4 ms·

I noticed that as well. I run Ubuntu, which could be part of it (although that's not to say Ubuntu's not a little bloated as well). Just to test this, I opene

by Jebdm 18y ago

I noticed that as well. I run Ubuntu, which could be part of it (although that's not to say Ubuntu's not a little bloated as well). Just to test this, I opened up every program that I could think of which I use on a regular basis: - Firefox, with 20 tabs - Skype - Pidgin - Three terminal windows, running Python, vim, and CherryPy - Songbird - GIMP with a photo loaded - Two OpenOffice Writer files - Geany (a text editor) with nine tabs - Nautilus - Three large PDFs (books) using Evince Document Viewer - System Monitor (not much) And I'm only at 1.2 GB! (No swap, out of 2 GB total.) I rarely have all of these programs open at once, either. While I agree with his point in general, it might be overall more effective to avoid relying on apps as bloated as Visual Studio. Then, you can save some of the money on computer upgrades and avoid any negatives that might be associated with developing on a high-end computer. (Of course, I'm a moron for suggesting that there might be any.)

mkuhn 18y ago
I agree with you that using less bloated software could be an option but for some it just isn't an option and they are bound to use (at least some of) the bloated software because of the platform they are developing for or other dependencies... I think what we can take from the article is that companies bound to use such software have to invest a bit more for their hardware, and to be honest, the costs for the additional RAM probably are pretty negligible compared to the licensing costs for the "bloated software". Of course 8 GB is a pretty high number but it doesn't come with that high a price anymore.
- Jebdm 18y ago
  You're right, of course. But there are a lot of people who use this kind of software that don't actually need to, and who would probably be better off using other options. Also, I don't think that licensing costs hurt my point; by using free software, they could save on that money as well.

by Jebdm 18y ago

mkuhn 18y ago

I agree with you that using less bloated software could be an option but for some it just isn't an option and they are bound to use (at least some of) the bloated software because of the platform they are developing for or other dependencies... I think what we can take from the article is that companies bound to use such software have to invest a bit more for their hardware, and to be honest, the costs for the additional RAM probably are pretty negligible compared to the licensing costs for the "bloated software". Of course 8 GB is a pretty high number but it doesn't come with that high a price anymore.

Jebdm 18y ago
You're right, of course. But there are a lot of people who use this kind of software that don't actually need to, and who would probably be better off using other options. Also, I don't think that licensing costs hurt my point; by using free software, they could save on that money as well.