96
Ram usage on windows compared to Linux
(yewtu.be)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
96 points (85.8% liked)
linuxmemes
21272 readers
425 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I know this is !LinuxMemes but it'll throw this here. Comparing memory usage like this is meaningless. My Linux desktop for example consumes around 20GB with nothing visibly started. ZFS would happily gobble up half of the system RAM for caching unless limited. And caching means speed. If your system isn't caching a lot, it might be leaving speed on the table. Demand caching!
RAM is the fastest and most expensive memory in your PC. It uses energy, regardless of whether you use the memory. Not utilising RAM is a waste of resources.
There’s a reason good monitoring tools draw a stacked RAM chart.
Exactly. I wish we moved to a process lifecycle that has a "save your data because you're dying upon the return from this function" stage, similar to the way Android has it. That would allow us to keep a lot more processes in RAM. But it would require massive software changes given the body of software written the classical way and so it's unlikely to happen.
Ask devs how many issue reports they gather about app consumes too much ram.
I don't get why this is always mentioned. Windows caches too and uses up all free space for faster application startup, but just because it also does it doesn't change the fact that it uses more ram for active processes while doing nothing. I remember Minecraft running a lot better on my old MacBook with just 4gb of ram as Ubuntu used less than Mac OS X and I could allocate more to the game, whether cacheing was enabled or not on those OSes was not relevant. This should not be relevant today as 32gb of ram can be purchased for less than 100 bucks but sadly is as Apple and other laptop manufacturers think selling soldered 8gb is ok for a base model in 2023 for a laptop costing more than 300 bucks
I've never owned a laptop that didn't have upgradeable RAM.
I also don't pay for Apple products so that might be why. Vote with your wallets and stop buying their overpriced metal bullshit.
The ancient MacBook in question has a firmware limitation and thus only supports 4gb, it was already upgraded from 2gb iirc (black 2007 MacBook 3,1). My current laptop has 16gb soldered, too bad that the hinge will die again before the ram becomes insufficient
Holy crap that's a long lived laptop.
I’m still using my 2014 MBP as a daily driver. They’re surprisingly long lasting. Only thing I’m rolling with still that’s older is a Lenovo X220 that I use to play a starship bridge simulator with haha.
Fires up MongoDB. Oops there goes all my ram.