Interesting Article Thread v.2

[Ded10c]

It's a shame we never actually got a date on when BZ2 was set, it'd be nice to at least have something to guesstimate the Dark Planet's orbit on.

[GSH]

But the gain is almost nonexistent at 16GB. That said, I guess the gain of having 8GB on WinXP some years back would have also been negligible. It will only be a matter of time till 16GB will be the sweet zone on Windows 9 or w/e comes out next.

I think that'll be sooner than you expect. Current consoles (PS3/X360) have 512MB main RAM, minus some OS overhead. Many PC ports and/or games are still made with them in mind, but optional larger textures. But, Windows programs generally run in a 2GB address space (closer to 3-4GB if you do some extensions), as they're fundamentally 32-bit games. (Making a console version 32 bit but with a 64-bit Windows version is a BIG stretch and most developers don't do that.) That puts a fairly fixed upper limit on how much the games on Windows will consume; just add OS overhead to get best performance. OS buffering of commonly read files consumes memory (in a good way), because re-reading a file cached in RAM beats even a SSD. So, ~2GB per process + OS + caches may well be somewhere in the 4-8GB range.

Any games backported from PS4/XBox One (and not from a PS3/X360 version) will assume a 64-bit application that can use 4-5GB RAM. Those consoles have 8GB main memory (pretty much necessitating a 64-bit exe), and somewhat conflicting reports on how much system RAM the console OS overhead consumes-- reports say somewhere in that 4-5GB range of usable RAM for the game. So, even if there's no texture up-resing for a PC port, that's ~4GB more RAM in use than PS3/X360. Add in more RAM to hit the sweet spot of OS caching, and system specs bump higher.

I've seen reports that a number of titles for fall-2013 thru mid/late-2014 will have a PS3-PS4-X360-XBone version to sell; such a strategy is reasonable as there will likely be supply constraints on making PS4/XBone initially, and also the number of consumers willing to drop $400/500 for a base console w/o games or extra controllers will be limited. But, once videogame publishers are convinced that PS4 and/or XBone will succeed, and that consumers can run it, they'll target the bigger specs. Checking Steam HW Survey, 85% of users have 8GB or less -- and Steam users are probably the people most ready to run hot new games. I wish there was a better breakdown for RAM usage excluding WinXP (limited to 4GB), but that page says that only ~7% of Steam users that opt in to the survey are still on XP; ~75% are on a 64-bit OS (counting only vista/7/8 64-bit) by now.

All this in a longwinded (and partially rewritten/updated post) to say that yes, 8GB may be fine for now, but if building a system that you plan to use for a while, I'd try and leave room for expansion. If there are four memory slots on the motherboard, I'd recommend putting in a pair of 4GB RAM sticks, rather than four 2GB sticks. The pair of 4GB sticks leaves room for expansion. Checking newegg, a four 2GB sticks is ~$90, and a pair of 4GB sticks is $65. (I picked the cheapest from a reputable brand; never buy cheap RAM as it could cause all sorts of weirdness later. The few dollars spent on reputable RAM will save a lot of headaches later.) Thus, it's $25 cheaper to save room for expansion later. Win-win, as long as your MB supports it. If you're not sure what your MB takes, I recommend Crucial's System Scanner to tell you what it presently has, and what the MB can take, then look for memory matching those specs elsewhere as Crucial's website is much more expensive than Newegg or other sites.

-- GSH

[Red Spot]

Feel like going to Mars?

Would you go to Mars knowing you will never return?

[MrTwosheds]

I suppose if I already knew that did not have too long left to live, then it would be a fun thing to do. I quite like the idea of potentially seeding life on another planet with my own body. But otherwise I don't think this is a great exploration opportunity for the young and healthy, Mars hasn't even got any good beaches, a very poor nightlife scene and no good restaurants at all.

Sometimes I feel very disappointed with the outlook of those planning space exploration. It should be obvious to any experienced traveler that there is very few things more important than good food!
So instead of all this mucking about driving vehicles around dead deserts etc, what they should really be concentrating on is how to get into orbit safely and cheaply...and then opening an orbital restaurant! You then charge fantastic prices for your 0g cuisine, in order to attract investment from the super rich, to finance the building of your interplanetary restaurant chain, nobody is going to want to go anywhere unless there's going to be a good meal for them when they get there.

