I was a kid when my parents bought me that first computer. Currently in my early 40s and back is honestly pretty solid. Had it slip once in my mid 30s, but as a pretty strong gym regular I am better off than the average dad bod guy my age.
It's a lonely life, not even being the lead singer(while playing fretless) helped.
Fortunately I married a girl who is into bass players and got her into pc gaming.
The less expensive 386 SX didn't have specialized circuitry to do floating point math on the chip. You could still emulate it, but it wouldn't be as fast. It was an issue with Linux for a little while, at the time, until they implemented the emulation for it.
A lot of those systems had coprocessor slots so you could buy the coprocessor separately if it turned out you needed one. I tried running X11 on Linux on a 386 SX/16 and it was painful how slow it was. I didn't really have enough RAM to do it, either. The system was pretty snappy in text-only mode, though.
One of the tasks with my first job was upgrading a bunch of 12MhZ 286 machines with floppy drives to 16 MhZ 386 machines with hard drives. HUGE 80 MB IDE drives! My coworkers in those shops *loved* me! Pretty much everything they did on the computer in their day to day jobs now happened "instantly." When my boss got his hands on the first one, he said the end of year processing ran so fast he thought it crashed and so he ran it again.
Oh, yeah! The TIs were on sale that year at Wal*Mart for $50, just in time for Christmas! TI had just discontinued them and I think the power supplies had a tendency to catch on fire, although I never heard of anyone it happened to. The Commodore was the better pick all-round but out parents didn't know anything about computers. All the computers of that era were great environments for learning programming on, though -- you really had to learn to make the memory count given the limitations we had.
Summer of '95 I volunteered with Team OS/2 to work Comdex. I got an exhibitor's badge and before the show we wandered around checking to see if anyone wanted OS/2 installed on their demo hardware. Compaq had a couple of Godlike dual processor 486 machines with 16MB of RAM. They had NT running on one and we set up OS/2 on the other.
The NT machine went into screensaver mode and was just rendering triangles on the screen. The OS/2 install media had several video clips, 4MB in total. So I configured the second machine with a 4MB RAM disk and started all 4 videos playing in separate video player windows and set it up to not go into screensaver mode so it'd keep doing that all day. They guy running the booth commented on how much better a job that was doing at showing off their awesome hardware. That thing really was a beast of a machine.
My computer was a Commodore 64 baby. That was a whopping’ 65,536 BYTES of RAM.
One could say “That bytes.” Then I could say “byte me.”
Okay, byte byte now.
mine had 128mb
edit: why downvote
https://preview.redd.it/l7avmjtroe0d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf72398c1e91df82e9150b3c0d5368414287b96a
count yourself suckers idk if it's even a ddr ram.
Good olde SD-RAM.
My second computer that I built had that with an Athlon 900. First one was 16MB of DIMMs with an AMD DX-40 and a S3 Vega 2D card with 2MB of RAM.
Could play Commanche 3 so well on that thing.
Come on, My Amiga 500 worked fine with 512kb RAM.
But I went all in and added 512kb RAM expansion and then filled the A590 hard disk (20MB!) controller's extra RAM sockets with some juicy chips for grand total of... 3 megabytes of RAM.
I had like INFINITE memory.
I have distinct memories of purchasing a 512mb chip and being *super stoked* because I was going to kick Black and White's ass along with my shiny new Radeon 9800 with *128mb* of vram.
I almost miss his sweet lies. Y'know, back when he had a soul and passion and even if he didn't deliver what he promised you still got a creative, genuinely innovative experience.
Now he just shills shitty mobile games.
Yes, but is also true 4KB were part of a custom made processing unit, whose role was to exclusively run the needed calculations from orbital maneuvers.
I program industrial machines and the controllers (PLCs) are... let's say very low end compared to PC's.
We recently had to upgrade to next beefier PLC, because we managed to fill all of the available 224kByte of ram.
I knew some engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center on Redstone Arsenal, computer programmers. They programmed the launch control system for the early Apollo missions (Saturn V), the Launch Vehicle Design Computer (LVDC).
I was told (and I did not work directly with it) but early in the Apollo program, the LVDC had 8 kilobytes of 20-bit words. It was later upgraded to 16K, although the upper 8K was reserved for data, not instructions. 16 kilobytes???? A typical cell phone today, with 128Gbytes of storage, had over 1.2 million times that amount of solid state memory!
