Every game released in the last 5 years can be played at 1080p on high with 8GB of ram on cachyos.
Pretending you should ever need 32GB when gaming has plateaued so dramatically in RAM requirements is absolutely silly.
Comment on Microsoft quietly deletes Windows 11 doc pushing 32GB RAM for gaming after outrage
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 month ago
Um, 16gb has been the minimum for years, as in “do not build a machine with less, you’ll regret it at some point”.
And 32 has been the “this is what you really want if you multi-task heavily”, so yea I wouldn’t try to game with less than 32.
My 2019 laptop came with 32 by default - you had to specifically choose 16.
vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 month ago
That’s a different OS altogether.
Try to run Windows in 8 gig and you’ll have a bad time.
It’s just the way it is.
altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Win10 on 8GB is okay in a context of basic office work. It won’t be super fast, but it can handle a CRM app, a browser and a couple of tables/docs alright without outright lagging on input. Dying HDD or pathetic CPU may be worse bottlenecks for really old or cheap setups you can find in, like, public libraries or schools.
16GB is where the current sweet spot at. You can do the same, but generally stop caring how many windows or tabs you open. You can game with it and even do some simple media manipulation.
32GB is a future-proof amount for regular usage in various applications, and, unless you already know what you are doing with extra heavy tasks, you would hardly reach this ceiling.
vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
…If I say ‘well I can travel 1,000 miles on a tank of gas in my car, so your car that can’t go 50 miles must have a problem.’ The logical response is not ‘well that’s a different car altogether, try driving my car and you won’t go 50 miles before refilling.’
Yes, it’s a different OS performing the same action; capable of performing all of the same actions entirely, while doing so much more efficiently. That was the point I was making. Windows is so incredibly shit at everything it attempts to do (and has been since windows 8) that a bunch of freelancers and essentially hobbyists are capable of doing everything windows does, but better, and for free. Just a reminder a windows 11 license costs $139 USD for the home edition. It’s $179 USD for the pro edition.
For a worse product than you can get for free.
pivot_root@lemmy.world 1 month ago
For a worse product than you can get for free.
Outside of tech circles, the majority of people with PCs are not even aware that they are paying for Windows. Pre-built desktops have the cost of the license factored into the sale price. The average consumer just thinks they are buying “a computer” as though it is a single, cohesive unit.
JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I think the point is that these requirements are the result of poor software development and windows as a whole. Consoles manage just fine with less than 16GB and that’s a shared pool between GPU and CPU. M$ Windows is bloated and developers have seemingly given up on optimization.
Triumph@fedia.io 1 month ago
Consoles are built to do one thing. General purpose computers need to do a whole lot of things. Apples and oranges.
JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeah I think the point is that if your gaming the console hardware is there in the form of VRAM so needing 16gb for windows alone, then 16 additional for a game on top of the VRAM. It doesn’t add up. A 25-35% bumb when everything became 64bit is understandable but let’s not pretend that it can’t be done with much less.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 month ago
It may be bloated to you or me, but it’s a general purpose OS that addresses many more requirements out of the box than Linux, by design.
As a business admin this means when you suddenly have a new business requirement for a functionality, you don’t have to go to every machine and install a new service, or even build a test lab to ensure that service will work stably - MS has done this for you.
This has always been the MS paradigm, and Linux started from the opposite paradigm - provide a nominally functional OS and let the end user (think business/environment management) add only what is needed for that specific use-case.
Windows exists because prior “operating systems” were task-specific (see the IBM Mini’s that still exist in some form) which weren’t really useful for a single user.
Linux exists because people (not just Linus) saw the need for a minimal OS for PC architecture that could be built to task - there had already been efforts to port Unix.
Two very different paradigms addressing different requirements.
Build a Linux box that does what Windows does out of the box (with all the testing that MS has done) and it will require more ram too.
(Though the lack of optimization has always been a problem, something people like Minasi and Gibson have long pointed out.)
Nothing you’ve said negates that multi-tasking in Windows has always required more ram than the nominal “run Windows” spec, and it’s generally been 2x the nominal.
And back to bloat - 64bit requires more ram for everything. That was a big leap. And then there’s maintained support for old software - running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS/API. That takes a thunking layer that doesn’t come for free.
