5 ms·
Ubuntu now requires more RAM than Windows 11
- davydm 7mo ago[dead]
- intothemild 7mo agoTwo things First, it sounds like this 6gb requirement is more like a suggestion/recommendation than a requirement. I also am curious if it actually actively uses all 6gb. From my own usage of Linux over the years the OS itself isn't using that much ram, but the application is, which is almost always the browser. Secondly. I haven't used Ubuntu desktop in years. So I have no real idea if this is something specific to them, but I do use Fedora, so I would imagine that the memory footprint cannot be too different. Whilst I could easily get away with <8gb ram, you really kind of don't want too if you're going to be doing anything heavier than web browsing or editing documents. Dev work? Or CAD, Design etc etc. But this isn't unique to Linux.
- heelix 7mo agoUbuntu just raised the minimum RAM requirement from 4gb to 6. While it might have been possible to run anything with a GUI on 4, I can't imagine that is a good experience. When they turned Centos into streams, I cut my workstation over to Ubuntu. It has been a reasonable replacement. Only real issues were when dual booting Win10 horked my grub and snap being unable to sort itself on occasion. When they release 26 as an LTS, I'm planning to update. You are spot on - the desktop itself is reasonably lean. 100+ tabs in Firefox... less so. Mind you, the amount of RAM in the workstations I'm using could buy a used car these days.
- hhh 7mo agoI don't really get it. I have ran fleets of thousands of devices running Chrome in a container on Ubuntu server, and it's a nice experience. It took a lot to make it nice, but once it was there it was rock solid. This was with 1GB ram on a Pi 3. When we swapped to Pi4, we just had thousands on gigabytes of ram and thousands of cpu cores unused.
- bee_rider 7mo agoDoes Firefox really not unload the tabs in that case?
- foepys 7mo agoIt does. You can also do it by hand via the right-click on tab menu
- sunshine-o 7mo agoI happened to install Fedora Silverblue on a computer a few days ago and looked quickly at the memory usage after boot: it was about 6gb ! I usually run Alpine or FreeBSD, so I thought: great that thing consumes 10x the RAM. I believe Fedora and Ubuntu use about the same set of technologies: systemd, wayland, Gnome, etc. so it is about the same. Apart from working out of the box I do not really know what those distros have and I don't. I just have to admit managing network interfaces is really easy in Gnome. With the skyrocketing price of RAM this might finally be the year of the Linux desktop. But it is not gonna be Gnome I guess.
- curt15 7mo agoGiven that efficiency one of Linux's most touted advantages, what in the world is Ubuntu's PR department thinking? Ubuntu isn't providing any more functionality than when its memory requirement was 4GB. What is hogging all that extra ram?
- dangus 7mo agoBesides the correct answer that Canonical sucks, I would argue that “efficiency” is not a selling point to get someone to use a desktop operating system. Mainstream users and business organizations don’t really understand that concept and would prefer to see how the operating system enables their use cases and workflows.
- sam345 7mo agoThis is changing. 8 GB will be more normal given ram shortages. See apples neo..
- dangus 7mo agoApple under-speccing their machines like they’ve been doing since the dawn of time is not some kind of indicator of any trends. You can buy $350 PC laptops that come with 12GB of RAM (example: https://www.staples.com/asus-vivobook-x1404-14-laptop-intel-core-i5-1334u-12gb-ram-256gb-ssd-windows-11-home-x1404va-i512256/product_24657529 https://www.staples.com/asus-vivobook-x1404-14-laptop-intel-...) RAM shortages will be quite temporary. Making predictions based on individual component shortages has never been a winning strategy in the history of the industry. Next you’ll tell me that graphics cards will be impossible to get because of blockchain.
- Our_Benefactors 7mo agoNo, 8GB is still the bottom of the market, and the ram shortage is past its worst days already.
- curt15 7mo ago
- dangus 7mo agoI imagine the choice of desktop environment has most to do with RAM requirements in Linux. Unrelated to this, despite Ubuntu’s popularity, I think it’s one of the worst distro choices out there, especially for including old kernels for essentially no discernible reason. I wouldn’t go so far as defending Microslop but I do get tired of the Apple fanboys accusing Windows of being bloated and running poorly. They seem to defend Apple’s 8GB machines by saying that Apple systems perform better than Windows with the same amount of RAM. This claim is entirely unsubstantiated. Windows has a lot of problems but performance and memory efficiency is not one of them. We should recall that Microsoft actually reduced RAM usage and minimum requirements between windows 7 and 8 as they wanted to get into the tablet game, and Windows has remained efficient with memory since then as Microsoft wants Windows to come with cheap Chromebook-like hardware and other similar low-end systems.
