3 ms·

I wonder if something like vista is needed to move the needle on consumer RAM again. Pre-vista, windows required 64MB of RAM, and you could fudge it a bit even

I wonder if something like vista is needed to move the needle on consumer RAM again. Pre-vista, windows required 64MB of RAM, and you could fudge it a bit even lower if you knew what you were doing. Vista _required_ 1GB of RAM, and recommended 2. OEMs were selling 64MB desktops right up until vista was released. Today, windows 11 requires 4GB or ram. If windows 12 (or whatever they're going to call the next windows, they're not too good at counting) required the same sized jump between XP and Vista, it'd require 64GB or ram.

NovaVeles 4y ago
That may be the case but the question is, what big change to the end user could they pitch to justify such a leap in the requirements?
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> Today, windows 11 requires 4GB or ram That's gotta be painful, though, unless you only ever use a single browser tab.
- anthk 4y ago
  A bit of bullshit. Ublock Origin, git://bitreich.org/privacy-haters, enable that config to either Firefox or Chrom* based browsers. Under Windows you can set he env vars properly to the desktop shortcuts as pure arguments for the exe. Seriously, I tried with > 10yo Celeron netbook and it was perfectly usable once you set up ZRAM/zswap and Ublock Origin. Oh, and some tweaks on about:flags to force the GL acceleration. OpenGL 2.1 capable, go figure, and yet browsing it's snappy on the Celeron.
hnuser123456 4y ago
Hm... I had a Celeron machine running XP ~2004-2007 that had 512MB of RAM, and it wasn't hard to run out, eventually upgraded to 768MB but I was still jealous of my friend running XP with 1GB. Then, I built a Vista machine in 2007 with 2GB to start, and it was clearly not enough, immediately filled the other 2 slots to go to 4GB.
einr 4y ago
Most of this is not historically accurate. Vista required 512 MB. In practice, that probably sucked, but those were the paper specs. XP might have required 64 MB on paper but it crawled and was practically useless on that spec (like Windows 95 was on 4 MB). Never saw anyone do it. A common spec in 2001 would be 256 MB or at an absolute minimum, 128. Vista came out in 2007 and absolutely no one was selling 64 MB desktop computers at that point. 64 MB is 1997-1998 spec -- in 2007 it would commonly be 512 MB or 1 GB. It is true, however, that Vista had astronomically high minimum specs for the time -- some machines sold at the time could just barely run it -- and that it probably drove a lot of upgrades.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- anthk 4y ago
  XP could run on 128MB once you disabled a lot of services. On Windows 95, anything less than 8MB was a no-no.

NovaVeles 4y ago

That may be the case but the question is, what big change to the end user could they pitch to justify such a leap in the requirements?

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

> Today, windows 11 requires 4GB or ram That's gotta be painful, though, unless you only ever use a single browser tab.

anthk 4y ago
A bit of bullshit. Ublock Origin, git://bitreich.org/privacy-haters, enable that config to either Firefox or Chrom* based browsers. Under Windows you can set he env vars properly to the desktop shortcuts as pure arguments for the exe. Seriously, I tried with > 10yo Celeron netbook and it was perfectly usable once you set up ZRAM/zswap and Ublock Origin. Oh, and some tweaks on about:flags to force the GL acceleration. OpenGL 2.1 capable, go figure, and yet browsing it's snappy on the Celeron.

hnuser123456 4y ago

Hm... I had a Celeron machine running XP ~2004-2007 that had 512MB of RAM, and it wasn't hard to run out, eventually upgraded to 768MB but I was still jealous of my friend running XP with 1GB. Then, I built a Vista machine in 2007 with 2GB to start, and it was clearly not enough, immediately filled the other 2 slots to go to 4GB.

einr 4y ago

Most of this is not historically accurate. Vista required 512 MB. In practice, that probably sucked, but those were the paper specs. XP might have required 64 MB on paper but it crawled and was practically useless on that spec (like Windows 95 was on 4 MB). Never saw anyone do it. A common spec in 2001 would be 256 MB or at an absolute minimum, 128. Vista came out in 2007 and absolutely no one was selling 64 MB desktop computers at that point. 64 MB is 1997-1998 spec -- in 2007 it would commonly be 512 MB or 1 GB. It is true, however, that Vista had astronomically high minimum specs for the time -- some machines sold at the time could just barely run it -- and that it probably drove a lot of upgrades.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anthk 4y ago
XP could run on 128MB once you disabled a lot of services. On Windows 95, anything less than 8MB was a no-no.