Me, but also everyone a bit. Almost nobody cares about one of those applications in isolation. You start caring when you get a few of them and run out of ram. Sure, you can run Slack and Discord or something similar at the same time. But once you do, can you comfortably do other work without any visible slowdown? Or is this the threshold for "I need more than 8GB of ram?" You may be spending $ because of decisions like that.

Hot take: We should be able to comfortably run generic office desktops today with 4GB ram. We don't because too many people think "Who cares?"

▲

stasomatic a day ago | parent [-]

I haven't run any laptop or a desktop with less than 16GB of RAM for over 2 decades. That's table stakes and a minimum. My uConsole CM5 Lite has 16GB. My 14 year old TP X230 has 32GB. I don't know what to tell you, if you want to swap to disk, then suffer the consequences.

	▲	viraptor a day ago \| parent [-]
		There are two problems here: 1. You can't imagine that <8GB is enough for office work. It still is with enough care. 2. You can't imagine that a lot of this usage is waste. Sure you can buy more ram, but what if you needed half the memory and didn't swap? I've got 30GB in use (some of it already compressed) and around 20GB of that is useless copies of some browser engine in various apps. It's insane that anyone is accepting that as table stakes and tells the user to "suffer the consequences" rather then raging at the current state of the industry. We ran quick and responsive office suites in a fraction of that decades ago and 4GB in a common office machine should handle this just fine. (And still can on 8GB on a well configured machine. 4GB is tight but may be still comfortable on Linux) No. I want the great native rewriting and de-Chroming to start, and I want the companies that don't follow to suffer the consequences of getting rejected from the more lean machines.