Linux and Windows simply work from 2 very different paradigms.
Funny, no one ever complains about the memory requirements for say an AS400… Oh, yea, it can’t do anything that Windows does - that’s not what it was designed for. And really, Linux wasn’t either - you can just build it for that if you want (as the many distros have).
JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I disagree. Linux 10 years ago maybe but Linux today out of the box is very capable and stable. Windows on the other hand has had its fair share of instability and enshittification. I won’t say Linux is for everyone because I understand the edge cases and some people just like what they already know but it’s never been closer to matching windows and doing so with more privacy, security, and efficiency than windows.
Aside from all of that when I think about the changes from windows 7 to windows 11 the only meaningful thing that stands out is a UI facelift. How did we go from 8gb handling the OS and playing games 10 years ago to saying 16gb is what we need for regular tasks but 32gb is what you really want for gaming on top of GPUs also having twice the ram they used to. I just feel like we are all trying to make excuses for M$ and I’m done with it. Ignoring their BS requirements for TPMs and secure boot which they’ve pushed into the gaming market and allowed gaming companies to have kernel level access to our machines and abandon perfectly good hardware because it doesn’t meet this BS requirement.
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Consoles don’t really multi task. Consoles also have a hard limit. PCs can be anything from 4gb to 3tb.
Optimization is definitely an issue. But MSs point was “no worries” It’s a “fuck you my PC can run it all” amount of ram.
meejle@piefed.world 1 month ago
I think you’re right. Like, most software hasn’t functionally changed much since the days it required 512 MB RAM and came on a DVD-ROM. I guess optimisation isn’t really a thing nowadays.
But also I think PCs could get by with less RAM, too, if they only let you run one app at a time (with no background apps). 😃
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 month ago
I disagree with the functional change argument - OneNote didn’t exist then, Excel is a LOT more capable, as is Publisher (and Word). Docs I routinely work with today would crash the mid 90’s versions of the same app because of this difference.
My daily spreadsheets today would be dog snot slow back then. Multiple sheets in a workbook didn’t occur until like 1995-ish, and my current ones probably wouldn’t even open (ignoring the version difference and 64/32 bit difference) - Excel would probably freeze back then. We had to routinely split up docs to make it work at all. In fact, this is part of why OLE was developed by MS, so you could link to data in other files rather than have it all in one massive doc. No one uses the “L” part of OLE today as it’s no longer required to keep file sizes in check.
The performance difference is staggering - back then I would wait for some apps to redraw the screen (photoshop, pagemaker, publisher) if I moved something on the screen.
There’s so much I do today that was a wish-list back then.
meejle@piefed.world 1 month ago
I don’t know if it matters, but in my head I was imagining the XP era moreso than mid-90s. 😃 (But that’s interesting – I didn’t realise spreadsheets had changed so much.)
JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 1 month ago
From windows 7 to 11 all of that was possible with 16gb of ram. And if you had a spreadsheet hitting a wall I would probably say Excel was the wrong app altogether.
BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I think people don’t realize how bloated Windows has become. I had a newer workstation laptop for work with 32 gig. My wife had a 15 year old laptop with 8 gig. Her machine ran zoom and spreadsheets much better than my work machine. My work machine was laggy. The difference was windows10 on high spec machine vs NixOS on the much older lower spec laptop.
9point6@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I will point out it’s not just Windows at fault here (though it’s not guilt free). Modern consumer commercial software, across the board, is bloated shit. Even a lot of the prosumer or even full professional software is the same.
The modern web is pretty bloated too, pretend to be average Joe chrome user without adblock and open 15 tabs of the most popular sites on the internet. It does not matter what OS you’re on, that’s going to be a frankly ridiculous amount of memory usage.
This was not ideal but kinda manageable about a year or two ago before memory prices went crazy. Memory was almost commodity unless you were an enthusiast, you could just get more if you needed it and it didn’t really cost you much.
The ecosystem wasn’t really set up to expect it to get more expensive at all, let alone multiplied by several times
BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I agree, we run a proprietary software that as soon as people started to download the software via the web and no longer installed it from DVD, it ballooned from 4Gig to 16Gig. It so so slow and clunky now, and files take a long time to update.