3 ms·

Honestly is that one really that bad? I get that 4Gb is offensive and I consider 8GB to be the minimum, but the reviews on that model are actually pretty univer

Honestly is that one really that bad? I get that 4Gb is offensive and I consider 8GB to be the minimum, but the reviews on that model are actually pretty universally positive. They say it actually has good performance on low-use tasks and has good battery life. I'm watching a youtube video review of the exact model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6GIE-bcSQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6GIE-bcSQg and even doing the 7 minute 4k video edit over ethernet in Adobe Premiere Pro, it stutters at full resolution but can handle basic tasks at 1/2 resolution. Is this thing really shit?

doubled112 4y ago
It is definitely low end. However, it is likely around double the CPU/GPU performance vs the older Celeron laptop I brought up, plus it has an NVMe. Not even the same tier in my mind. If you could put another 4GB RAM in, it would probably be just fine for basic use. It might be an example of where budget machines "caught up" to software again.
maximus-decimus 4y ago
Interestingly, I didn't catch that this was running Windows S which only allows installing software from the windows store and running edge. That version apparently only requires 2GB of ram, so I guess that's why it runs fine. I would consider something that only allows me to run stuff from the Microsoft store to be "garbage", but what do I know, it probably fits a lot of people's use case.