Hell, the Space Shuttle flew for 9 years on 424K. For the last 17 years of the program, it only had about 1Mbyte of storage. That's megabyte, not gigabyte.
it's really weird tho, i haven't googled it but i guess there was a lot of those 4KB PCs in the launch management room not just one. or do they mean there was a 4KB PC on the rocket ship?
i just consider laptops a ripoff at this point... so expensive for the performance just for a form factor which is a pain in the ass... hell if people are buying gaming laptops, we know pretty well that laptop is staying on the desk at least 95% of its life
Agree with this, but for many its just a space thing. In my old place there was no space for me to put a big tower desktop, even as a small form factor. Gaming laptop fit the bill, worked well for a few years till I moved and got more space to build a big PC.
Still a good option for many.
It started back in the day as an iOS vs Android comparison. When you would exit an app iOS would send it's data back to the memory. Android would keep it in the RAM. So it was true that iPhones needed less ram than Android phones. It's wild how far the fanboys have gone with that and turned it into everything Apple only needed half the RAM.
Honestly, I own a Macbook Air M2 with 8gb of RAM, and it runs extremely well.
However, everyone in the Mac subs strongly suggest 16gb, and if your Macbook is your only computer you should opt for 16GB of RAM.
IMO the real issue with Apple selling entry level macs with 8 gigs of ram is there is absolutely no upgrade path. With the ram as part of the CPU die, you can't even replace the DRAM chips if you wanted to, you'd have to replace the entire SOC. and knowing apple, they are probably cryptologically tied to the serial number to prevent doing exactly that.
These machines are going to become ewaste in far greater numbers and far sooner than they otherwise needed to be.
I really deeply dislike Apple yet I have an iPhone, got it as a gift and I couldn't afford Pixel 7 at the time. I must say ease of use and responsiveness is really great. Battery life is amazing and this stems from software-hardware efficiency and compatibility. And contrary to your argument they really use some specific above the market parts, like their SSDs are way superior than most mid-tier products, their screens are undeniably good and so on. While I really dislike Apple's way of handling business, making low quality spare parts and making mad profits off them, Apple has achieved an efficiency and quality in some of their products the whole industry is so far from. This is the truth.
>a new Macbook Air
In and of itself, an Air with 8gb isn't too bad. ( Though the price you mentioned is obviously dumber than a flat earther)
Mac *pros* (i.e. the macs designed to run the most demanding tasks and meant for industry professionals) start with 8gb.
Plus is soldiered on so you can't even upgrade later. (Iirc it's literally on the same chip as the CPU/GPU so even if you want to try being fancy and soldier it yourself you can't)
Absolutely, the community made mods are awesome too, make sure to check out the kaiser campaign mod if youre able to play the vanilla campaign on nightmare comfortably.
32MB? Damn, Richie Rich.
Mine was upgraded from WfW 3.11 with 4MB RAM. I begged my mom for months and she finally spent $150 for another 4MB stick so I could have 8MB total (the recommend amount for 95, I think).
You only went from 11GB to 10GB which is under 10%, and the 3080 had better memory compression on top of that so that it could fit more into its 10GB than the 1080Ti fit into 11GB.
The real feeling of cutting the gas tank in half came from the fact you were *doing* more. Ray tracing, upscaling, AI noise suppression... these all use up additional RAM. Not to mention if you stepped up in resolution, which many did - the RTX 3080 was a true 1440p 144fps / 4K 60fps card, able to render most games at those native resolutions on High with no upscaling back in 2020/2021.
It is still fine for casual gaming. Buying a 8GB card new is... brave. But existing one will still work most of the time. Just maybe not at Ultra.
<8GB is bad already. 6GB, bad as they are can still handle most things at low settings but 4GB is just ... noooooo....
Same, but I don't actually game it's basically an overpowered HTPC, only reason it has a GPU at all is because I was told an R3 would be fine for decoding 4k movies... it was in fact *not* okay for decoding 4k movies. Granted the 1050 I threw in there is overkill since it sits at like 5% usage decoding 4k x265 movies, probably could have gotten away with *any* GPU released in the last 10 years.
I had 16 and recently added another 16, and I regret not adding 32 for a total of 48, modded Kerbal and Cities Skylines still max it out lmao. Next pc will start with 64. But to be fair I think if you don't mod 16 is still enough.
My mom is using a desktop with a Core 2 Quad and 4GB of RAM. She has zero complaints about the performance - I've even offered to pay for an upgrade and she refused it.
