4 ms·

a lot of computers being sold today are still 1366x768

by jcelerier 5y ago

Koshkin 5y ago
... and 4 GB of RAM
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Nothing wrong with that for a lightweight Linux dev/browsing machine. More than that just goes unused.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Depends on your browsing habits. I often end up with hundreds of Chrome tabs, which can easily result in 16GB of RAM being consumed by it alone. Thankfully there are plugins to automatically suspend unused tabs which help with that.
    - yoyohello13 5y ago
      I read this workflow a lot and it absolutely boggles my mind how people can have some many tabs open. You can’t possibly be able to make sense of all those tabs at once. And if your not using the tab, why not just bookmark it? Seems the only purpose of 100+ tabs is wasting ram.
      - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
        With a browser that allows customization, you can configure vertical tabs to fill up excess wide screen real estate. Then you can credibly manage dozens of tabs.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        I have bookmarks, Pocket for "read one day", Raindrop for more advanced "might be useful one day" bookmarks. I still work on multiple projects, for work or personal, more or less simultaneously ( as in the same week(s)), and until I'm fully finished with something i don't close the tabs related to it. Some things just get blocked/stuck/lose their priority, for which case i do the occasional cleaning. So just the stuff I'm more or less currently on, plus articles to read "soon", plus mandatory work related tabs (Jira, etc.) and it quickly explodes to 10GB+ of RAM.
      - jcelerier 5y ago
        I have something like 80 tabs open from my morning alone lol, 30/35 are some bibliography quest about a fairly specific topic, a dozen about the various approaches to fast sin & cos approximations, a few are mails & social networks
  - sodality2 5y ago
    As someone with a laptop like this, dev work in certain situations (compiling heavy code, like systems languages) is essentially unworkable. The ram is actually 3.33 GB (memory is shared with GPU) and the CPU's are often dual-core. Visual studio code escapes alright (somehow), so maybe for light web dev work. But when my rust code takes 8 minutes to compile and 20 seconds on a PC, it almost makes it easier to compile once on my desktop and rsync it over (so subsequent compiles are faster b/c incremental compilation). This is just the reality of a low end system, it's competent at web browsing and note taking, and surprisingly I can last about 6-8 hours on a ~$400 laptop. I certainly didn't expect a compiling powerhouse, but I can literally install ripgrep in 26 seconds and it takes about 7 or 8 minutes on the laptop. TLDR: Don't use with systems languages. Rust takes ages to compile and I have almost switched to learning go just because of it. Of course, I am expecting way too much out of a laptop (systems programming? really?) but I didn't expect it to be so terribly slow.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      8 minutes for a first compile on a non-trivial code base (ripgrep) is not that bad. Sure, you might call it a "low end system" but these performance choices can also save on battery use, which helps when coding on the go.
      - jcelerier 5y ago
        From what I could find, ripgrep is 40kloc... That means roughly 83 lines of code compiled per second. I'm sure there are languages on the PDP-11 (a 1.25 mhz machine) that compiled faster than that.
        burntsushi 5y ago
        Uh... No. You're off by an order of magnitude. $ cargo vendor $ tokei vendor/ crates/ -t Rust -s code --exclude winapi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language Files Lines Code Comments Blanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rust 1248 615700 493777 83201 38722 And 8 minutes for compiling ripgrep sounds crazy. My i3 Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM compiles ripgrep from scratch in 1m48s.

a lot of computers being sold today are still 1366x768

Koshkin 5y ago

... and 4 GB of RAM

zozbot234 5y ago
Nothing wrong with that for a lightweight Linux dev/browsing machine. More than that just goes unused.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Depends on your browsing habits. I often end up with hundreds of Chrome tabs, which can easily result in 16GB of RAM being consumed by it alone. Thankfully there are plugins to automatically suspend unused tabs which help with that.
  - yoyohello13 5y ago
    I read this workflow a lot and it absolutely boggles my mind how people can have some many tabs open. You can’t possibly be able to make sense of all those tabs at once. And if your not using the tab, why not just bookmark it? Seems the only purpose of 100+ tabs is wasting ram.
    - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
      With a browser that allows customization, you can configure vertical tabs to fill up excess wide screen real estate. Then you can credibly manage dozens of tabs.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      I have bookmarks, Pocket for "read one day", Raindrop for more advanced "might be useful one day" bookmarks. I still work on multiple projects, for work or personal, more or less simultaneously ( as in the same week(s)), and until I'm fully finished with something i don't close the tabs related to it. Some things just get blocked/stuck/lose their priority, for which case i do the occasional cleaning. So just the stuff I'm more or less currently on, plus articles to read "soon", plus mandatory work related tabs (Jira, etc.) and it quickly explodes to 10GB+ of RAM.
    - jcelerier 5y ago
      I have something like 80 tabs open from my morning alone lol, 30/35 are some bibliography quest about a fairly specific topic, a dozen about the various approaches to fast sin & cos approximations, a few are mails & social networks
- sodality2 5y ago
  As someone with a laptop like this, dev work in certain situations (compiling heavy code, like systems languages) is essentially unworkable. The ram is actually 3.33 GB (memory is shared with GPU) and the CPU's are often dual-core. Visual studio code escapes alright (somehow), so maybe for light web dev work. But when my rust code takes 8 minutes to compile and 20 seconds on a PC, it almost makes it easier to compile once on my desktop and rsync it over (so subsequent compiles are faster b/c incremental compilation). This is just the reality of a low end system, it's competent at web browsing and note taking, and surprisingly I can last about 6-8 hours on a ~$400 laptop. I certainly didn't expect a compiling powerhouse, but I can literally install ripgrep in 26 seconds and it takes about 7 or 8 minutes on the laptop. TLDR: Don't use with systems languages. Rust takes ages to compile and I have almost switched to learning go just because of it. Of course, I am expecting way too much out of a laptop (systems programming? really?) but I didn't expect it to be so terribly slow.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    8 minutes for a first compile on a non-trivial code base (ripgrep) is not that bad. Sure, you might call it a "low end system" but these performance choices can also save on battery use, which helps when coding on the go.
    - jcelerier 5y ago
      From what I could find, ripgrep is 40kloc... That means roughly 83 lines of code compiled per second. I'm sure there are languages on the PDP-11 (a 1.25 mhz machine) that compiled faster than that.
      - burntsushi 5y ago
        Uh... No. You're off by an order of magnitude. $ cargo vendor $ tokei vendor/ crates/ -t Rust -s code --exclude winapi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language Files Lines Code Comments Blanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rust 1248 615700 493777 83201 38722 And 8 minutes for compiling ripgrep sounds crazy. My i3 Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM compiles ripgrep from scratch in 1m48s.