Remember when Windows 7 was released and the Linux community laughed at the 500mb of memory usage it used?
Now Xubuntu uses just under it on boot, and it's considered a "lightweight" distro, while having infinitely less bells and whistles.
What went wrong?
I don't remember windows 7 taking less than 2 gigabytes. Even Vista took about that much. Unless you mean the realllly shitty netbook versions.
Nearly ten years have past.
MUH BLOAT
IMMA CODELET GIUSE
DURRRR
>>>/g/
I thought /g/ was the place where they just ran windows / python / chrome unironically not giving a shit about bloat. I just opened it up to check. Its all phone threads and headphones.
fuck them, kick their nuts
Those are GNUts faggot.
I see linus and m$ pajeet. And no, they would not have a penguin.
I remember that conference. I walked in during the Microsoft talk and gorged myself on their complementary food, before walking out again and talking to the FSF guys.
Some years passed and normally changed. How much does Windows 10 use?
I once went to an Office XP presentation for the ice cream pizza, and rollercoasters.
< fitting in 500MB
wew lad try 4GB.
So does nobody here actually understand the concept of OS SWAP/paging?
The OS is going to adjust its memory usage depending on what's available. So if you have 4GBs of RAM Windows 7 is going to try and use at least a fraction of that to keep things running smooth and avoid paging to the drive until absolutely necessary. Same with GNU/Linux. The minimum memory an OS needs is enough to fit all loaded device drivers and the kernel. That's it. everything else can exist in SWAP if it has to.
Enjoy your hard disk being thrashed to hell and back with that attitude.
My point is that the amount of RAM an OS uses depends greatly on how much is available. Hence why people often have different RAM usages with identical software setups
Still, keeping memory usage as low as possible when developing applications is good practice. Even if you have 900 niggabytes of RAM, using all of that for a simple photo viewer or text editor is retarded.
Linux attracted normie userbase.
sigh...SWAP is not memory. Its SWAP ie. It literally SWAPs out memory pages between memory and hard disk which means that the pages in SWAP are unusable until SWAPed back which is a massive performance drain on a machine. The ideal machine never has to SWAP and it should be a sign of being overloaded if it occurs.
Who said xubuntu was lightweight? Maybe compared to the unity, gnome, KDE forks
SWAP is typically shorthand for the SWAP file itself. But you know things congratulations wow so knowledgeable.
That's not always the case. There are many programs that would just like to use more memory than what can ever be practically available. Remember, most cheaper consumer machines cannot address more than 8GBs of RAM do to chipset limits. And 32-bit machines cannot handle more than 4GBs generally. There are programs that can, even within reason, greatly exceed this. Especially things like scientific applications or muh games!.
I don't think memory becomes an issue until your kernel or device drivers need swap space. Then something has to change. But as long as the kernel and device drivers can stay resident in memory, its fine
But how is that wrong all of a sudden? Wasn't an everlasting Year of the Linux Desktop (tm) the goal? Now that (according to some[who? citation needed] at least) it is there, it's all like "hurr it's anudda eternal september".
That's why in the olden days it was recommended to have a swap partition/file anywhere between 1.5 and 3 times physical RAM?
You nerds always like to exaggerate.
Wat. 32-bit XP will use about this much (or slightly less, depending on the configuration) if your system has ample RAM for that OS (i.e. a few gigs) and you have a handful of smallish third-party programs/services that autostart and stay in memory. In the case of Vista/7 it's about twice as much.
This is bullshit. x86 CPUs had PAE for ages.
Looks like a relatively freshly installed OS which probably has no additional stuff loaded in memory beyond the default (also its memory footprint might have been explicitly trimmed down by disabling nonessential background processes). It's likely the 32-bit version too which by nature has a smaller footprint. Try again with a 64-bit installation that has been used for at least a few week and been made comfy with additional drivers and other software (some of which autostarts services and other background processes) and it surely will be at least about a gigabyte or somesuch.
True. But the goalpost was never always on this part of the field
Fucking hell. Am I the only one here old enough to remember that Windows 98 refused to work (bluescreen on startup) with 512MB or more memory installed?
Now I feel nostalgic it was the last Windows version I used before going all-linux, too
You're looking at the wrong field, then. You said "machines", not "Windows".
I also said "generally" but I guess not everyone can be a functional human being without autism
It's 64-bit Ultimate with all latest security updates installed. Screenshot taken shortly after boot. I installed it a couple of weeks ago and use it primarily to watch livestreams. Aero themes are disabled which probably saves a few hundred megabytes.
Edit system.ini and you can increase that to something like 1.5GB minus your VRAM
It's not 2007 anymore. In 2007 1 GB of RAM was a lot and PCs with 2 or 3 GB of RAM where top of the line.
Right now the average is 4 GB on laptops and 8 in desktops. 16 GB and up are common among "tech enthusiasts."
So yeah, 500 MB when you compare it to Windows 10 and Mac OS. Technology goes forward and what seems like a lot today will be the bare minimum in ten years.
nah, my winXP used 120mb on 4GB of RAM back then. It was amusing that firefox 4 could take up more memory than the OS.
Time to buy a new komputah bruh. Although you can't escape from Intel ME botnet, they were going to fuck your shit up with a nasty remote zero day if you tried to do some bullshit.
I once went to YouTube for a... thing. You probably saw it in the news.
Yeah, I know. The fact that you needed such mods alone speaks volumes.
Windows 10 uses a little more than 1 gigabyte when idle
This is LTSB as trimmed down as you can get it.
Home without any changes on fresh install can get up to 2 - 3 GB it's fucking ridiculous
stretch +xfce
No, you balance it against performance. Garbage collection does need to happen, but constantly allocating and freeing memory autistically because you want to minimize occupancy is a no-no too. But if you ask me, I'd rather have a bloated IS that runs fast than a small OS that runs like molasses. Memory is cheap, time isn't.
