Stupid Question ????

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Norman Brooks, Oct 18, 2005.

  1. Someone once said "There are no stupid questions ............." ah I
    can't remember the rest of it.

    Anyway, On a true 64 bit processor, using a 64 bit OS, running a true 64 bit
    process, i.e. software compiled for 64, will you end up chewing up RAM twice
    as fast. I remember when we went to Windows NT and 2K, all of a sudden 256
    or even 512 megs didn't seem like so much when you looked at Task Manager
    and saw how fast the OS was chowing into it.

    I've been running 64 for a while but still in xp32 doing anything REAL as
    there is a dearth of drivers for my tools. I'd be interested if anyone is
    using any real 64 bit apps and have you seen any increase in RAM consumption
    ? Will the day SOON come when 2 gigs will be required to do any real work
    ??
    Norman Brooks, Oct 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. There's no intrinsic reason you'd use more memory. That being said, true 64
    bit apps are likely to be memory hogs primarily because the compelling
    reason to go to 64-bit over 32-bit is the ability to get at more memory. So
    the first applications will tend to be those that need the memory.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Norman Brooks wrote:
    > Someone once said "There are no stupid questions ............." ah I
    > can't remember the rest of it.
    >
    > Anyway, On a true 64 bit processor, using a 64 bit OS, running a true 64
    > bit process, i.e. software compiled for 64, will you end up chewing up
    > RAM twice as fast. I remember when we went to Windows NT and 2K, all of
    > a sudden 256 or even 512 megs didn't seem like so much when you looked at
    > Task Manager and saw how fast the OS was chowing into it.
    >
    > I've been running 64 for a while but still in xp32 doing anything REAL as
    > there is a dearth of drivers for my tools. I'd be interested if anyone is
    > using any real 64 bit apps and have you seen any increase in RAM
    > consumption ? Will the day SOON come when 2 gigs will be required to do
    > any real work ??
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Oct 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The clear, concise AND definitive answer must be Yes and No, as I see it.
    But then again, it might also depend on who you are and why you are asking -
    and most certainly, who you are asking. Generally speaking, though, it will
    not gobble up memory twice as fast; not automatically, but it might. If you
    try and sum up for yourself, the development of our dear digital friends
    over the last 10 years, I would suggest that most part of the resource
    'hunger' we have witnessed in that period can be written off as a
    'competence deficiency' amongst developers. As more machinery is sold, more
    software needs to be written. The people who can write that software is not
    available in sufficient numbers. As more machinery is sold, the price of the
    parts that make that machinery - like memory, is falling. Now, you can
    peddle software to customers that you couldn't have, five years ago.

    I am not, either bitter nor cynical, but people used to show greate pride
    when they could fit a complete and sensible program into 16 Bytes of
    memory - and no wonder. If they couldn't, they invented 'self modifying
    code' to do the job inside that humble space. Remember Bill Clinton? When he
    left, he said "I did it because I could!" and 'ay, there's the rub' we get
    the memory guzzling software because we have the memory - nearly.

    From a technological point-of-view, 64 bits, is not consuming twice as much
    as 32 bits. This is the 'data path' or bus width. If you have a four lane
    freeway to somewhere and you are pondering wether or not you should be a
    'modern' leader of your community, you might want to extend that road to be
    eight lanes and expect travel times to fall significantly, but they won't,
    not unless the four lanes are filled to begin with. The eight lanes will
    cover a greater area, but they will not swallow more traffic than is already
    traveling the distance.

    But sure, more software will need to be re-written and it will take the
    strength of more programmers than is available to do it properly, to do it
    at all. There are all kinds of development tools available to make sure that
    version 'x.x'will be reasonably bugfree and fully functional and that Joe
    Average will open his purse, to get it.

    Tony. . .