- akdev1l 7mo agoMacOS handles memory pressure better than Linux imo (at least for interactive use cases) I have seen MacOS overcommit up to 50% of memory and still have the system be responsive. Yesterday I filled up my ram accidentally on Fedora and even earlyoom took several minutes to trigger and in the meantime the system was essentially non-responsive
- mcswell 7mo agoThe plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
- dingaling 7mo agoIt's exactly what it is How do you think data is created? It's lots of anecdotes, normalised.
- worthless-trash 7mo agoThis is with earlyoom/systemd-oomd enabled ?
- Lwrless 7mo ago[dead]
- anthk 7mo ago1: ZRAM exists 2: Win11 is not usable with 4GB 3: Trisquel 12 Ecne exists. You might need Xanmos as a propietary kernel because of hardware, but try to blacklist mei and mei_me first in some .conf file at /lib/modprobe.d. Value your privacy. Trisquel Mate with zram-config and some small tweaks can work with 4GB of RAM even with a browser with dozens of Tabs, at least with UBlock Origin.
- moogly 7mo agoThe fact that I couldn't tell if point number 3 was a joke or not makes me confident we've still not seen the year of the Linux desktop.
- Synaesthesia 7mo agoThe amount of people still on less than 8gb of memory is really small.
- mcswell 7mo agoOn the contrary, those are mostly really overweight people, so the amount of them is quite large. The number of them is, however, small. :)
- throw-the-towel 7mo agoDoesn't "amount" just mean "number"?
- mcswell 6mo agoNo.
- totallymike 7mo agoWhat the fuck
- mcswell 6mo agoGo back to grade school grammar.
- b00ty4breakfast 7mo agoI won't stand for this erasure!
- trekkie99 7mo agoIs this a Ubuntu issue or a Gnome issue? What about Lubuntu, Kubuntu, etc?
- mcswell 7mo agoThe article suggests that Xubuntu (which uses xfce instead of Gnome) uses much less memory. I don't know how true that is, but it seems reasonable that xfce uses some less memory.
- groundzeros2015 7mo agoWe expect xfce is much more efficient (it has more basic features) but is that the cause? Are you just subtracting out a big part from a higher baseline?
- dathinab 7mo agosure probably even git a bit less, but I still would recommend 6 GiB. no matter of the OS the problem here is more the programs you run on top of the OS (browser, electron apps, etc.) realistic speaking you should budged at least 1GiB for you OS even if it's minimalist, and to avoid issues make it 2GiB of OS + some emergency buffer, caches, load spikes etc. and 2GiB for your browser :( and 500MiB for misc apps (mail, music, etc.) wait we are already at 4.5 GiB I still need open office .... even if xfc would safe 500 MiB it IMHO wouldn't matter (for the recommendation) and sure you can make it work, can only have one tab open at a time, close the browser every time you don't need it, not use Spotify or YT etc. but that isn't what people expect, so give them a recommendation which will work with what they expect and if someone tries to run it at smaller RAM it may work, but if it doesn't it at least isn't your fault
- alternatex 7mo agoIf it was a Gnome issue it would also be a Fedora issue though, no?
- embedding-shape 7mo agoDepends on the packaging no? I'm not sure you get 100% the same experience even with the same Gnome version across Fedora, Ubuntu and Arch, do you?
- bityard 7mo agoSince the dawn of time, Microsoft has published the minimum system requirements needed to run Windows, not what you need to actually do something useful with it.
- goalieca 7mo agoI hear a lot from linux users that found gtk 2 era on x11 as pretty close to perfect. I know i had run ubuntu and after boot it used far less than 1GB. The desktop experience was perhaps even slightly more polished than what we have today. Not much has fundamentally changed except the bloat and a regression on UX where they started chasing fads. I suppose the most major change on RAM usage is electron and the bloated world of text editors and other simple apps written in electron.
