3 ms·
Very few users care about how much RAM their media player uses. The practical difference between 370MB and 100MB is basically nil for any normal workload. It af
by asdfasgasdgasdg 3mo ago
Very few users care about how much RAM their media player uses. The practical difference between 370MB and 100MB is basically nil for any normal workload. It affects nothing but how many unlikely-to-be-used files fit in the page cache.
- hulitu 3mo ago> Very few users care about how much RAM their media player uses Famous last words. The price of RAM skyrocketed in the last months. The users will care.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3mo agoNow multiply that opinion by every application on your computer. Including the start bar and notepad.exe.
- ethbr1 3mo agoThere's a special case argument to be made in favor of ignoring media player resource consumption, given the maximum number of ears and eyes per human. I expect there's someone out there who tiles 10 instances of simultaneously playing audio/visual media, but that's not most of us.
- Timon3 3mo agoComputers can execute multiple different programs at the same time, so users are able to run a media player while their main focus is on a different window, tile, monitor or whatever else. Given that 8GB machines are still widely in use (and will get even more common over the next years), 250MB of extra RAM use is a pretty huge portion of user's available RAM pool, so this is quite a big change.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 3mo agoI normally don't have notepad.exe or the windows media player open, so it's irrelevant. Chrome, clangd, rustc, etc. are all that matter. Optimizing anything else fails the pareto principle. I definitely do not want Microsoft paying its engineers to optimize windows media player memory usage.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3mo agoI don’t want a trillion dollar investment in ram reduction, but the fist 80% of optimisation will be trivially achieved. Microsoft have a conflict of interest given they also sell surface devices where pushing people to the more expensive models is beneficial, while also probably benefiting when other hardware manufacturers benefit too.
- GeorgeWBasic 3mo agoHave you heard that there's a RAM shortage?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 3mo agoDo you have telemetry about how often systems are overcommitted due to Windows Media Player memory usage? I'll bet Microsoft does.
- fhn 3mo agoAnd Microsoft has incentive to force users to upgrade because their computers need more RAM, disk, and CPU
- reaperducer 3mo agoDo you have telemetry about how often systems are overcommitted due to Windows Media Player memory usage? I'll bet Microsoft does. Considering the way Microsoft's product line is these days, I have a hard time believing its terabytes of "telemetry" go anywhere but the Windows equivalent of /dev/null.
- promano 3mo agoI'd bet the kind of people who care about the RAM usage of their media player haven't used Windows Media Player in a decade and disable as much telemetry as they can.
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 3mo ago[flagged]
- GeorgeWBasic 3mo agoNope, a comment that flippant about wasting RAM use deserves that snark. It's always been bad to do it, and it's even worse nowadays.
- LtWorf 3mo ago
- Tanoc 3mo agoA problem in isolation this is not, however. Large portions of Windows now have this same bloat in terms of executable filesize, runtime needed for basic functions, and RAM usage. Windows Media Player by itself might not be an issue, but it's part of a trend that now affects Explorer, Desktop Window Manager, and a bunch of other core components to the operating system.
- port11 3mo agoIf all apps are developed with the same mindset, all of them would consume much more memory. Does the average user have a 3x buffer just in case? I doubt the median-ish 8GB is enough these days.