    "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Someone once said "There are no stupid questions ............." ah I
    > can't remember the rest of it.
    >
    > Anyway, On a true 64 bit processor, using a 64 bit OS, running a true 64
    > bit process, i.e. software compiled for 64, will you end up chewing up RAM
    > twice as fast. I remember when we went to Windows NT and 2K, all of a
    > sudden 256 or even 512 megs didn't seem like so much when you looked at
    > Task Manager and saw how fast the OS was chowing into it.
    >
    > I've been running 64 for a while but still in xp32 doing anything REAL as
    > there is a dearth of drivers for my tools. I'd be interested if anyone is
    > using any real 64 bit apps and have you seen any increase in RAM
    > consumption ? Will the day SOON come when 2 gigs will be required to do
    > any real work ??
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Oct 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Well put, both you and Charlie. By the way Charlie, your site is in my Links
    !

    Nice analogy about the highways, however, if increasing the highways from 4
    to 8 lanes results in more people moving to the suburbs then the highway
    will fill up. If the data path is now 64 bits instead of 32, as you say,
    definitely yes ... and no ! No, the programs won't by definition, consume
    more ram, but if programmers find the increased bandwidth lets them do more
    things in the same time frame by increasing the number of threads, handles
    and using dual processors where available, the ram consumption will go up.
    The final ???? is the ever present Holy Grail ... the killer app that hasn't
    been written yet, or is just a wet dream in some programmers mind. Imagine
    something like Earthview in real time, or on the fly, true 2048 bit
    encryption running in the background, things like this can change the way we
    think, let alone deal with real time computing. Not 15 years ago 2 megs,
    QEMM386 - DeskVu - FILES=25, BUFFERS=10 and you were king of the castle. The
    same cry has always been, "the only thing holding us back is cheap ram" ...
    I read the other day about 4 and 8 gig DDR drives. Imagine booting up from
    that ! What's holding it back ? RAM prices !

    The more things change .......

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > The clear, concise AND definitive answer must be Yes and No, as I see it.
    > But then again, it might also depend on who you are and why you are
    > asking - and most certainly, who you are asking. Generally speaking,
    > though, it will not gobble up memory twice as fast; not automatically, but
    > it might. If you try and sum up for yourself, the development of our dear
    > digital friends over the last 10 years, I would suggest that most part of
    > the resource 'hunger' we have witnessed in that period can be written off
    > as a 'competence deficiency' amongst developers. As more machinery is
    > sold, more software needs to be written. The people who can write that
    > software is not available in sufficient numbers. As more machinery is
    > sold, the price of the parts that make that machinery - like memory, is
    > falling. Now, you can peddle software to customers that you couldn't have,
    > five years ago.
    >
    > I am not, either bitter nor cynical, but people used to show greate pride
    > when they could fit a complete and sensible program into 16 Bytes of
    > memory - and no wonder. If they couldn't, they invented 'self modifying
    > code' to do the job inside that humble space. Remember Bill Clinton? When
    > he left, he said "I did it because I could!" and 'ay, there's the rub' we
    > get the memory guzzling software because we have the memory - nearly.
    >
    > From a technological point-of-view, 64 bits, is not consuming twice as
    > much as 32 bits. This is the 'data path' or bus width. If you have a four
    > lane freeway to somewhere and you are pondering wether or not you should
    > be a 'modern' leader of your community, you might want to extend that road
    > to be eight lanes and expect travel times to fall significantly, but they
    > won't, not unless the four lanes are filled to begin with. The eight lanes
    > will cover a greater area, but they will not swallow more traffic than is
    > already traveling the distance.
    >
    > But sure, more software will need to be re-written and it will take the
    > strength of more programmers than is available to do it properly, to do it
    > at all. There are all kinds of development tools available to make sure
    > that version 'x.x'will be reasonably bugfree and fully functional and that
    > Joe Average will open his purse, to get it.
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Someone once said "There are no stupid questions ............." ah I
    >> can't remember the rest of it.
    >>
    >> Anyway, On a true 64 bit processor, using a 64 bit OS, running a true 64
    >> bit process, i.e. software compiled for 64, will you end up chewing up
    >> RAM twice as fast. I remember when we went to Windows NT and 2K, all of
    >> a sudden 256 or even 512 megs didn't seem like so much when you looked at
    >> Task Manager and saw how fast the OS was chowing into it.
    >>
    >> I've been running 64 for a while but still in xp32 doing anything REAL as
    >> there is a dearth of drivers for my tools. I'd be interested if anyone is
    >> using any real 64 bit apps and have you seen any increase in RAM
    >> consumption ? Will the day SOON come when 2 gigs will be required to do
    >> any real work ??
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Norman Brooks, Oct 18, 2005
    #4
  5. That's it! Wet dreams & all. Just the other day I was sitting here wondering
    what I was supposed to use 70 odd Gig's that became orphaned when the Public
    Beta ended. By an 'odd' coincidence, I noticed that someone had furnished
    his 'Electric Sheeps' with 20 Gig's of cache directory. I said to myself:
    "Why not?". The result of that is that I am seriously worried that I will
    never be able to reclaim those 20 Gig's.

