• Melody Fwygon@lemmy.oneEnglish
    11·
    8 months ago

    Now snap some pics of this kitty laying in different places all over this couch; you now have a new meme: Address Space Layout Randomization.

  • umbraroze@lemmy.world
    7·
    8 months ago

    About 10 years ago I was like “FINE, clearly 512MB of memory isn’t enough to avoid swapping hell, I’ll get 1 GB of extra memory.” …and that was that!

    These days I’m like “4 GB on a single board computer? Oh that’s fine. You may need that much to run a browser. And who’s going to run a browser regularly on a SBC? …oh I’ve done it a lot of times and it’s… fine.”

    The thing I learned is that you can run a whole bunch of SHIT HOT server software on a system with less than a gigabyte of memory. The moment you run a web browser? FUCK ALL THAT.

    And that’s basically what I found out long ago. I had a laptop that had like 32 megs of memory. Could be a perfectly productive person with that. Emacs. Darcs. SSH over a weird USB Wi-Fi dongle. But running a web browser? Can’t do Firefox. Opera kinda worked. Wouldn’t work nowadays, no. But Emacs probably still would.

    • kevincox@lemmy.ml
      6·
      8 months ago

      It really depends on the quality of software you are running? A SMTP, IMAP, Mumble, Photoprism, Jellyfin, bittorrent, Tor, Subsonic compatible server, who even remembers what else? Fine. One small Minecraft world? Boom you’re dead.

      • refalo@programming.dev
        1·
        8 months ago

        horrible take IMO. firefox is using 12GB for me right now, but you have no idea how many or what kind of tabs either of us have, which makes all the difference to the point your comment has no value whatsoever.

        • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
          2·
          8 months ago

          I’m not the person you responded to, but I can say that it’s a perfectly fine take. My personal experience and the commonly voiced opinions about both browsers supports this take.

          Unless you’re using 5 tabs max at a time, my personal experience is that Firefox is more than an order of magnitude more memory efficient than Chrome when dealing with long-lived sessions with the same number of tabs (dozens up to thousands).

          I keep hundreds of tabs open in Firefox on my personal machine (with 16 GB of RAM) and it’s almost never consuming the most memory on my system.

          Policy prohibits me running Firefox on my work computer, so I have to use Chrome. Even with much more memory (both on 32 GB and 64 GB machines) and far fewer tabs (20-30 at most vs 200-300), Chrome often ends up taking up far too much memory + having a substantial performance drop, and I have to to through and prune the tabs I don’t need right now, bookmark things that can be done later, etc…

          Also, see https://www.techspot.com/news/102871-zero-regrets-firefox-power-user-kept-7500-tabs.html - I’ve never seen anything similar for Chrome and wasn’t able to find anything.

        • puppy@lemmy.world
          0·
          8 months ago

          How come it has no value? I used to run Chrome but now I run Firefox. My browsing habits have not changed yet the memory consumption has greatly improved. It may not have any value to you but it certainly was a valuable experience for me and I made the comment hoping that it might find someone who is in the same situation as I was. I’ve got nothing to prove and nothing to gain. Anyone may run their own experiment.

  • BCsven@lemmy.ca
    4·
    8 months ago

    My 2010 arm board with 256MB ram running openmediavault and minidlna for music streaming. Still lots of RAM left.

  • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
    4·
    8 months ago

    You’ve clearly never lived with a cat. Your metaphor is crushed by the Kitty Expansion Theory: No piece of furniture is large enough for a cat and any other additional being.

  • teft@lemmy.world
    3·
    8 months ago

    Just like the human eye can only register 60fps and no more, your computer can only register 4gb of RAM and no more. Anything more than that is just marketing.

    Fucking /S since you clowns can’t tell.

    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
      1·
      8 months ago

      Jokes on you, because i looked into this once. I don’t know the exact ms the light-sensitive rods in human eyes need to refresh the chemical anymore but it resulted in about 70 fps, so about 13 ms i guess (the color-sensitive cones are far slower). But psycho-optical effects can drive that number up to 100 fps in LCD displays. Though it looks like you can train yourself with certain computer tasks to follow movements with your eye, being far more sensible to flickering.

      • iopq@lemmy.world
        1·
        8 months ago

        It’s not about training, eye tracking is just that much more sensitive to pixels jumping

        You can immediately see choppy movement when you look around in a 1st person view game. Or if it’s an RTS you can see the trail behind your mouse anyway

        I can see this choppiness at 280 FPS. The only way to get rid of it is to turn on strobing, but that comes with double images at certain parts of the screen

        Just give me a 480 FPS OLED with black frame insertion already, FFS

        • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
          2·
          8 months ago

          Well, i do not follow movements (jump to the target) with my eyes and see no difference between 30 and 60 FPS, run comfortably Ark Survival on my iGPU at 20 FPS. And i’m still pretty good in shooters.

          Yeah, it’s bad that our current tech stack doesn’t allow to just change image where change happens.

      • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
        1·
        8 months ago

        According to this study, the eye can see a difference as high as 500 fps. While this is a specific scenario, it’s a scenario that could possibly happen in a video game, so I guess it means we can go to around 500 hz monitors before it becomes too much or unnessessary.

    • TheRedSpade@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 months ago

      This is only true if you’re still using a 32 bit cpu, which almost nobody is. 64 bit cpus can use up to 16 million TB of RAM.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      8 months ago

      That’s not sarcasm, it’s misinformation. Not surprising that people downvoted you even though it was just a joke.

      • starman@programming.devEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        I don’t think that somebody actually read that computers can’t register more then 4GiB of RAM and then thought

        That’s totally true, because u/teft said it is

    • CafecitoHippo@lemm.eeEnglish
      5·
      8 months ago

      I genuinely don’t know how people are having their web browser use so much ram. How many tabs do you have open? Even at work where I run a commercial loan origination system and our core customer system in a web browser, at most I’ll have 15-20 tabs open. I don’t know how people are having dozens and dozens of tabs open that they’re using 64 gb of RAM.

      • jaschen@lemm.ee
        1·
        8 months ago

        In my case, along with using my laptop as a regular PC, I also use this as my work computer. I contract for multiple companies and each window has tabs for each web software for every company, organized by consolidated tabs. So Google analytics, Crazyegg, tableau, and docs, calendar, etc. I also do web testing and each tab has tests.

        I find that Edge does a better job at memory management so it’s now my primary and I test on Chrome.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    2·
    8 months ago

    If that picture was of a Windows installation, Windows would be a Sumo Wrestler instead of a kitten.

    • judas@lemmy.ca
      0·
      8 months ago

      I use both Fedora (daily driver) and Windows 11 Pro (gaming), and Windows doesn’t use much more RAM honestly. Fedora uses currently 10.5 GB of RAM with Firefox, Spotify, Plex, and Telegram running (looks like a couple of YouTube tabs in Firefox are having a party here with 1 GB of used RAM for three tabs…), and Windows is typically only 1-2 GB above this with the same type of usage. I have never maxed out my 32 GB of RAM on either OSs.

      • old_machine_breaking_apart@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        1·
        8 months ago

        You have a lot of ram, linux will try to use most of it, it’s a normal thing. There’s a huge difference from using a large amount of ram when available to NEEDING that amount to run.Try installing both OSes on a machine with 4gb, and see the difference between them. One will be usable, while the other will have a poor performance. You can even push it harder with a 1gb machine. Linux will provide a system with basic functionality, while windows will be unusable.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      0·
      8 months ago

      I have a laptop that windows is frozen on and won’t load. How to I install Linux on the laptop? Anyway to wipe hard drive without loading windows?