- john01dav 7mo agoJust stick XFCE on a modern minimal-ish (meaning not Ubuntu, mainly) distribution and you'll have this with modern compatibility. Debian and Fedora are both good options. If you want something more minimal as your XFCE basd, there are other options too.
- Imustaskforhelp 7mo agoMXLinux is really great for something like xfce and I really loved the snapshotting feature of it too. Highly recommended.
- imcritic 7mo ago[dead]
- mrob 7mo agoXFCE is saddled with its GTK requirement, and GTK gets worse with every version. Even though XFCE is still on GTK3, that's a big downgrade from GTK2 because it forces you to run Wayland if you don't want your GUI frame rate arbitrary capped at 60 fps. For people wanting the old-fashioned fast and simple GUI experience, I recommend LXQt.
- jstanley 7mo agoWhat use is there in display frame rates above 60 fps?
- jmclnx 7mo ago>Linux's advantage is slowly shrinking Maybe in some ways, yes. But there are distros out there that can run easily in as little as 1G RAM. And I heard people have used it with far less. I also remember hearing Ubuntu moved to default to Wayland, if true I have to wonder if defaulting to Wayland is part of the problem because Gnome / KDE on Wayland will use far more memory than FVWM / Fluxbox on X11. FWIW, you can do a lot just from the console without a GUI w/Linux and any BSD, in that case the RAM usage will be tiny compared to Windows and Apple.
- danparsonson 7mo agoNot to mention that 'lower memory usage' is only one of many benefits and, at least before the prices went mad, hardly the most important one on the list.
- rantingdemon 7mo agoPractically speaking most people would want a GUI though.
- danparsonson 7mo agoSure - what I mean is that being able to run an equivalent GUI to Windows (Gnome, KDE) using less memory than Windows requires is a benefit, but not the most important one to me. There are other bigger benefits to using Linux+GUI instead of Windows than saving on a bit of RAM.
- justsomehnguy 7mo ago> But there are distros out there that can run easily in as little as 1G RAM It always make me chuckle when I hear this. Default server (ie no GUI at all) installation of a RHEL derivative just outright dies silently with 1GB of RAM if there is no swap. Sure with the enabled swap it no longer dies but to say what the performance is anywhere performant is to lie to yourself.
- 7mo ago
- nickpsecurity 7mo agoI was testing them on a HP laptop I bought for $200 with 4GB of RAM. Windows, its default, used so much memory that there was not much left for apps. Ubuntu used 500MB less than Windows in system monitor. I think it was still 1GB or more. It also appeared to run more slowly than it used to on older hardware. Lubuntu used hundreds of MB less than Ubuntu. It could still run the same apps but had less features in UI (eg search). It ran lightening fast with more, simultaneous apps. (Note: That laptop's Wifi card wouldn't work with any Linux using any technique I tried. Sadly, I had to ditch it.) I also had Lubuntu on a 10+ year old Thinkpad with an i7 (2nd gen). It's been my daily machine for a long time. The newer, USB installers wouldn't work with it. While I can't recall the specifics, I finally found a way to load an Ubuntu-like interface or Ubuntu itself through the Lubuntu tech. It's now much slower but still lighter than default Ubuntu or Windows. (Note: Lubuntu was much lighter and faster on a refurbished Dell laptop I tested it on, too.) God blessed me recently by a person who outright gave me an Acer Nitro with a RTX and Windows. My next step is to figure out the safest way to dual boot Windows 11 and Linux for machine learning without destroying the existing filesystem or overshrinking it.
- keithnz 7mo agowindows always optimistically loads a lot, almost no matter how much ram you have
- j16sdiz 7mo ago> Ubuntu used 500MB less than Windows in system monitor. Those number meant nothing comparing across OS. Depends on how they counts shared memory and how aggressive it cache, they can feel very different. The realistic benchmark would be open two large applications (e.g. chrome + firefox with youtube and facebook - to jack up the memory usage), switch between them, and see how it response switching different tasks.
- nickpsecurity 7mo agoThanks for the critiques and the tips. I might try that in future testing.
- 7mo ago
- Someone1234 7mo agoWindows 11's 4 GB minimum is dishonest. You cannot reasonably run it on that little, it is far too bloated at this point. Even LTSC benefits from 6 GB, and that is substantially cut-down compared to retail/enterprise. I'd say Windows 11's real minimal is 8 GB in 2026, with the recommended being 16 GB. PS - And even at 8 GB, it hits 100% usage and pages under moderate load or e.g. Windows Update running in the background.
