I think the point is that these requirements are the result of poor software development and windows as a whole. Consoles manage just fine with less than 16GB and that’s a shared pool between GPU and CPU. M$ Windows is bloated and developers have seemingly given up on optimization.
I think you’re right. Like, most software hasn’t functionally changed much since the days it required 512 MB RAM and came on a DVD-ROM. I guess optimisation isn’t really a thing nowadays.
But also I think PCs could get by with less RAM, too, if they only let you run one app at a time (with no background apps). 😃
I disagree with the functional change argument - OneNote didn’t exist then, Excel is a LOT more capable, as is Publisher (and Word). Docs I routinely work with today would crash the mid 90’s versions of the same app because of this difference.
My daily spreadsheets today would be dog snot slow back then. Multiple sheets in a workbook didn’t occur until like 1995-ish, and my current ones probably wouldn’t even open (ignoring the version difference and 64/32 bit difference) - Excel would probably freeze back then. We had to routinely split up docs to make it work at all. In fact, this is part of why OLE was developed by MS, so you could link to data in other files rather than have it all in one massive doc. No one uses the “L” part of OLE today as it’s no longer required to keep file sizes in check.
The performance difference is staggering - back then I would wait for some apps to redraw the screen (photoshop, pagemaker, publisher) if I moved something on the screen.
There’s so much I do today that was a wish-list back then.
From windows 7 to 11 all of that was possible with 16gb of ram. And if you had a spreadsheet hitting a wall I would probably say Excel was the wrong app altogether.
I don’t know if it matters, but in my head I was imagining the XP era moreso than mid-90s. 😃 (But that’s interesting – I didn’t realise spreadsheets had changed so much.)
It may be bloated to you or me, but it’s a general purpose OS that addresses many more requirements out of the box than Linux, by design.
As a business admin this means when you suddenly have a new business requirement for a functionality, you don’t have to go to every machine and install a new service, or even build a test lab to ensure that service will work stably - MS has done this for you.
This has always been the MS paradigm, and Linux started from the opposite paradigm - provide a nominally functional OS and let the end user (think business/environment management) add only what is needed for that specific use-case.
Windows exists because prior “operating systems” were task-specific (see the IBM Mini’s that still exist in some form) which weren’t really useful for a single user.
Linux exists because people (not just Linus) saw the need for a minimal OS for PC architecture that could be built to task - there had already been efforts to port Unix.
Two very different paradigms addressing different requirements.
Build a Linux box that does what Windows does out of the box (with all the testing that MS has done) and it will require more ram too.
(Though the lack of optimization has always been a problem, something people like Minasi and Gibson have long pointed out.)
Nothing you’ve said negates that multi-tasking in Windows has always required more ram than the nominal “run Windows” spec, and it’s generally been 2x the nominal.
And back to bloat - 64bit requires more ram for everything. That was a big leap. And then there’s maintained support for old software - running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS/API. That takes a thunking layer that doesn’t come for free.
Linux and Windows simply work from 2 very different paradigms.
Funny, no one ever complains about the memory requirements for say an AS400… Oh, yea, it can’t do anything that Windows does - that’s not what it was designed for. And really, Linux wasn’t either - you can just build it for that if you want (as the many distros have).
I disagree. Linux 10 years ago maybe but Linux today out of the box is very capable and stable. Windows on the other hand has had its fair share of instability and enshittification. I won’t say Linux is for everyone because I understand the edge cases and some people just like what they already know but it’s never been closer to matching windows and doing so with more privacy, security, and efficiency than windows.
Aside from all of that when I think about the changes from windows 7 to windows 11 the only meaningful thing that stands out is a UI facelift. How did we go from 8gb handling the OS and playing games 10 years ago to saying 16gb is what we need for regular tasks but 32gb is what you really want for gaming on top of GPUs also having twice the ram they used to. I just feel like we are all trying to make excuses for M$ and I’m done with it. Ignoring their BS requirements for TPMs and secure boot which they’ve pushed into the gaming market and allowed gaming companies to have kernel level access to our machines and abandon perfectly good hardware because it doesn’t meet this BS requirement.
Yeah I think the point is that if your gaming the console hardware is there in the form of VRAM so needing 16gb for windows alone, then 16 additional for a game on top of the VRAM. It doesn’t add up. A 25-35% bumb when everything became 64bit is understandable but let’s not pretend that it can’t be done with much less.
I think the point is that these requirements are the result of poor software development and windows as a whole. Consoles manage just fine with less than 16GB and that’s a shared pool between GPU and CPU. M$ Windows is bloated and developers have seemingly given up on optimization.