    Goes to show that perversion is good!

    Tony. . .


    "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well put, both you and Charlie. By the way Charlie, your site is in my
    > Links !
    >
    > Nice analogy about the highways, however, if increasing the highways from
    > 4 to 8 lanes results in more people moving to the suburbs then the highway
    > will fill up. If the data path is now 64 bits instead of 32, as you say,
    > definitely yes ... and no ! No, the programs won't by definition, consume
    > more ram, but if programmers find the increased bandwidth lets them do
    > more things in the same time frame by increasing the number of threads,
    > handles and using dual processors where available, the ram consumption
    > will go up. The final ???? is the ever present Holy Grail ... the killer
    > app that hasn't been written yet, or is just a wet dream in some
    > programmers mind. Imagine something like Earthview in real time, or on
    > the fly, true 2048 bit encryption running in the background, things like
    > this can change the way we think, let alone deal with real time computing.
    > Not 15 years ago 2 megs, QEMM386 - DeskVu - FILES=25, BUFFERS=10 and you
    > were king of the castle. The same cry has always been, "the only thing
    > holding us back is cheap ram" ... I read the other day about 4 and 8 gig
    > DDR drives. Imagine booting up from that ! What's holding it back ? RAM
    > prices !
    >
    > The more things change .......
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> The clear, concise AND definitive answer must be Yes and No, as I see it.
    >> But then again, it might also depend on who you are and why you are
    >> asking - and most certainly, who you are asking. Generally speaking,
    >> though, it will not gobble up memory twice as fast; not automatically,
    >> but it might. If you try and sum up for yourself, the development of our
    >> dear digital friends over the last 10 years, I would suggest that most
    >> part of the resource 'hunger' we have witnessed in that period can be
    >> written off as a 'competence deficiency' amongst developers. As more
    >> machinery is sold, more software needs to be written. The people who can
    >> write that software is not available in sufficient numbers. As more
    >> machinery is sold, the price of the parts that make that machinery - like
    >> memory, is falling. Now, you can peddle software to customers that you
    >> couldn't have, five years ago.
    >>
    >> I am not, either bitter nor cynical, but people used to show greate pride
    >> when they could fit a complete and sensible program into 16 Bytes of
    >> memory - and no wonder. If they couldn't, they invented 'self modifying
    >> code' to do the job inside that humble space. Remember Bill Clinton? When
    >> he left, he said "I did it because I could!" and 'ay, there's the rub' we
    >> get the memory guzzling software because we have the memory - nearly.
    >>
    >> From a technological point-of-view, 64 bits, is not consuming twice as
    >> much as 32 bits. This is the 'data path' or bus width. If you have a four
    >> lane freeway to somewhere and you are pondering wether or not you should
    >> be a 'modern' leader of your community, you might want to extend that
    >> road to be eight lanes and expect travel times to fall significantly, but
    >> they won't, not unless the four lanes are filled to begin with. The eight
    >> lanes will cover a greater area, but they will not swallow more traffic
    >> than is already traveling the distance.
    >>
    >> But sure, more software will need to be re-written and it will take the
    >> strength of more programmers than is available to do it properly, to do
    >> it at all. There are all kinds of development tools available to make
    >> sure that version 'x.x'will be reasonably bugfree and fully functional
    >> and that Joe Average will open his purse, to get it.
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Someone once said "There are no stupid questions ............." ah I
    >>> can't remember the rest of it.
    >>>
    >>> Anyway, On a true 64 bit processor, using a 64 bit OS, running a true 64
    >>> bit process, i.e. software compiled for 64, will you end up chewing up
    >>> RAM twice as fast. I remember when we went to Windows NT and 2K, all of
    >>> a sudden 256 or even 512 megs didn't seem like so much when you looked
    >>> at Task Manager and saw how fast the OS was chowing into it.
    >>>
    >>> I've been running 64 for a while but still in xp32 doing anything REAL
    >>> as there is a dearth of drivers for my tools. I'd be interested if
    >>> anyone is using any real 64 bit apps and have you seen any increase in
    >>> RAM consumption ? Will the day SOON come when 2 gigs will be required
    >>> to do any real work ??
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Oct 18, 2005
    #5
  6. I'm prett ty sure the grass is greener over yonder ... eh!

