Re: I Deleted Nemo :-)

On 11/14/24 8:46 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:19:29 -0500, -hh wrote:
 

On 11/14/24 7:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

Which is why it’s an evolutionary dead-end.

>
It really depends on system level trades, and lifecycle contexts.

 Even as we have moved to multi-CPU machines, the amount of RAM per CPU
continues to go up over time. This is why tying yourself to a fixed amount
is going to limit the life of your machine, no question about that.

That there's an upward trend isn't what matters:  what matters is the change over the product's design lifespan.
Because when resource demand growth doesn't exceed original resources by end of life, a capability to upgrade during its life isn't needed. This is why there's no complaints about ROM BIOS capacity.
For RAM, consider first a PC's lifespan.  For corporate interests, the tax write-off is 5 years, so that's their replacement schedule.  For home users, call it 7-10 years.
So sure, RAM demand has grown, but slowly: a decade ago, a new PC was 4GB & high end 12-60GB; today, its 8GB (to 16GB); high end 32-64GB.
Corporate will have scheduled to replace that PC at least once, coming up on a second time.  This is why corporate IT typically doesn't bother to upgrade workers' PC (today, also a laptop) but to just replace it.
Home PCs are similar, especially with the trend to laptops:  most folks never crack open to make any hardware upgrades.
And high end systems have been capable of 1TB+ RAM for several years now ... but how many people do you personally know who have even just 128GB installed on their home PC, let alone more?  Its a niche use case.
-hh