4 ms·
> This literally isn't Windows where 32GB of RAM is the new minimum. wut. I have a 16GB Windows machine and it's fine.
by patatero 4y ago
> This literally isn't Windows where 32GB of RAM is the new minimum.
wut. I have a 16GB Windows machine and it's fine.
- Clubber 4y agoI think he was being intentionally hyperbolic, alluding to the fact that Windows' published minimum specs are way to low (like Vista) and the actual specs needed to run are much higher because the bloat.
- layer8 4y ago“Way too low” isn’t really true. I have RDP and Firefox and Word and Excel open, and Windows still uses just around 4 GB of RAM according to Task Manager.
- Clubber 4y agoIt depends on the version. In Vista, the one mentioned, they certainly were. It you ran a computer using the minimum specs, it was almost unusable. https://www.osnews.com/story/16675/vista-minimum-requirements-unrealistic/ https://www.osnews.com/story/16675/vista-minimum-requirement...
- layer8 4y agoYes, but I think Vista was an outlier in that respect.
- Clubber 4y agoIt was certainly the most egregious I recall, but here's an article complaining about Windows 10 minimum specs too. https://winaero.com/the-real-system-requirements-for-windows-10/ https://winaero.com/the-real-system-requirements-for-windows... Here's one for Windows 11 https://www.makeuseof.com/is-4gb-ram-enough-for-windows-11/ https://www.makeuseof.com/is-4gb-ram-enough-for-windows-11/ Seems Windows 8 was ok https://www.networkworld.com/article/2221048/will-windows-8-really-perform-on-well-on-low-end-hardware--here-s-a-test-.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2221048/will-windows-8-...
- babypuncher 4y agoVista came out over 15 years ago, it hardly seems relevant today.
- goosedragons 4y agoThe same could be said of Mac OS 10.4 at the same time. It was an absolute dog on systems without Quartz Extreme support.