[Red Spot]

I'm not even talking about the food
What happens when the current set of explorers goes out, gets old, but never is replaced? Would it be fun to grow old alone and without any form of aid when your body starts to give in?
Not even mentioning you'll be drinking your own urine for the rest of your life ...

[Roscoe]

I wouldn't care to live in stinky little boxes for the rest of my life because the climate would kill me. I already did my time in Wyoming.

[MrTwosheds]

I joke about "restaurants" but really its about all that it takes to stay alive out there. Air, water, food, radiation protection, gravity etc. A stinky little box is no good, its certainly not worth the lives of the explorers just to find out that there really wasn't any life on Mars until we introduced some via the explorers dead bodies. Earth Orbit is where we should concentrate our efforts for now, if we can build self contained survival environments there, then we can do the same elsewhere.

[Roscoe]

I think I'd like to live an orbital stinky box... especially when I get old. Even codgers fly in zero g. If you have to wear a suit to go outside, it might as well be for an EVA.

[Red Spot]

Earth Orbit is where we should concentrate our efforts for now, if we can build self contained survival environments there, then we can do the same elsewhere.

We will never get there. We need something to create water, and everything that contains water, in whatever form, can not easily be found 'out there'.
From our earthly perspective we often see water as a cheap resource, but it is actually our most precious resource, not (black) gold or diamonds.

[MrTwosheds]

Its all down to the economics of getting stuff into orbit, rockets cannot do it, they are just too inefficient. There is water out there, big hard lumps of it, but you have to be able to go away from here to find it. The KEY is in being able to get enough stuff up out of our gravity well in the first place to enable further exploration. It does however seem unlikely, given the current state of stagnation in our political/civil vision. Maybe the next Empire will get it together properly after our fall. We worship Mammon...you will always end up eating your own socks if you do that.

[Nielk1]

Living in orbit alone means living with 100% recycling, or at least, 100% recycling of all matter. Either that or energy to matter conversion.

That said, a far more reasonable goal would be a moon base.

[Red Spot]

I wasnt sure if the recycling processes that are in use now return 100% of the resources that have been used.
But even if it does, it means we would take those resources of our own planet and push them into space ... we cant do that forever. Specially not when we end up getting millions of people in space, it would eventually, drasticly, change our own ecosystem for the worse.

Getting to rocks in space doesnt seem like a very realistic goal either, its not like you can 'easily' land on those rocks, strip them of resources and leave .. with a net gain. (Hollywood may be able to send out spaceships made out of titanium-alloys with a renegade crew .. and succeed, but we're not hollywood )

[MrTwosheds]

Living in orbit alone means living with 100% recycling, or at least, 100% recycling of all matter. Either that or energy to matter conversion.

The technology to do that would be like a subset of our own biosphere, its a BIG endeavour, it cannot be done without the ability to get lots of stuff into orbit easily.
Don't see much point in a moon base if just maintaining it is going to cost a huge lump of GDP. We don't need "got there first" projects now, we need the practical enablement technologies first.

[Nielk1]

Living in orbit alone means living with 100% recycling, or at least, 100% recycling of all matter. Either that or energy to matter conversion.

The technology to do that would be like a subset of our own biosphere, its a BIG endeavour, it cannot be done without the ability to get lots of stuff into orbit easily.
Don't see much point in a moon base if just maintaining it is going to cost a huge lump of GDP. We don't need "got there first" projects now, we need the practical enablement technologies first.

It wasn't a go there first project, it was a go there and prevent a Russian ICBM base project.

Furthermore, the requirement to justify and scientific research before it happens will end all advancement.
A moon base would give us a supply of air, food, water, metal, etc. all with a lower thrust requirement to get it into orbit. What you can make on site, make on site. What you can make in an easier to get to place, make in an easier to get to place. It's common sense.

Building a moon base, and maybe a Mars base and beyond is what gives us the technology to do what you suggest in the first place.

No one should ride horses, they just poop everywhere, wait till mechanical horses are invented...
And thus the carriage never evolves, and so on never the car.

[GSH]

That's one way to watch a rocket launch.

-- GSH