🚀 go-pugleaf

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:03:10 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
><just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'm still running 4 and haven't had any problems.  I'd probably be better 
>>off with 8, but my mb is fairly old and on't take the newer faster ram, so 
>>I keep thinking it's not worth it to upgrade the ram unless I'm 
>>upgrading everything, which is a bit out of my range for value.
>
>Curious how many newer games you're running?  Most of the recent ones
>(last couple of years) I've paid any attention to specify minimum 6GB,
>recommended 8GB (minimum spec can usually be discarded for purposes of
>a reasonable level of enjoyment).  Fallout 4 is one that comes to mind
>that says 8 for both minimum and recommended.  Of course, a game never
>knows what other apps or services might be running at the same time on
>any given machine, so I would always interpret the minimum GB as a
>"with nothing else running" number.

With the lack of knowledge on the part of the average computer user
these days, wouldn't that "minimum spec" not be with nothing else
running, but rather with nothing but the "essential" apps running - Anti
virus and so on that people have running all the time?
Especially so for games that have an online component that people would
be uncomfortable trying to run without their "protections" enabled.

Xocyll
-- 

I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr