone of such intellect burdened with the need to insult at every opportunity. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stop with the insults.
>>
>>And yes, "Alice" and "rent-a-clue" and "porcine byproducts" etc etc etc are insults.
>>
>>Jim N
>>
>>
>>>>The question still remains -- is the RAM worth it? We can end up almost within hardware budget if we get the 512 Meg of RAM, and go about 50% over hardware budget if go to 1 Gig of Ram. But hardware cost is trivial compared to developer cost, and the cost of having to wait a long time for jobs to finish. So if the Gig will buy us something real, I have no problem fighting for it. That is the question. Will the Gig get us improved speed. The only thing I know on this is that Microsoft says the more RAM the better, and some people on this thread have added that RAM only does you good if your chip can access it directly. (Most modern chips and motherboards can.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>The RAM issue is largely determined by the processor and chipset in use. If you do not intend to use a Slot2 (Xeon) processor, there is an upper limit of 512MB of cacheable RAM in the Slot 1 and Athlon processors - and with Celerons and prior processors, that limit is far, far lower - as low as 64MB in some Pentium processor chipsets. With NT and Win2K, memory is alloted from the free memory pool top down - so using non-cacheable memory is guarenteed to use the least capable RAM first. I'd recommend a site that deals with the particulars of hardware implementation - FPA is not a reliable source of information, regardless of their press credentials, they are not sandworms and solder monkeys. A good start point is www.tomshardware.com - covers issues in moderate detail, and will point to more detailed sources if you want to investigate in detail.
>>>
>>>I realize that this probably goes against the recommendations of the 'experts' here who make an unqualified statement of "more is better". THey are about as knowledgable about this as they are about subatomic physics, and while they'd like you to believe otherwise, their poinions are flawed. I'm not absolutely up-to-date on what is shipping, so rather than believe me, go look to people who have a clue, as opposed to those who might like to believe they're gawd's gift to hardware.