256MB or 512MB was fine for high-quality content in 2002, what was that then.
Suppose the amount of pixels and everything quadrupled - OK, then 2GB it is.
But 4GB being not enough? Do you realize what 4GB is?
Comment on Even Apple finally admits that 8GB RAM isn't enough
Aux@lemmy.world 6 months agoHigh quality content is the reason. Sit in a terminal and your memory usage will be low.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
lastweakness@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They didn’t just quadruple. They’re orders of magnitude higher these days. So content is a real thing.
But that’s not what’s actually being discussed here, memory usage these days is much more of a problem caused by bad practices rather than just content.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
I know. BTW, if something is done in an order of magnitude less efficient way than it could and it did, one might consider it a result of intentional policy aimed at neutering development. Just not clear whose. There are fewer corporations affecting this than big governments, and those are capable of reaching consensus from time to time. So not a conspiracy theory.
Aux@lemmy.world 6 months ago
One frame for a 4K monitor takes 33MB of memory. You need three of them for triple buffering used back in 2002, so half of your 256MB went to simply displaying a bloody UI. But there’s more! Today we’re using viewport composition, so the more apps you run, the more memory you need just to display the UI. Now this is what OS will use to render the final result, but your app will use additional memory for high res icons, fonts, photos, videos, etc. 4GB today is nothing.
I can tell you an anecdote. My partner was making a set of photo collages, about 7 art works to be printed in large format (think 5m+ per side). So 7 photo collages with source material saved on an external drive took 500 gigs. Tell me more about 256MB, lol.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Yes, you wouldn’t have 4K in 2002.
4GB today is nothing.
My normal usage would be kinda strained with it, but possible.
$ free -h total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 17Gi 3,1Gi 11Gi 322Mi 3,0Gi 14Gi Swap: 2,0Gi 0B 2,0Gi $
Aux@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I can do a cold boot and show you empty RAM as well. So fucking what?
lastweakness@lemmy.world 6 months ago
So we’re just going to ignore stuff like Electron, unoptimized assets, etc… Basically every other known problem… Yeah let’s just ignore all that
Aux@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Is Electron that bad? Really? I have Slack open right now with two servers and it takes around 350MB of RAM. Not that bad, considering that every other colleague thinks that posting dumb shit GIFs into work chats is cool. That’s definitely nowhere close to Firefox, Chrome and WebStorm eating multiple gigs each.
lastweakness@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Yes, it really is that bad. 350 MBs of RAM for something that could otherwise have taken less than 100? That isn’t bad to you? And also, it’s not just RAM. It’s every resource, including CPU, which is especially bad with Electron.
I don’t really mind Electron myself because I have enough resources. But pretending the lack of optimization isn’t a real problem is just not right.
Aux@lemmy.world 6 months ago
First of all, 350MB is a drop in a bucket. But what’s more important is performance, because it affects things like power consumption, carbon emissions, etc. I’d rather see Slack “eating” one gig of RAM and running smoothly on a single E core below boost clocks with pretty much zero CPU use. That’s the whole point of having fast memory - so you can cache and pre-render as much as possible and leave it rest statically in memory.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
What’s wrong with using Gifs in work chat lmao, can laugh or smile while hating your job like the rest of us.
Aux@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Get a better job.
nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 6 months ago
It sure is. I’m running ferdium at this very moment with 3 chat apps open, and it consumes almost a gigabyte for something that could take just a few megabytes.