- bjackman 7mo agoThe article itself acknowledges that the headline is bullshit: > The change isn't about the core operating system becoming resource-hungry. Instead, it reflects the way people use computers today—multiple browser tabs, web apps, and multitasking workflows Basically the change reflects the fact that, at this level of analysis (how much RAM do I need in my consumer PC), the OS is irrelevant these days. If you use a web browser then that will dominate your resource requirements and there's nothing Linux can do about that.
- crimsonnoodle58 7mo agoExactly. The headline is clickbait. It doesn't matter how efficient your kernel or DE is if users expect to be able to load bloated websites in Chrome.
- dwedge 7mo agoThe headline is clickbait and the acknowledgement is LLM
- SV_BubbleTime 7mo agoI also feel bad for human em dash fans…
- dwedge 7mo agoIt isn't about the X emdash it's about the Y It's slightly off from llm content but reads like someone touched it up afterwards
- whatevaa 7mo agoWin11 barely works with 4GB. Like, you can have a browser with youtube on and that's it, 90%+ memory usage. I know because that is one of my media PC (instead of smart tv). Can't move to Linux because it's Intel Atom and Intel P-state driver for that is borked, never fixed.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- oreally 7mo agoToday's browsers tend to be huge memory hogs too. Software's attitude of "there's always more memory" is coming back to bite them as prices of ram increase.
- senfiaj 7mo agoIMHO, browsers might prioritize execution speed somewhat more than memory. There is the Pareto tradeoff principle where it's unlikely to optimize all the parameters - if you optimize one, you are likely to sacrifice others. Also more memory consumption (unlike CPU) doesn't decrease power efficiency that much, so, more memory might even help with that by reducing CPU usage with caching.
- shevy-java 7mo agoLinux needs to go back to engineering again.
- quinndupont 7mo agoUbuntu is the issue.
- sooryathejas88 7mo agoAgree
- dvratil 7mo ago[dead]
- groundzeros2015 7mo agoBut we already know Ubuntu is the “worst” (most like modern windows, setup for media consumption, etc). You can install Debian and it gives you all that you are familiar with from Ubuntu.
- estimator7292 7mo agoLast time I touched an Ubuntu system, I had to diagnose why the machine suddenly had no available disk space. 1.5TB in /var/log All from the Firefox snap package complaining every millisecond about some trivial Snap permission. I'm glad I chose an OS without goddamn Snap. It's been unadulterated pain every time I've ever interacted with it.
- anthk 7mo agoTrisquel 12 Mate -codenamed Ecne- with the Xanmod kernel to cover propietary drivers, that's a more libre start than Ubuntu. If everything works with the libre kernel, you can toss the Xanmod kernel in the spot.
- jgrowl 7mo agoYES! Snap drove me to debian sid and haven't looked back. Snap is probably fine, but don't force me to use it.
- lokinorkle 7mo agoSwitched to SuSE a few years ago, still love it
- senfiaj 7mo agoFrom my understanding this is an official statement, not a benchmark result. > The change isn't about the core operating system becoming resource-hungry. Instead, it reflects the way people use computers today—multiple browser tabs, web apps, and multitasking workflows, all of which demand additional memory. So it is more about the 3rd party software instead of OS or desktop environment. Actually, nowadays it's recommended to have 8+ GB of RAM, regardless of OS. I just checked the memory usage on Ubuntu 24.04 LTS after closing all the browser tabs. It's about 2GB of 16GB total RAM. 26.04 LTS might have higher RAM usage but it seems unlikely that it will get anywhere close to 6GB.
- Lerc 7mo agoI know 2GB isn't very heavy in OS terms these days, but it's still enough to hold nearly 350 uncompressed 1080p 24-bit images. There's rather a lot of information in a single uncompressed 1080p image. I can't help but wonder what it all gets used to for.
- adgjlsfhk1 7mo agowell to start, you likely have 2 screen size buffers for current and next frame. The primary code portion is drivers since the modern expectation is that you can plug in pretty much anything and have it work automatically.
- Lerc 7mo agoHow often do you plug in a new device without a flurry of disk activity occurring?
