Re: Apple requires too much money and sacrifice of control

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
 

Do you think my collection of concurrently running apps would not use
any RAM, or something?

>
I think you could show us...
>
...if you didn't have something to hide.

>
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png

>
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...

>
Are you that dumb?

>
Not as dumb as you...
>

  It was using over 25 billion bytes of RAM,
including cache.  16 GB would be far below that.

>
1. It was only "using over 25 billion bytes of RAM" because you're
counting caching; which is what smart systems do when there's RAM lying
around free.

  And it's good to have ample RAM for it, is the point.
 

2. You seem to think that the next step below having 32GB of RAM is 16GB.

  ROFL.  You are proving that you have a small mind.  Yes, Alan, I
could've installed an additional 8 GB to the original 16, for 24.  I
could also drink a fuckin' Pepsi and realize how overanalyzed that
would be, I bought the same pair I originally had, to make four times
8 GB instead of two times 8 GB, it was a very sensible and affordable
decision, because in the ensuing years since I assembled the machine,
the prices of RAM had declined.