On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 6:10 PM Bret Busby <bret@busby.net
<mailto:bret@busby.net>> wrote:
On 3/6/23 06:33, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023, 4:49 PM Bret Busby <bret@busby.net
<mailto:bret@busby.net>
> <mailto:bret@busby.net <mailto:bret@busby.net>>> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/23 23:55, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Luddites of the World Unite! You have nothing to lose but your
> upgrade
> > treadmills
>
> If, by upgrade treadmills, you mean the flatbed treadmills,
that have a
> belt that is turned by the human walking on it, rather than the
> electric
> ones with electric motors for lazy humans, the ones that have
the belt
>
>
> I'm afraid he meant the treadmill that used to be called "planned
> obsolescence". The thought that a perfectly satisfactory machine no
> longer suffices for you because it is "yesterday's model".
Thereafter it
> will stop working with newer machines (or software) which are
intended
> to be incompatible with it.
> And what is the end in view?
> Sell you a new machine.
>
>
Interesting.
Last year, I bought the computer described below, as a refurbished
machine, and, it is far superior to the new computers that do not come
with enough RAM to be worthwhile.
This computer, with 128GB RAM, I regard as far superior to an i9
computer with 8GB RAM.
.....
Refurbished computer profile (with 128GB RAM (that runs about 200
windows of Firefox (I have one saved session, with 229 windows, and
about 3200 tabs), while viewing movies (I also have about 10 movies
open
at present, in Celluloid and SMPlayer), although, at present, I have
only about 127 Firefox windows open, with 1689 tabs):
Holy cow! :-)
No wonder you have 128GB RAM. You will need that much for that much
Firefox. It's a peeve of mine how resource intensive it is for a browser
compared to the competition.