    --
    The first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
    expecting different results


    "Tony Sperling" wrote:

    > That's it! Wet dreams & all. Just the other day I was sitting here wondering
    > what I was supposed to use 70 odd Gig's that became orphaned when the Public
    > Beta ended. By an 'odd' coincidence, I noticed that someone had furnished
    > his 'Electric Sheeps' with 20 Gig's of cache directory. I said to myself:
    > "Why not?". The result of that is that I am seriously worried that I will
    > never be able to reclaim those 20 Gig's.
    >
    > Goes to show that perversion is good!
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Well put, both you and Charlie. By the way Charlie, your site is in my
    > > Links !
    > >
    > > Nice analogy about the highways, however, if increasing the highways from
    > > 4 to 8 lanes results in more people moving to the suburbs then the highway
    > > will fill up. If the data path is now 64 bits instead of 32, as you say,
    > > definitely yes ... and no ! No, the programs won't by definition, consume
    > > more ram, but if programmers find the increased bandwidth lets them do
    > > more things in the same time frame by increasing the number of threads,
    > > handles and using dual processors where available, the ram consumption
    > > will go up. The final ???? is the ever present Holy Grail ... the killer
    > > app that hasn't been written yet, or is just a wet dream in some
    > > programmers mind. Imagine something like Earthview in real time, or on
    > > the fly, true 2048 bit encryption running in the background, things like
    > > this can change the way we think, let alone deal with real time computing.
    > > Not 15 years ago 2 megs, QEMM386 - DeskVu - FILES=25, BUFFERS=10 and you
    > > were king of the castle. The same cry has always been, "the only thing
    > > holding us back is cheap ram" ... I read the other day about 4 and 8 gig
    > > DDR drives. Imagine booting up from that ! What's holding it back ? RAM
    > > prices !
    > >
    > > The more things change .......
    > >
    > > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > > news:%...
    > >> The clear, concise AND definitive answer must be Yes and No, as I see it.
    > >> But then again, it might also depend on who you are and why you are
    > >> asking - and most certainly, who you are asking. Generally speaking,
    > >> though, it will not gobble up memory twice as fast; not automatically,
    > >> but it might. If you try and sum up for yourself, the development of our
    > >> dear digital friends over the last 10 years, I would suggest that most
    > >> part of the resource 'hunger' we have witnessed in that period can be
    > >> written off as a 'competence deficiency' amongst developers. As more
    > >> machinery is sold, more software needs to be written. The people who can
    > >> write that software is not available in sufficient numbers. As more
    > >> machinery is sold, the price of the parts that make that machinery - like
    > >> memory, is falling. Now, you can peddle software to customers that you
    > >> couldn't have, five years ago.
    > >>
    > >> I am not, either bitter nor cynical, but people used to show greate pride
    > >> when they could fit a complete and sensible program into 16 Bytes of
    > >> memory - and no wonder. If they couldn't, they invented 'self modifying
    > >> code' to do the job inside that humble space. Remember Bill Clinton? When
    > >> he left, he said "I did it because I could!" and 'ay, there's the rub' we
    > >> get the memory guzzling software because we have the memory - nearly.
    > >>
    > >> From a technological point-of-view, 64 bits, is not consuming twice as
    > >> much as 32 bits. This is the 'data path' or bus width. If you have a four
    > >> lane freeway to somewhere and you are pondering wether or not you should
    > >> be a 'modern' leader of your community, you might want to extend that
    > >> road to be eight lanes and expect travel times to fall significantly, but
    > >> they won't, not unless the four lanes are filled to begin with. The eight
    > >> lanes will cover a greater area, but they will not swallow more traffic
    > >> than is already traveling the distance.
    > >>
    > >> But sure, more software will need to be re-written and it will take the
    > >> strength of more programmers than is available to do it properly, to do
    > >> it at all. There are all kinds of development tools available to make
    > >> sure that version 'x.x'will be reasonably bugfree and fully functional
    > >> and that Joe Average will open his purse, to get it.
    > >>
    > >> Tony. . .
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >>> Someone once said "There are no stupid questions ............." ah I
    > >>> can't remember the rest of it.
    > >>>
    > >>> Anyway, On a true 64 bit processor, using a 64 bit OS, running a true 64
    > >>> bit process, i.e. software compiled for 64, will you end up chewing up
    > >>> RAM twice as fast. I remember when we went to Windows NT and 2K, all of
    > >>> a sudden 256 or even 512 megs didn't seem like so much when you looked
    > >>> at Task Manager and saw how fast the OS was chowing into it.
    > >>>
    > >>> I've been running 64 for a while but still in xp32 doing anything REAL
    > >>> as there is a dearth of drivers for my tools. I'd be interested if
    > >>> anyone is using any real 64 bit apps and have you seen any increase in
    > >>> RAM consumption ? Will the day SOON come when 2 gigs will be required
    > >>> to do any real work ??
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?bWlraWp1cQ==?=, Oct 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Ahh, - what I was saying was, I've been over yonder, and the grass WAS
    greener - unless POM (persistence of memory) about greenness fails me.

