2 ms·
Oh, 10.6 was so nice, my MBP came with it, it flew, it was fast on 4 GB of ram! Now, the latest MacOS is slow on 16GB of ram, it's the same machine and I still
by teekert 8y ago
Oh, 10.6 was so nice, my MBP came with it, it flew, it was fast on 4 GB of ram! Now, the latest MacOS is slow on 16GB of ram, it's the same machine and I still do the same things with it. I don't understand "progress".
- lukifer 8y agoThe more computing resources we make available, the more wasteful we become: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoFor comparison, Windows 2000 has a recommended minimum requirement of 64MB of ram. Windows 95 recommended 8MB. That's the scale of bloat we're talking about. That a modern UI which does essentially the same things can feel unresponsive in any way on several orders of magnitude more resources says a lot about the priorities of modern software developers.
- jen20 8y agoWindows 95 to Windows 2000 is not a fair comparison, but Windows NT 4.0 is - which required 16MB and recommended 32MB.
- phendrenad2 8y agoI don’t think they were comparing 2000 to 95, but both if them to modern OSs (in some sense 8MB vs 64MB is such a small difference compared to modern OSs which basically need 8GB minimum)