I don't get this... how do you listen to 45gb of music? What kind of quality are these songs ripped? At the standard sampling rate of 128kbps, one megabyte is about one minute of audio. That would mean you have a little over 46,000 minutes of audio which means if you listened to music on average of 5 hours a day, it would still take you 154 days or so to listen to all of it. Hell, 45gb is about 13,000 songs... I don't think I've heard that many songs in my life. I would have had to have heard 1.5 new songs every day of my life to have heard that many songs...
I dunno... I'm not calling you a liar... I'm just suggesting maybe you should clean up your hard drive a bit. I have about 4GB of music on me at any given time, and after about 3GB of adding to my mp3 player, I was struggling to find songs that I would actually listen to.
Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 02-07-2008 at 08:15 PM.
Sent from my iPad®
Well, I can make a list of what bands I have complete discographies or close to of, which is a a lot. In just metal I have 20 gigs of music, all of which I have heard many times, I listen to music the whole time I am at my computer, 8+hours a day, then when I am in the car (iPod), most of my music is ripped at 192kbps which is about 1.4mb per min, iTunes calculates my music as 24.9 days of music, which given my rate of listening (lets say 10 hours a day) would take 60 days to listen to my collection, which is a long time and I guess I don't listen to it all as often as I think I do, but still, every song in my list has been played at least twice (sometimes I order it by that and then listen while I game/read/program/what ever)
Some of the songs I don't care for as much, but I would rather keep full albums on here than to slice and dice.
I have 1.25 gig of ram in mine, the original 256 meg + a 1 gig stick I bought when I had a
rush of blood to the head once (also bought my 19" flatscreen monitor ),
I typically have about 550 - 600 meg completely unused, but knowing the history of PC
development no doubt that will be gobbled up someday.
You will probably be fine with 256meg, unless you want to run a lot of stuff simulaneously. I
imagine most of my 670meg system cache is laying idle at the moment.
I mean, it's not that long ago my computer had a 2gig hard drive and I almost have as much
as that in RAM now!!
That 1 gig cost me about £80 when I bought it but I could get it from the same place for £40
now and even cheaper on ebay, but then at least I can go back and threaten the staff if it does
not work - well worth the extra £15 in todays money.
It is however sensible to buy the largest stick of memory a slot in your PC can hold because if
you ever need to upgrade again the sticks you take out will be pretty much worthless, however
it obviously depends on how deep your pockets are.
Oh, shut up.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Nah, my taste in music is just varied. Sometimes I want some screaming speed metal, other times some chill R&B, I have a fair amount of Hawaiian music. Actually the only genre that I don't have a lot of is Pop, never been a big fan of it.
Quite right. Classical music alone is responsible for 6GB on my desktop. I'm also interested in such varied things as world music, gothic rock, punk, alternative, trip hop, disco, african rhythms, traditional songs all over the world, et cetera ad nausea.
I don't reach the 45GB. But I do own 27GB, of which - I am proud to say - only about 5% are illegal.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
1000 songs is rather a lot of music to listen to at one time, I mean I just tend to listen to the
few songs I like at a particular time over and over again and then move onto something else.
I mean would you have a 1,000 pairs of shoes?
Probably not, well not unless you are a millipeed that is, in which case it would take you a
month to lace them all up
Contrary to (semi-) popular belief, millipedes do not have a thousand legs. http://www.google.ca/search?q=millipede+1000
dwk
Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
"Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell
Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net
My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.
Yes but they probably have more than one pair of shoes
Eh, even I have more than one pair of shoes.
dwk
Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
"Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell
Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net
My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.