    Tony. . .


    "mikijuq" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm prett ty sure the grass is greener over yonder ... eh!
    >
    > --
    > The first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
    > expecting different results
    >
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" wrote:
    >
    >> That's it! Wet dreams & all. Just the other day I was sitting here
    >> wondering
    >> what I was supposed to use 70 odd Gig's that became orphaned when the
    >> Public
    >> Beta ended. By an 'odd' coincidence, I noticed that someone had furnished
    >> his 'Electric Sheeps' with 20 Gig's of cache directory. I said to myself:
    >> "Why not?". The result of that is that I am seriously worried that I will
    >> never be able to reclaim those 20 Gig's.
    >>
    >> Goes to show that perversion is good!
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Well put, both you and Charlie. By the way Charlie, your site is in my
    >> > Links !
    >> >
    >> > Nice analogy about the highways, however, if increasing the highways
    >> > from
    >> > 4 to 8 lanes results in more people moving to the suburbs then the
    >> > highway
    >> > will fill up. If the data path is now 64 bits instead of 32, as you
    >> > say,
    >> > definitely yes ... and no ! No, the programs won't by definition,
    >> > consume
    >> > more ram, but if programmers find the increased bandwidth lets them do
    >> > more things in the same time frame by increasing the number of threads,
    >> > handles and using dual processors where available, the ram consumption
    >> > will go up. The final ???? is the ever present Holy Grail ... the
    >> > killer
    >> > app that hasn't been written yet, or is just a wet dream in some
    >> > programmers mind. Imagine something like Earthview in real time, or on
    >> > the fly, true 2048 bit encryption running in the background, things
    >> > like
    >> > this can change the way we think, let alone deal with real time
    >> > computing.
    >> > Not 15 years ago 2 megs, QEMM386 - DeskVu - FILES=25, BUFFERS=10 and
    >> > you
    >> > were king of the castle. The same cry has always been, "the only thing
    >> > holding us back is cheap ram" ... I read the other day about 4 and 8
    >> > gig
    >> > DDR drives. Imagine booting up from that ! What's holding it back ?
    >> > RAM
    >> > prices !
    >> >
    >> > The more things change .......
    >> >
    >> > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:%...
    >> >> The clear, concise AND definitive answer must be Yes and No, as I see
    >> >> it.
    >> >> But then again, it might also depend on who you are and why you are
    >> >> asking - and most certainly, who you are asking. Generally speaking,
    >> >> though, it will not gobble up memory twice as fast; not automatically,
    >> >> but it might. If you try and sum up for yourself, the development of
    >> >> our
    >> >> dear digital friends over the last 10 years, I would suggest that most
    >> >> part of the resource 'hunger' we have witnessed in that period can be
    >> >> written off as a 'competence deficiency' amongst developers. As more
    >> >> machinery is sold, more software needs to be written. The people who
    >> >> can
    >> >> write that software is not available in sufficient numbers. As more
    >> >> machinery is sold, the price of the parts that make that machinery -
    >> >> like
    >> >> memory, is falling. Now, you can peddle software to customers that you
    >> >> couldn't have, five years ago.
    >> >>