...
I went to a Windows 8 presentation. They had beer and food which was the only interesting shit.
Stop using a Ubuntu based distro because it's not getting any better.
What are you talking about? my gnu/linux keeps as light as it was. don't mistake freedom from your brainless skull
>Garbage collection does need to happen
No??
Go back to your Microsoft in-house shitting board, pajeets.
ubuntu started shipping a lot of bloat.
Stop using distros that advertise as user-friendly and attempt to be windows.
yeah, right
Don't worry we still laugh at the 500mb usage. The bad part isn't that the system uses 500mb, its the fact that most of those processes responsible for that memory usage does fuck all. If it was used by useful stuff than its fair, but lets be honest most of it is either botnet or shitty hacks trying to keep NT alive.
That's why op mentioned on boot.
I remember a /g/ de-bloating guide for Windows 7 that after turning of most of visual stuff, windows features and services would then manage to get to 500mb on idle
There's nothing very special about modern systems that requires 500MB-3GB on boot. Old systems worked great on 50MB or less. Now everything's a piece of shit held together with duct tape.
There's no reason we needed to change so drastically from the old operating systems. It's just pointless modern change to cause more problems.
I don't think you realize how old systems really were.
If you use SP1
I have tried SP0 of 32-b vista and had around 300MB idle with all the debloat.
A debloated SP1 windows 7 will idle around 450MB without any background process.
My linux distro idles around 500MB (sometimes less) with all the background processes.
Well I can't even name one of these that either OS has so maybe you should post this to a more appropriate site like macrumors.
Oops, wrong trip again. T_T
"Old systems" cant even load a smartphone photo on your screen or play a youtube video (maybe 320p at best)
OP, you lying cunt.
Win 7 uses like 1.2 GB. 650 minimum if you empty modified page lists (and your hard drive thrashes like crazy trying to read from disk). It eventually climbs back up to ~850.
I don't know what kind of bloat Ubuntu is adding but Xfce on Debian or Arch uses less than 300 MB out of the box.
It's still an Ubuntu-based distro, which pretty much is only good for casual home computing. If it really bothers you that much use something else.
Why is OP such a faggot?
You literally just proved him right.
I am blown away by your non-argument here. Swap is literally just shorthand for swapping memory pages between disk file and/or partition but I think we generally understood what it meant.
Hence why I used the term 'ideal'. The ability to swap to disk is a handy feature that stops a given machine form locking up when it runs out of ram. However, for raw performance, swapping sucks for games or any application that needs to address memory quickly.
Because physical memory was bloody expensive and usually machines of the time were always short but thanks for contributing kid, shows you are paying some attention.
Quite a bit less. My Linux/Openbox system with an xterm open and running a ntpd, crond, and sshd uses 88 (heil!) MiB of RAMalamadingdong.
printers and wifi and kernel security patches and ipc frameworks were all mistakes
That would make sense if there was some sort of benefit gained by using 500mb. It turns out all this new "ultra abstract" software is just flaky JS in a web browser embedded in a program because the developers can't actually how to figure out how to program aside from some 20th generation hand me down how to code tutorial. For example, Discord. I've programmed fully abstract systems that provide a huge safety margin by not letting you access any low level construct (not even machine words for example), and even then it doesn't use nearly 500mb.
It is. /g/ is not usable.
Winblows 10's font redering is really torture on the eyes. Fucking shit.
Why are you soyboy faggots talking about minimalism and taking stupid fucking pictures of your little calculator and your little empty console window on your faggy anime wallpapers? Hooray, you have a theme that puts red text on black instead of black text on red. Great use for that Threadripper.
I love how you all have a thousand CPU and RAM gauges and meters on your background and yet won't write a useful app that features a menubar. You're not actually doing anything with your computers, so what are you measuring that needs such style to measure it?
Don't you know computers come standard with 16GB of RAM now? Shouldn't you be building overpowered software in your bedroom that beats what all of Microsoft worked together to put out in 1995? How the hell are you going to compete with AI?
Look at file managers today, they are simplified to the point of being prehistoric. They don't scale to IT workers with their hair on fire. Look at office suites, every document gets its own window so your screen is as messy as a real desk, when really they should be grouped as projects like Visual Studio. Nobody saves your last "File Open" location and surely nobody knows how to save your window position on the second monitor.
Nobody is doing any heavy lifting or heavy thinking. The state of computing today is a shriveled disgrace. I guess OP wants his RAM back if app developers aren't going to use it for anything tangible. New color theme, yay. Who fucking cares.
Discord has incredibly low memory (nowhere near 500mb) usable compared to similar programs and is also written in Elixir, not JS. You are a retarded LARPer.
Discord uses HTML for the GUI you retard.
We already had this. It's bloated shit bundled with a browser end of discussion.
FUCK OFFU UUC CCK KK O OOFUCK OFFFUCK OFF
Describing it as "flasky JS embedded in a web browser" really misses the behind-the-scenes effort.
It works the same way it does in a web browser. It's just the web app bundled with a browser with some "added functionality" you can't have in a regular browser.
Now fuck off!
What did you expect? This is Zig Forums. Nobody here produces anything of value because they're too busy making carefully picked discussions about the most boring topics imaginable within one of the most fascinating fields of interest in this world.
Only their backend is written in Elixir. Not their client.
Sounds like a challenge.
>use arch unironically
I fucking hate modern technology. This is no better than 1990.
And at the consumer end better hardware has done nothing but allowed for lazier coding.
No new programmers having fun = no new linux code improvements.
The two generations since 90s are all instagrammers, they don't care how their black box runs.
Also common core math.