- senfiaj 7mo agoI also believe that this memory usage might be decreased significantly, but I don't know how much (and how much is worth it). Some RAM usage might be useful, such as caching or for things related with graphics. Some is a cumulative bloat in applications caused by not caring much or duplication of used libraries. But I remember in 2016 Fedora Gnome consumed about 1.6GB of RAM on my PC with 2GB of RAM a decade ago. Considering that after a decade the standard Ubuntu Gnome consumes only 400MB more RAM and also that my new laptop has 16GB of RAM (the system might use more RAM when more RAM is installed), I think the increase is not that bad for a decade. I thought it would be much worse.
- gchamonlive 7mo agoWith arch+hyprland I hit 5GiB for a zen browser instance with 15+ tabs and a kitty instance with 15+ windows across 5 tabs, with codex and vim running. If ram is a problem there's always alternatives. The impediment is always having to rethink your workflow or adopting someone else's opinion.
- a155 7mo agoMaybe if FOSS was less focused on reverse engineering proprietary technology they could make products people LIKE. I say this as someone who learned about firmware because of several listeners and one group having the aim of reverse engineering my new Apple ecosystem that is now falling apart after signal traps. My crime was working for an ISP and the media, but I reported on Scienos not techbros. Yawn. I knew they were fucking with my virtual memory cause theirs sucks, the partition schemes on this Mac mini were ridiculous and the helpers weren’t stealing my information.
- opengrass 7mo agoI changed to devuan, now it uses 75 MB ram on idle.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7mo agoIncluding GUI? (And if so, what desktop/wm?)
- opengrass 7mo agoOpenbox
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- dombiscoff 7mo agoWhy is this here? Extreme clickbait for those without tech literacy
- pharrington 7mo agoFat chance, Satya!
- orliesaurus 7mo agoHow much RAM does Omarchy use? Anyone running the OS after the media hyped it a couple of months back?
- tuetuopay 7mo agoIt's Arch based, with (iirc) Hyperland as it's "DE", so really not much memory I'd guess. My desktop runs Arch with Sway (so quite close), three monitors, and uses ~400MB ram after boot. Most of it are the framebuffers. All the rest is eaten by Firefox, rust-analyzer and qemu.
- laweijfmvo 7mo ago> Linux's advantage is slowly shrinking Ubuntu is not Linux. Also, would love to see Windows running on 4GB.
- reilly3000 7mo ago> Linux's advantage is slowly shrinking This is garbage writing. Linux’s advantages are numerous and growing. Ubuntu ≠ Linux. WRT RAM requirements, Win 11’s 4GB requirement isn’t viable for daily use and won’t represent any practical machine configuration that has the requisite TPM 2 module. On the other side, the Linux ecosystem offers a wide variety of minimal distributions that can run on ancient hardware. Maybe I’m just grouchy today but I would flag this content if sloppy MS PR was a valid reason.
- listless 7mo agoI agree. And even on Ubuntu, the performance vs same specs on Windows is ridiculously better. Apps are still a huge gap on Linux, but as an OS, I choose it every time over Windows and MacOS.
- osigurdson 7mo agoAgree. I'm able to do development, run multiple containerized services (including Postgres, NATS, etc), have 10 browser tabs open, all on an 8 GiB laptop running Arch. I have a desktop with 64GiB as well but realized there is no point using it most of the time.
- leni536 7mo agoFWIW I find even KDE plasma on wayland perfectly viable on a 4 GiB budget notebook. Windows runs horribly on the same hardware.
- jasomill 7mo agoYes, and to the the extent that you can do the same thing with Windows, it tends to be unsupported (field stripping desktop Windows to its core) or not viable ([legally] using embedded or server versions of Windows as desktop OSes).
- duckmysick 7mo agoFor comparison, here are the official hardware recommendations for Debian: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch03s04.en.html https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch03s04.en.html "With Desktop" has 1GB minimum and 2GB recommended - along with Pentium 4, 1GHz cpu.
- NekkoDroid 7mo ago> "With Desktop" has 1GB minimum and 2GB recommended - along with Pentium 4, 1GHz cpu. This seems like a recommendation to just really get to the desktop itself + maybe some light usage. Anything more than that and the "recommendation" is fairly useless with the memory hog of apps that are commonly used.
- fxj 7mo agoGod I miss openstep and CDE. It needs 16MB RAM (yes MB!) and together with a lighweight firefox clone you get everything you need. Eye candy is nice to have but not at that cost.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7mo ago> I miss openstep and CDE Why miss things that are still around? I dunno how close GNUstep is, but the original CDE is still here, open source and ported to most unix-likes.
