> Which software exactly is functionally the same yet consumes more resources? Can you give some specific examples? Instant messaging. Even if we ignore applic

> Which software exactly is functionally the same yet consumes more resources? Can you give some specific examples? Instant messaging. Even if we ignore applications like the original MSN Messenger, Trillian, etc, the original Skype before Microsoft's acquisition was much faster. Sure, it wasn't as fast as it could be - but still didn't had an entire browser wrapped around it nor needed checks 350MB of RAM and 7 background processes just to display an icon on the tray so i can send text messages and perhaps the occasional video call once every two years. And to be honest? I do not really find it that weird if a program needed some extra resources to make a video call - which is why LoadLibrary and (especially) FreeLibrary exist. But in practice that is never done or when it is done it is piled on top of an overengineered system to the point where it loses any benefits under the weight of the architecture astromancy. > if you don’t know or don’t pay attention what’s under the covers. Or don't care. Don't forget the don't care part! It is very important because a lot of the bloat is presented as "functionality" (which, assuming most people even care - and that assuming they'd know what they "pay" for it - often doesn't even need to be as heavy and bloated as it is). > One easy to overlook difference is displays. Aside from resolution, physical dimensions and thinness, displays are worse nowadays. Compared to CRTs they have bad contrast, often bad colors, increased latency (even the ultra-fast 144Hz+ ones), a fixed resolution with awful results if you try to use anything but the native, etc. Note that i'm writing this from a 165Hz 27" 2560x1440 monitor BTW with a few CRTs next to me connected on older systems. And BTW > It’s easy to forget that 20 years ago we had 800x600 screens, 24 bit color was not ubiquitous, and 60hz monitors were practically non-existent. That'd be 30 years ago, not 20. 20 years ago was the year 2001 :-P. While 800x600 was indeed common, it was pretty much as common as 1024x768. And monitors at 60Hz were not common because those would hurt your eyes - even standard VGA released in the 80s runs at 70Hz. But by 2001 pretty much every monitor was able of 85Hz and several went much higher (e.g. 120Hz for mine). > Today 4K is normal 4K is a tiny minority that is barely a blip in statistics. Here, check this: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware This is Firefox's hardware statistics. The most common resolution, by far, is 1920x1080. The next most common? 1366x768! Both make about 64% of every web capable computer out there! And the resolutions after that are actually lower than 1920x1080 until you reach at around 2% for 2560x1440. Even among games where 4K has meme status, in Steam Hardware Survey you can see that only around 2.44% have a 4K monitor. There are more than three times more gamers using monitors less than 1080p that aren't 1366x768 or 1360x768! There will be several years before 4K becomes a normal on the desktop. Right now it makes way more sense to think about something like 1366x768 than 4K.