3 ms·

Screw the batteries, its the tiny amount of RAM that is going to kill the laptops. We need to make it so that soldered on RAM can only be sold if the laptop shi

Screw the batteries, its the tiny amount of RAM that is going to kill the laptops. We need to make it so that soldered on RAM can only be sold if the laptop ships with at least a certain amount of RAM. Should properly be 16 now, then 32 in 3 years. You could ban it entirely, but there are some advantages to soldered on RAM, such as higher possible max speeds.

josephg 3y ago
16gb? The average consumer shouldn’t need anywhere near that much ram for general web browsing, email and document editing. Ram isn’t like money. It doesn’t get worse over time. My computer in college in 2004 did all the things the average user needs - I could watch videos online and browse the web just fine. Why should consumers today need to pay for faster hardware to do the same set of tasks?
- tomjen3 3y ago
  They don't need that today, but only the cheapest laptops are sold with less than 8gb today, so if they are to last for 10 years you need 16gb today, because that is also what you are going to be stuck with in ten years. Your annecdotes about what was required of a laptop twenty years ago are very relevant if you are connected to the same web you were twenty years ago. Most consumers aren't.
  - josephg 3y ago
    What websites need that much RAM? Even reddit's redesign is only using up 200mb in firefox for me at the moment. Spotify's desktop app is using 500mb - which I'll grant is pretty wasteful given its not even playing music. Honestly, 8gb of ram is fine for an awful lot of people. Why should regular users need more ram? Even assuming software (like Teams) does chew up users' RAM, the idea that we should push that problem onto the consumer is backwards. Instead of asking consumers to pay more for their devices, developers should just stop being so lazy with our software. My mum shouldn't need to buy a new laptop every few years if her computing needs don't change. Its sloppy and wasteful.
    - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
      I think their point is that 8GB is fine right now, just like 4GB was fine 10 years ago. If you want laptops produced now to be fine in 10 years, it's very likely going to need more than 8GB.

josephg 3y ago

16gb? The average consumer shouldn’t need anywhere near that much ram for general web browsing, email and document editing. Ram isn’t like money. It doesn’t get worse over time. My computer in college in 2004 did all the things the average user needs - I could watch videos online and browse the web just fine. Why should consumers today need to pay for faster hardware to do the same set of tasks?

tomjen3 3y ago
They don't need that today, but only the cheapest laptops are sold with less than 8gb today, so if they are to last for 10 years you need 16gb today, because that is also what you are going to be stuck with in ten years. Your annecdotes about what was required of a laptop twenty years ago are very relevant if you are connected to the same web you were twenty years ago. Most consumers aren't.
- josephg 3y ago
  What websites need that much RAM? Even reddit's redesign is only using up 200mb in firefox for me at the moment. Spotify's desktop app is using 500mb - which I'll grant is pretty wasteful given its not even playing music. Honestly, 8gb of ram is fine for an awful lot of people. Why should regular users need more ram? Even assuming software (like Teams) does chew up users' RAM, the idea that we should push that problem onto the consumer is backwards. Instead of asking consumers to pay more for their devices, developers should just stop being so lazy with our software. My mum shouldn't need to buy a new laptop every few years if her computing needs don't change. Its sloppy and wasteful.
  - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
    I think their point is that 8GB is fine right now, just like 4GB was fine 10 years ago. If you want laptops produced now to be fine in 10 years, it's very likely going to need more than 8GB.