• calcopiritus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Yeah no. I’m at 32 and task manager says that 28+GiB are being used on idle. The sum of everything that appears on task manager doesn’t reach 2GiB.

    And it’s not “the OS is using it because you aren’t”, because if I do anything demanding, the OS won’t give me back that RAM, it’ll use the swap instead.

  • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 minutes ago

    I mean maybe, if you aren’t running any other softare at all and just staring at your desktop.

  • khánh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    “fine” depends on what you’re doing. web browsing? youtube? maybe, just dont open more than 5 tabs. doing literally anything else? no. get 12 gb or 16 gb ram.

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    1000% bs. My work pc has 8gb of ram and im always 100%. I hardly get anything done quickly if I open teams which I have to.

  • DokPsy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    16 hours ago

    As someone who deals with various windows bullshit on the daily, 8gb for win11 is fine assuming you don’t use any applications. If you want to actually use the machine, 16gb is the absolute minimum

    • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      46 minutes ago

      I had to uninstall chrome and switch to edge on my work laptop just to make it usable. 8 is barely enough, if you’re very careful

    • JordanZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      16 hours ago

      As a dev that has to use windows, our laptop was fine on windows 10 with 32gb until it fell out of support and they updated everyone to windows 11.

      After much fighting and proving with evidence that it was causing insane problems. They upgraded the devs to 64gb. I’m talking build times jumping from ~20 seconds to 15+ minutes if the ram use crept above about 70%…oof.

      • DokPsy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Honestly some of my biggest fights are with browsers being ram hogs and edgewebview2 constantly shitting the bed causing excessive ram utilisation and various crashes to basic office applications

  • adarza@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    15 hours ago

    next they’ll say any ol’ hdd is fine, too.

    (they are not)

    if you ever have to use win11 on a laptop with 4 or 8gb ram and a 2.5in hdd, you’ll be inventing new swear words.

    • Flatfire@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      About halfway through the lifecycle for Windows 10, HDD performance became pure garbage and I genuinely do not know how/why they did that. Something about how they were handling indexing or read operations at idle meant pinning the disk at 100% usage almost all the time and the only solve was an SSD. I hate that shit so much.

  • ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Windows 10 had a minimum requirement of 2GB RAM, with 4GB recommended for a comfortable experience. Windows 11 bumped that up and then kept needing more as the OS got heavier with every update cycle.

    …to 4 GB…

    • Flatfire@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I’ve used Windows 10 with 4GB. It’s not a comfortable experience. Neither is Windows 11 with 8GB.

  • cecilkorik@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Don’t worry, soon they will announce that 4GB will probably be fine too, once they discover they need even more RAM for their AI slop farms.

  • Lumidaub@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Why would they knowingly push for better but unnecessary hardware? What do they gain from people buying more RAM than necessary to run Windows?

    Edit: wait, they also sell laptops. Duh.

    Kids, learn from my mistakes, read article first, comment second.

    • artyom@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Nothing. It’s not unnecessary. It’s very necessary, especially Windows. They’re just shifting their perspective because RAM has gotten so wildly expensive.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Maybe it is. I don’t know. But I’ve read a lot of comments suggesting that Windows burns RAM harder than MacOS and Linux.

    I’m so glad my work is buying laptops with 32GB of RAM. Finally, we’re in the future. (I think true nerds need more, but these are office people using Word and Outlook. It’s glorious.)

    • OhneHose@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Linux? Depending on the distro, ram usage is a joke. Got a rpi and a NUC running Debian as a server (so without running the display environment constantly) and the use ~ 500-800mb ram. With a DE, they need like 1-1.2gigs.

      The nuc is particularly funny since it hosts 2 Nextcloud instances, 2 websites and a qwen3 embedding model and sits at ~ 6gb ram.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        running Debian as a server (so without running the display environment constantly)

        Wait, is this a Debian-exclusive feature?

        Guess I need to take a second stab at setting up my own server

        • aloofPenguin@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          39 minutes ago

          Wait, is this a Debian-exclusive feature?

          it’s not an exclusive feature, as you can you can do this on most if not all distros. it’s just that Debian is better suited to server (this is a bit objective) since the packages are less likely to change and break on you (so reliability and stability)

        • OhneHose@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          52 minutes ago

          Yes you can disable the DE on Debian and probably on other distros too.

          I “disable” it the wrong way, since I want to have it after a reboot, for diagnostics, I just shut it off via systemctl For gnome it should be: Systemctl stop gdm3

          But you can also configure it to always start headless. And if you need it you can launch it again from the shell.

      • FishFace@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        This is irrelevant for work, where you need a web browser and work applications (which are probably more web browsers). My work laptop is currently sitting on 33G used out of 64G.

        • OhneHose@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yeah and if you’d use Linux your work laptop would be sitting at like 6gb, if you’d just browse the web and edit text documents.

          The only time I ever need more than 10 gigs on my main machine is when I play games. Windows and Linux aren’t even close in normal use cases.

          You can even try it yourself, grab yourself a 10 year old laptop and install any Linux distro on it, it will feel like a new machine.

          • FishFace@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Yeah and if you’d use Linux your work laptop

            which I do so maybe remove your head from wherever it’s stuck and rethink.

            Memory use of applications is not especially different between operating systems (assuming no compression). The hand the OS has in memory usage is mainly its own memory usage, but that is dwarfed by application usage. In the case of an application like, say, Firefox, its core is written in languages like C++ with explicit memory management. The same code runs on both platforms, so when you open a webpage, the same data structures are needed in the same quantities. CPU architecture can change how much memory a structure needs, but OS doesn’t. So the application requests essentially the same number of bytes from the operating system, and the OS reserves that many bytes for the use of the application.

            You can get into more detail than this, resulting in some small differences, but given that you started with a hilariously wrong assumption I don’t think there’s any need.