I most certainly didn't say most people use massive sample libraries . And for what it's worth, using something that pushes a project over 2-3 gigabytes hasn't exactly been "massive" in years..jon wrote:Where did you get the data that most people use massive sample libraries?
If anything, I don't know what "most people's" RAM requirements are, these days. And I was asking, where do you get the info? (And not only the info that it's less than a couple of gigabytes, but so significantly less that the whole RAM thing is "irrelevant", as you put it?)
With "such production" I mean the kinds of tools available nowadays which would have been impossible/inconvenient to use back then. And it's a surprisingly wide range of stuff, these days. Not only those absolutely humongous products -- those are more of a straw man at the opposite end of the spectrum. I mean, you can easily go over 2-3 gigabytes even if you base your projects on multisampled stuff that comes bundled with DAWs nowadays, or bought for no-brainer prices from indie developers..jon wrote:What you don't get is that people have "conveniently experimented" with such production way before x64 memory space even existed.
If one chooses not to go that route, to such extent that it indeed renders the limit "irrelevant", it's a completely valid decision. My point is, the amount of RAM 32 bit addressing enables you to use is totally trivial to go over these days. If going on that certain path.
(I started out on trackers, using mere kilobytes of sample space, striving to get the most out of it, by the way )
Absolutely it is..jon wrote:Must be just inefficient RAM management then.