- wrxd 7mo agoThe framing of the article is very odd. It says that Ubuntu increase the requirements not because of the OS itself but to have a better user experience when people have many browser tabs opened. Then it compares to Windows which has lower nominal requirements but higher requirements in practice to get a passable user experience.
- TacticalCoder 7mo agoI had a machine (an AMD 3700X with 32 GB of RAM and a fast NVMe SSD) on which I used to run Debian. Then about 2.5 years ago I bought a new one and gave my wife the 3700X: I figured out she'd be more at ease so I installed Ubuntu on it. I couldn't understand why everything was that slow compared to Debian and didn't want to bother looking into it so... After a few weeks: got rid of Ubuntu, installed her Debian. A simple "IceWM" WM (I use the tiling "Awesome WM" but that's too radical for my wife) and she loves it. She basically manages her two SMEs entirely from a browser: Chromium or Firefox (but a fork of Firefox would do too). It works so well since years now that for her latest hire she asked me to set her with the same config. So she's now got one employee on a Debian machine with the IceWM WM. Other machines are still on Windows but the plan is to only keep one Windows (just in case) and move the other machines to Debian too. Unattended upgrades, a trivial firewall "everything OUT or IN but related/established allowed" and that's it.
- jgrowl 7mo agoI had used ubuntu back in the day, and when I came back to linux a bit ago I immediately installed it again. I don't remember all of my frustrations, but I remember having a lot of trouble with snap. Specifically, it really annoyed me that the default install of firefox was the snap version instead of native. I want that to be an opt-in kind of thing. I found that flatpak just worked better anyway. I almost tried making the switch to arch, but I've been pretty happy running debian sid (unstable) since. The debian installer is just more friendly to me for getting encrypted drives and partitions set up how I want. It's not for everyone, but I like the structured rolling updates of sid and having access to the debian ecosystem too much to switch to something else at this point. I use sway with a radeon card for my primary and have a secondary nvidia card for games and AI stuff. It has its warts, but I love my debian+sway setup
- TheChaplain 7mo agoMany commenters blows up here but you have to see this from the non-informed consumer perspective I think. What I mean is, yes, WE know Win11 barely works with 4GB and WE know that 6gb is quite generous for a Linux machine, but they don't. The general public isn't as informed as we think they are (which is proven by 75 million people last election).
- teo_zero 7mo ago> Canonical isn’t making 6GB memory a hard requirement for Ubuntu 26.04. It will still install on machines that fall below the minimum requirement, but users will have to deal with slower performance. I think we have quite different definition of "minimum requirement", then.
- hnarn 7mo agoI switched to Debian a long time ago for both desktops and servers. For me personally I don’t see what value prop Ubuntu even has anymore, apart from maybe having ZFS in the kernel. Support maybe? I’ve never used it personally so I don’t know if it’s any good, but for any serious shop willing to spend money on support I’d probably go with RHEL anyway.
- antisthenes 7mo agoI don't mind my OS using quite a bit of RAM, as long as UI elements are not drawn with HTML, and don't take as long to render as it would take to download a JPEG on a dial up connection in 1995. Nothing in UI should take longer to draw than the human reaction time (~250ms). Most linux distros I tried pass this snappiness test with flying colors. Windows after Windows 7 don't. Besides, Ubuntu is just 1 distro. There will always be alternatives on Linux for lower resource usage.
- chulcoop 7mo agoI have the state of the art Windows 11 Canary Version 29560.1000 (Beta) version running on a PC with 4GB of RAM which is not even officially supported. Ironically Microsoft themselves overrode their own requirements for me as I was one of the volunteers from the Windows 10 Dev Channel days as they wanted those who helped them create Windows 11 see the final result as a "thank you" even though the hardware was not officially good enough. I don't know how they have done it but with the latest updates to Windows 11 (In the Canary Channel, Optional 29000 series) it is VERY fast in Chrome, even on a PC with just 4GB Ram. So all those mocking and laughing say you might just get a window up haven't a clue what they are talking about. It WAS terrible but now it is much much better. I don't know how they have done it but they have. It might be due to Microsoft's aim to rewrite the kernel in RUST and other things.