VoltageGames wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

VoltageGames wrote:

IronBit_Studios wrote:

The US Government is building a 64TB $1M computer, you know.
</offtopic>

really?
in a decade or so 64TB could be pretty common, and thus cheap.

More like 2 decades, assuming it'll still be possible to make memory smaller. I mean, in the 90s people had computers that had a few megabytes of memory at best

And, 64 TB of RAM isn't going to help either. It'll just encourage software devs to use more of it. Now I'm complaining about chrome taking up 2+ GB of my ram, if we have 64 TB then we'll be complaining about 2035SwagBrowser taking up 32 TB of it

But how big do you REALLY need a browser to be? What would take up 32 TB of data? Probably dumb useless stuff, in which case you could probably find a minimalistic browser that doesn't take up more than a few GB.

NickyNouse wrote:

Who knows what features will become necessity? But compare vi, which was written in 1976, and the newest version of Microsoft Word. I'd bet'cha the executable file is bigger by a factor of gajillions

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is about RAM
When we've got much more RAM then programs using more isn't bad.
The stuff that matters like compiling programs can be done faster.

vi is plain text. It's good for code and stuff. MS Word isn't. It's intended to be comprehensive for rich text editing and a little multimedia.

CatsUnited wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

This is about RAM
When we've got much more RAM then programs using more isn't bad.
The stuff that matters like compiling programs can be done faster.

vi is plain text. It's good for code and stuff. MS Word isn't. It's intended to be comprehensive for rich text editing and a little multimedia.

How could you do rich text editing and multimedia on a 70s computer though?

VoltageGames wrote:

IronBit_Studios wrote:

The US Government is building a 64TB $1M computer, you know.
</offtopic>

really?
in a decade or so 64TB could be pretty common, and thus cheap.

DigiTechs wrote:

Somebody mind making the scale logarithmic? Thaaanks

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

Somebody mind making the scale logarithmic? Thaaanks

Well if you just look at the powers then here https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/168582/?page=1#post-1607857

DigiTechs wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

Somebody mind making the scale logarithmic? Thaaanks

Well if you just look at the powers then here https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/168582/?page=1#post-1607857

But that's not binary

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

Somebody mind making the scale logarithmic? Thaaanks

Well if you just look at the powers then here https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/168582/?page=1#post-1607857

But that's not binary

Why should it be?

NickyNouse wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

Somebody mind making the scale logarithmic? Thaaanks

Well if you just look at the powers then here https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/168582/?page=1#post-1607857

But that's not binary

Why should it be?

So use -bi- prefixes

NickyNouse wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

DigiTechs wrote:

Somebody mind making the scale logarithmic? Thaaanks

Well if you just look at the powers then here https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/168582/?page=1#post-1607857

But that's not binary

Why should it be?

So use -bi- prefixes

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Now watch me

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Now watch me
http://i.cubeupload.com/cRC3yU.png http://i.cubeupload.com/cRC3yU.png

Ok sorry this is a bit too off topic.
Let's try to get back on topic here.
You can't have decimal fractions of a byte, so let's get that clear

Firedrake969 wrote:

watch me
watch me

(search “watch me whip” on youtube)

Jonathan50 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

watch me
watch me

(search “watch me whip” on youtube)

Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae)
what does that have to do with this topic?

CatsUnited wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

watch me
watch me

(search “watch me whip” on youtube)

Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae)
what does that have to do with this topic?

Nothing, apparently. It should belong in the Advanced Offtopics.

__init__ wrote:

CatsUnited wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

watch me
watch me

(search “watch me whip” on youtube)

Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae)
what does that have to do with this topic?

Nothing, apparently. It should belong in the Advanced Offtopics.

but advanced offtopics are suck