Wait, you're seriously proposing that memory usage and quality should have a directly linear relationship? (ignoring the fact that 1000x "better" is a purely su

Wait, you're seriously proposing that memory usage and quality should have a directly linear relationship? (ignoring the fact that 1000x "better" is a purely subjective measure that even people with similar tastes have extreme difficulty in quantifying). Keep in mind that most of those apps you are talking about were designed with 256 color palletes (or smaller!) in mind. Just moving to true color triples the rendering target buffer without any other change. The same proportion of a screen used by the same app in HD vs 640p is another factor of ~9. (a lot more for 4k, etc). Word size is 2x larger - every pointer and int takes twice as many bytes. Depending on the native endcoding of your OS, strings can take 2-4x as many bytes, because it turns out there are languages besides English that have different letters. All of the above are just mechanical changes in the underlying gear that require a significant portion of your 1000x factor. Other things go into to it too but they are dev choices: * responsiveness due to keeping more in RAM rather than waiting for disk io * (related to disk io) fetching resources from the network is very slow too, so keeping them in memory is a good idea. * spending a huge effort minimizing RAM usage is often a waste of effort, given that the machine will have far more memory - this has made your free/cheap app possible (more so considering a 1995 dollar is ~2 2022 dollars). * The little features most users (maybe even you) take for granted all cost memory and cpu, and those are not present in the old software. * In general the software today does more anyway - even ignoring the convenience features, this also has a cost. I notice you have yet to answer my question: So what? Why does that matter when machines come with more RAM than I can use even with the increase in memory usage?