[rbanffy]

> What the F* can you run on 512?

A lot, really. I have rendered DVD quality movies, handled product composition databases and processed millions of orders on machines with less than 512 megs of memory.

Not many companies (or people) have enough data or volume to stress a machine with 512 megs of RAM. I agree it seems a pittance - my netbook has more than that - but if I break up memory usage by application here, Firefox takes most of the RAM, then Gwibber, then Rhythmbox. None of them would be running on a server.

It would be interesting to write down a list of what you can't do with 512M.

[Super74]

Well, you can't effectively run Mac OS X or W7 on 512 to start, the most used operating systems in the world. Even Ubuntu needs an upgraded graphics card and RAM to utilize all of the bells and whistles.

As I said before, I was referring to the general public. There will always be hackers or high-end users that can make miracles.

[lftl]

I think the general miscommunication here is that you seem to be talking about desktop computing, while this article is focused on datacenter usage.

[Super74]

I agreed with the article in the sense that a smaller company has seen the error of some major manufacturers' ways. My opinion was that these major manufacturers do not have the user's best interest in mind and used their PC sales as another example.

They have billions for research at their disposal and they couldn't see that their equipment was too power hungry, would not be sustainable in the long run and probably needed re-tuning? I'm guessing they did.

[thedjpetersen]

I run Ubuntu off of 512M of ram, and it has always performed well for me, I don't think it is a miracle to run off that amount of memory, for most people's needs they could deal with a lot less memory. Most people just want more memory for more eye candy.

[Super74]

"Even Ubuntu needs an upgraded graphics card and RAM to utilize all of the bells and whistles."

Bells and whistles are what makes computing fun for the average user. Why do you think the iPhone is such a hit? It's basic functionality? or the fact that you can have a lot of fun on it? It even sucks as a phone and people don't seem to mind.

In my IT business, the first thing I do for most customers is upgrade their RAM because their desktops come so poorly packaged and the performance is abysmal. Once done, I have never heard a complaint.

We need to stop talking about exceptions and start discussing general usage. Most users are running W7 or Mac OS X, and run a multitude of programs, apps and at the same time. I believe in breaking bottlenecks.

Lastly, I am glad to see smaller companies making a difference, like the one in the article.

[ElliotH]

Why do you think the iPhone is such a hit? It's basic functionality? or the fact that you can have a lot of fun on it? The iPhone was initially a hit because it was the first smart phone that was really designed for the consumer (before that, the way I see it there were mostly business smartphones). It is a hit today because it is seen as the cool phone to have and it is very well marketed. The eyecandy provides only the finishing touch.

their desktops come so poorly packaged People get what they pay for, and for a lot of people they pay a relatively small amount of money to a company that puts a large markup on the hardware in their PC so they end up with something cheap. Most higher end machines from the likes of Dell are pretty useable on the RAM front from what I see.

Most users are running W7 or Mac OS X On the server this doesn't matter at all. Servers run mostly Linux, generally with no UI. Or Windows Server - which runs with a UI not that much more advanced that what you might have found back with Windows 2000.

Lastly, I am glad to see smaller companies making a difference, like the one in the article. I'm sure we all are - but I don't think that they are making the difference you think they are. A 512 core server set-up won't help any user make a home video, listen to their music or play games. What it will help is large datacenters who can serve more requests simultaneously.

[Super74]

The iPhone was initially a hit because it was the first smart phone that was really designed for the consumer. Yes, you are correct, because consumers want the bells and whistles I mentioned earlier. Apple's marketing was a success in highlighting the eye candy that the Mac OS X has been known for. Even MS eventually added most of the visual effects associated with Apple's OS.

The consumer is mostly uninformed when it comes to their hardware needs and that is where the manufacturer should step in. As another HN article discussed, the confusion in PC model labeling is another example of this carelessness. Steve Jobs has always said the consumer does not know what they want, you have to tell them.

I should have said most consumers use Mac OS X or W7 and those machines need more than 512M of RAM.

In helping large data centers improve their power consumption, creating consumer products that inspire and ignite a passion or pushing larger competitors to continually have to innovate, smaller companies always make a difference.