you don't need more 4GB of RAM

The extra space is for two Electron apps of your choice.

Let’s start with one and see how it goes.

discord and microsoft teams 😍

You picked two of the crappiest apps ever.

Teams in browser is okay

Just install Chrome or Firefox. Problem solved.

weak. compile them

I compile them in swap and swap is of course Google Drive

Yup I max out 32GB building librewolf from source

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.

Caching do indeed be like.

The kitty expansion theory is incomplete, any piece of furniture is large enough for both a cat and an additional being provided the additional being was there first

My cat would just extend perpendicular to the length of my bed so i have enough space to decide to sit on one of the two remaining sides of the bed.

Exactly. That kitty encompasses and rules over aaaalllll that couch. Surfaces and interior volume (as soon as he discovers it). No room for anybody else. Just ask him.

The other 28GB is for running chrome

One of the reasons I use Firefox.

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.

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.

I use Waterfox and it never uses anything near that.

but you have no idea how many or what kind of tabs either of us have,

Can’t speak for you but I certainly do have an idea of how many and what kind of tabs I have and how many and what kind of tabs I used to have in Chrome.

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.

In my experience of switching from Chrome to Firefox in the last year thanks to Lemmy, I have to say that using FF for work comes with all sorts of performance issues.

Then again, my specific use case includes having ~10 windows open at ~20 tabs each, sometimes even more. Definitely pushing the limits of the browser lol

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.

Human eye can’t see more than 1080p anyway, so what’s the point

It doesn’t matter honestly, everyone knows humans can’t see screens at all

It honestly doesn’t matter, reality only exists in your imagination anyway.

Their vision is based on movement.

Human eye can’t see more than 8-bit colors anyway, so what’s the point

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.

Does that refresh take place across the entire eye simultaneously or is each rod and/or cone doing its own thing?

Are your eyeballs progressive scan or interlaced, son?

There’s a neuron layer trimming data down to squeeze it through the optical nerve, so… no clue.

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.

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

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.

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.

Sorry I forgot to put my giant /s.

With PAE, a 32 bit CPU can also use more, but each process is still limited to 4GiB

This is only true if you’re still using a 32 bit cpu

Bank switching to “fake” the ability to access more address space was a big thing in the 80s…so it’s technically possible to access addresses that are wider than the address bus by dividing it up into portions that it can see.

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

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

It certainly used to be true, in the era of 32 bit computers.

That’s what makes it a joke. Does anyone here unironcally think the human eye can only see 60 fps or that more than 4 gigs of ram is just marketing?

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

LemmyMemes: Memes
LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts

Community rules

Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
Be civil
Post Linux-related content
No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

you don't need more 4GB of RAM(lemmy.dbzer0.com)

linuxmemes

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world

Community stats

Community moderators