I think you’re right. Like, most software hasn’t functionally changed much since the days it required 512 MB RAM and came on a DVD-ROM. I guess optimisation isn’t really a thing nowadays.
But also I think PCs could get by with less RAM, too, if they only let you run one app at a time (with no background apps). 😃
I disagree with the functional change argument - OneNote didn’t exist then, Excel is a LOT more capable, as is Publisher (and Word). Docs I routinely work with today would crash the mid 90’s versions of the same app because of this difference.
My daily spreadsheets today would be dog snot slow back then. Multiple sheets in a workbook didn’t occur until like 1995-ish, and my current ones probably wouldn’t even open (ignoring the version difference and 64/32 bit difference) - Excel would probably freeze back then. We had to routinely split up docs to make it work at all. In fact, this is part of why OLE was developed by MS, so you could link to data in other files rather than have it all in one massive doc. No one uses the “L” part of OLE today as it’s no longer required to keep file sizes in check.
The performance difference is staggering - back then I would wait for some apps to redraw the screen (photoshop, pagemaker, publisher) if I moved something on the screen.
There’s so much I do today that was a wish-list back then.
From windows 7 to 11 all of that was possible with 16gb of ram. And if you had a spreadsheet hitting a wall I would probably say Excel was the wrong app altogether.
I don’t know if it matters, but in my head I was imagining the XP era moreso than mid-90s. 😃 (But that’s interesting – I didn’t realise spreadsheets had changed so much.)
Consoles don’t really multi task. Consoles also have a hard limit. PCs can be anything from 4gb to 3tb.
Optimization is definitely an issue. But MSs point was “no worries” It’s a “fuck you my PC can run it all” amount of ram.
It may be bloated to you or me, but it’s a general purpose OS that addresses many more requirements out of the box than Linux, by design.
As a business admin this means when you suddenly have a new business requirement for a functionality, you don’t have to go to every machine and install a new service, or even build a test lab to ensure that service will work stably - MS has done this for you.
This has always been the MS paradigm, and Linux started from the opposite paradigm - provide a nominally functional OS and let the end user (think business/environment management) add only what is needed for that specific use-case.
Windows exists because prior “operating systems” were task-specific (see the IBM Mini’s that still exist in some form) which weren’t really useful for a single user.
Linux exists because people (not just Linus) saw the need for a minimal OS for PC architecture that could be built to task - there had already been efforts to port Unix.
Two very different paradigms addressing different requirements.
Build a Linux box that does what Windows does out of the box (with all the testing that MS has done) and it will require more ram too.
(Though the lack of optimization has always been a problem, something people like Minasi and Gibson have long pointed out.)
Nothing you’ve said negates that multi-tasking in Windows has always required more ram than the nominal “run Windows” spec, and it’s generally been 2x the nominal.
And back to bloat - 64bit requires more ram for everything. That was a big leap. And then there’s maintained support for old software - running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS/API. That takes a thunking layer that doesn’t come for free.
Linux and Windows simply work from 2 very different paradigms.
Funny, no one ever complains about the memory requirements for say an AS400… Oh, yea, it can’t do anything that Windows does - that’s not what it was designed for. And really, Linux wasn’t either - you can just build it for that if you want (as the many distros have).
I disagree. Linux 10 years ago maybe but Linux today out of the box is very capable and stable. Windows on the other hand has had its fair share of instability and enshittification. I won’t say Linux is for everyone because I understand the edge cases and some people just like what they already know but it’s never been closer to matching windows and doing so with more privacy, security, and efficiency than windows.
Aside from all of that when I think about the changes from windows 7 to windows 11 the only meaningful thing that stands out is a UI facelift. How did we go from 8gb handling the OS and playing games 10 years ago to saying 16gb is what we need for regular tasks but 32gb is what you really want for gaming on top of GPUs also having twice the ram they used to. I just feel like we are all trying to make excuses for M$ and I’m done with it. Ignoring their BS requirements for TPMs and secure boot which they’ve pushed into the gaming market and allowed gaming companies to have kernel level access to our machines and abandon perfectly good hardware because it doesn’t meet this BS requirement.
Consoles are built to do one thing. General purpose computers need to do a whole lot of things. Apples and oranges.
Yeah I think the point is that if your gaming the console hardware is there in the form of VRAM so needing 16gb for windows alone, then 16 additional for a game on top of the VRAM. It doesn’t add up. A 25-35% bumb when everything became 64bit is understandable but let’s not pretend that it can’t be done with much less.