My Dear Friend, CnoteChris!

Everybodies favorite condescending Jerk-Assberet!
In the above linked thread, he demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge about computers, and his Jerkoff tendencies. As it stands, the following people are apparently ignorant jerks.
[li]Q.E.D (Everybodybody knows he’s an ignoramus)[/li][li]Your’s Truly (Yes, I can vouch for my own stupidity)[/li][li]JeffB (What else needs to be said?)[/li][li]Guinastasia (Widely known as an idiot)[/li][/ul]

I think there are more, but you get the idea.

Apparently, having more RAM in your computer does not affect the speed of your box at all! We were all delusional in the misconception that adding RAM decreased the time spent by the Virtual Memory Manager swapping process data in and out of the RAM, this decreasing lag when running multiple processes, or processe requiring lots of space. Whew, boy! Am I glad to know I can be content with 32MB of RAM:rolleyes:

Yo Mama’ was a :wally

Well, you strike me as being egregiously stupid. Dunno about CnoteChris.

Did you read the bottom of the linked page?

Are you as dumb as you seem?

What about ME strikes YOU as stupid?

Are you condoning CnoteChris’ behavior?

I’ve never seen people get so riled up about computer memory. Jesus Christ.

Don’t you dis COMPUTER MEMORY! :smiley:

It’s fascinating.

Do carry on as if I weren’t here. I’ll be taking notes in the corner.

You didn’t just suggest that you were pulling up lawnchair, did you?:slight_smile:

Er… um, no because that would imply that I was waiting for a debacle in order to derive some sort of voyeuristic pleasure, whereas I am here purely in the spirit of anthropological research.

Did I get away with it?

Margaret Mead for our generation. :smiley:

Where is Cnote?

At least one of these is true anyway…


Ok, what is the deal here?

Increasing RAM decreases the time spent byt the Virtual Memory Manager swapping process data in and out of the RAM. This results in greatly reduced lag time when running lots of programs, or when booting up, etc.

My post in the GQ thread was based on the above fact, and was innacurate to a certain degree. It was also misinterpreted by many people. Along comes Cnote. He is a complete jerk, and wrong to boot.

How the FUCK am I stupid?

Impatient little fucker, aren’t you.

Remember, Ritalin is your friend. It’s not meant to be abused.

And yeah I called you an idiot (Actually, I think the exact term was “dim bulb”, but who’s paying attention) because you were being an idiot… and still are.

I mean, explain this little nugget, taken from the other thread…

And you did? How?

And what do you mean, “at least 512MB”? Windows 98 wasn’t designed to handle more than 512MB, period. Saying it needs at least 512 is again completely misleading and inaccurate. But hey, you knew that, didn’t you.

The closest to the truth you came in that whole thread.

“There were 88 original episodes of Star Trek!”
slap slap slap slap

Wow! I think this is my first mention in a Pit OP! Of course, it would have been more meaningful if I had posted in the referenced thread.

On glancing at the other thread, I notice:

So I guess it’s not only Ilsa_Lund getting me confused with Jeff Olsen.


Jeff Olsen. Sorry JeffB.

People, people, can I suggest that we all calm the fuck down. We’re way past the level of resonable response here.

OK, Good.

Now, to answer the original point. If I have a computer which typical runs using an average of X Mb of memory increasing memory up to and slightly beyond that point will speed up the system overall. After a point more memory will not be used regularly.

Adding memory does nothing, in a technical sense, to speed up the computer but it does speed up the software running on it.

So you’re both right in some respects – and frankly, unless I’m missing some history, you’re all overreacting a tad.


… returns to lurking.

Perfectly said.

Why are you so sure that I was talking about you?


OTOH, adding memory to a person leaves them frail and weak and only able to move at all with a metal walking frame.