    >> >> I am not, either bitter nor cynical, but people used to show greate
    >> >> pride
    >> >> when they could fit a complete and sensible program into 16 Bytes of
    >> >> memory - and no wonder. If they couldn't, they invented 'self
    >> >> modifying
    >> >> code' to do the job inside that humble space. Remember Bill Clinton?
    >> >> When
    >> >> he left, he said "I did it because I could!" and 'ay, there's the rub'
    >> >> we
    >> >> get the memory guzzling software because we have the memory - nearly.
    >> >>
    >> >> From a technological point-of-view, 64 bits, is not consuming twice as
    >> >> much as 32 bits. This is the 'data path' or bus width. If you have a
    >> >> four
    >> >> lane freeway to somewhere and you are pondering wether or not you
    >> >> should
    >> >> be a 'modern' leader of your community, you might want to extend that
    >> >> road to be eight lanes and expect travel times to fall significantly,
    >> >> but
    >> >> they won't, not unless the four lanes are filled to begin with. The
    >> >> eight
    >> >> lanes will cover a greater area, but they will not swallow more
    >> >> traffic
    >> >> than is already traveling the distance.
    >> >>
    >> >> But sure, more software will need to be re-written and it will take
    >> >> the
    >> >> strength of more programmers than is available to do it properly, to
    >> >> do
    >> >> it at all. There are all kinds of development tools available to make
    >> >> sure that version 'x.x'will be reasonably bugfree and fully functional
    >> >> and that Joe Average will open his purse, to get it.
    >> >>
    >> >> Tony. . .
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> "Norman Brooks" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >>> Someone once said "There are no stupid questions ............." ah
    >> >>> I
    >> >>> can't remember the rest of it.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Anyway, On a true 64 bit processor, using a 64 bit OS, running a true
    >> >>> 64
    >> >>> bit process, i.e. software compiled for 64, will you end up chewing
    >> >>> up
    >> >>> RAM twice as fast. I remember when we went to Windows NT and 2K, all
    >> >>> of
    >> >>> a sudden 256 or even 512 megs didn't seem like so much when you
    >> >>> looked
    >> >>> at Task Manager and saw how fast the OS was chowing into it.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> I've been running 64 for a while but still in xp32 doing anything
    >> >>> REAL
    >> >>> as there is a dearth of drivers for my tools. I'd be interested if
    >> >>> anyone is using any real 64 bit apps and have you seen any increase
    >> >>> in
    >> >>> RAM consumption ? Will the day SOON come when 2 gigs will be
    >> >>> required
    >> >>> to do any real work ??
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    Tony Sperling, Oct 19, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. kpg

    stupid stupid stupid

    kpg, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    798
    T-Bone
    Nov 26, 2004
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    719
  3. Michael P Gabriel

    Stupid is as Stupid Does!

    Michael P Gabriel, Jun 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    345
    stewy
    Jun 26, 2004
  4. john
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    606
  5. RichA

    The stupid, STUPID 4/3rds versus FF lens B.S.

    RichA, Oct 21, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    309
    Robert Coe
    Oct 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page