Remix.run Logo
Ekaros 15 hours ago

Outside say video and image editing and maybe lossless audio. Why is this much ram even needed in most use cases? And I mean actually thinking about using it. Computer code unless you are actually doing whole Linux kernel, is just text. So lot of projects probably would fit in cache. Maybe software companies should be billed for user's resources too...

vee-kay 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You must be surprised to learn that most of the personal/SOHO PC users use Windows as the default OS.

In fact, Microsoft and Intel made a cutthroat monopoly of the PC market by their long-term WinTel nexus (MS Windows optimized to run better on Intel CPUs, Intel CPU PCs being sold with MS WINDOW by default), until AMD upped the ante and stole the race by being first on the block with releasing x64/x32 bit processor so Microsoft chose to ditch Intel for AMD to usher in the new era of 54-bit Windows OSes.

AMD still dominates in server market and GPU market (where it has been innovating harder and giving better VFM than nVidia and Intel), so still struggling to dominate the PC market (PC assemblers/stores get better lucrative deals from Intel to sell Intel-based PCs, that's why we find fewer AMD-based PCs for sale in shops/stores.

And that doesn't bode well for PC users/customers. Because that WinTel+nVidia nexus will choose MS Windows over Linux any day.

As for why more RAM is needed, you must be again surprised to know that most people play video games on PCs and mobiles rather than expensive consoles.

But even casual gaming needs adequate RAM and some vRAM. Even heavy duty office work (e.g., opening/editing big Excel files or complex PDFs) is a problem in low-end PC. Engineering students and workers need to do complex CAD/CAM work on their PCs. Artists (including musicians) need to use powerful software tools to do design and art work. All these needs mandate more RAM (16GB at the minimum) because most of these tools need MS Windows (or alternatively, expensive Mac PCs, assuming MacOS has alternative apps to suit such needs).

After failing to beat AMDs versatility and VFM performance in the CPU & GPU market, nVidia and Intel have insteaf pivoted to AI to regain their stranglehold on the market. Their AI NPUs are dominating the PC market this year, but those new PCs are bad for the types of specific needs listed above.

This is also why Microsoft and its allies ensured that most video games are not ported to Linux (and Mac), until Valve finally started to change that status quo by focusing on Linux gaming (but out of self interest, as its money-maker Steam store became too heavily dependent on Microsoft for gaming).

So yeah, more RAM and better CPUs & GPUs please!

TrackerFF 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Electron apps hog memory. The vast, vast majority of computer users are Windows users. Using 8 GB of memory without really "using" it, is trivial. Chrome + some Microsoft office apps will spend that much.

system2 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have multiple apps using 300 GB+ PostgreSQL databases. For some queries, high RAM is required. I enable symmetrical NVMe swaps, too. Average Joe with gaming needs wouldn't need more than 64 GB for a long time. But for the database, as the data grows, RAM requirements also grow. I doubt my situation is relatable to many.

Ekaros 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand servers. But why do actually average user need more than 2 or 4GB? For what actual data in memory at one time?

parrellel 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Where have you seen 4 GB cut it in the last decade? 2 GB was enough to make Vista chug in 2007?

I've got old linux boxes that feel fine with a couple gig of DDR3, but can't think of a place where that would be acceptable outside of that.

Ekaros 8 hours ago | parent [-]

My entire question is why can't whatever users do on computers actually work on 2GB of RAM? Like what is the true reason we are in state that it is for some reason not possible?

2 GB is huge amount information. So surely it should be enough for almost all normal users, but for some reason it is not.

vee-kay 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Quick.. list your favorite software and tell us how much GBs of space they use after installation and how many GBs of RAM they consume when running.

You will find most of your fave programs struggle badly with 2-4GB of RAM, even on Linux.

Over the years most software programs (even on mobile) have become bloated and slow due to "new features" (even if most people don't need them) and also because it is a nexus with the hardware manufacturers. Who will buy any expensive CPU, more RAM, larger capacity SSDs, bigger displays, etc., if there is no software program needing all that extra oomph of performance, bandwidth, and fidelity?

bloppe 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One potential reason: now that CPU clock speed is plateauing, parallelism is the main way to juice performance. Many apps try to take advantage of it by running N processes for N cores. For instance, my 22-core machine will use all 22 cores in parallel by default for builds with modern build systems. That's compiling ~22 files at once, using ~5x as much RAM as the 4-core machines of 15 years ago, all else being equal. As parallelism increases further, expect your builds to use even more memory.

parrellel 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ah! Yes, I agree.

12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]