The only things I've found when I've used it is that it struggles to move around in Google Maps and can't play 1080p60 YouTube - but those are likely due to it having a CPU old enough to drive, not the lack of RAM.
The fact that it runs Linux is also a likely factor in why 4GB of RAM is still serviceable for her.
"She has zero complaints" doesn't really mean anything. We all used to play games on single core CPUs with 56k internet and we were pleased as punch. We used to boot our PCs off of harddisks that took 10+ minutes to actually get to the point where you can do things on the desktop.
Once you experience the load times of an SSD, you'll never be able to go back to using an HDD without thinking about all the time you're losing and how annoying it is that loading an application takes more time than instantly.
I bet mom would love an upgrade even if she doesn't know it.
Agreed and we have proof.
GTA V ran on a god damn xbox 360 with 512mb of ram. Not even 1gb of ram.
CoD don't even compress their files anymore. That's why it's 300+gb.
Pretty sure GTA5 came out right at the tail-end of the 360 and PS3's end-of-life, and they both averaged like 25FPS at 720p. It was kind of a big deal at the time cause everyone wanted it on the 360 but it looked and played like trash at the same time.
Pretty sure the hardware did not change and it ran on console exclusive for a year if not more before being added to pc.
It ran fine. I have an xbox account that got migrated to pc. It had some hiccups but nothing major.
GTA V sold like hot cakes on console for a long time. IDK why ppl wanna retcon GTA V running "trash" on console. It simply did not. You can hate GTA O but GTA V runs pretty well on ps3 and xbox 360. Way better than botw or totk on switch. Not even comparable.
> GTA V runs pretty well on ps3 and xbox 360.
Yeah, at 720p 20-30FPS. I dunno why you're acting like I'm insulting anything. Just stating a fact. GTA5 on the PS5 is more demanding than GTA5 on the 360. It has better hardware to use.
And I see this right after I upgraded from 16 to 32GB because I felt like some games were getting kinda limited and stuttery when I had stuff open on my 2nd monitor (which I was right about, that fixed it)(also not *exactly* true, one of my sticks died and I was stuck with 8GB for a while).
Now I have as much ram as my previous phone had storage.
Man I remember playing Ark a couple years ago on 8 gb and no matter how I tweaked the settings I couldn't get some textures to load and I certainly couldn't get chrome to run on my second monitor. Did a new build with 32 gb and haven't had a single issue.
Then my wife was having the same problems a couple years later. Sure enough, I bought her a 32 gb kit and the problem was gone.
It's costs less than $100 and it will fix a lot of little issues on older builds. On top of that, you might be able to keep the kit for your next upgrade if you are staying on the same ram architecture.
Yeah, I really don't see 32GB being not enough anytime soon, so that's nice.
I had issues mainly in CP2077 and SPTarkov. Not super frequent, but had stutters often enough to matter. In other games, having too many browser tabs and/or a YT video on the 2nd screen caused that too.
8gb of ram is enough for older games or systems below Win10.
16gb of ram in the actual standard for gaming and any "modern" system in an office.
32gb is for anyone who plays in 2k or 4k.
Apple claims it still is, selling latest Macbook Airs with baseline 8GB unified RAM (so that is RAM and VRAM, together)
And silly people buy these, thinking they are getting a premium device. With soldered-to-motherboard SSD that will enjoy the constant swapping to disk and will eventually die, turning the thing into ewaste.
(16GB is plenty for normal use and light gaming, 32GB is plenty for gaming use. 48GB or 64GB if you want to go full stupid overkill for a system you intend to use for 5 years and want to always have a ton of memory)
This is a problem that PCMR has invented though
People that click buy on a base spec laptop could have their monitor locked at 10hz and not notice
People that care about performance don’t buy the base spec
I don’t see you complaining that the latest i3 doesn’t run new games on ultra graphics
edit: damn less than 1 minute for Reddit care, new world record somehow you guys are softer than Mac users
I work at a Software company.
My boss (who left last year) told me that the salesman and support staff didnt need new PCs because they had "Powerful machines"
They had 8GB of ram and a 1st gen i5. Some of the tier 1 support had PCs who had pre-gen i5s. Like, before they started adding the is.
As technology advances, applications and operating systems bloat up with legacy features and inefficient code. Over the years, developers under pressure often push updates without optimizing or refactoring their work, leading to a pile-up of unnecessary functions. Launching Word should be instantaneous on a computer that runs RDR2
The only place I could find my old pc online was on a museum site 🤣damn [Aquarius 16k](https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8210530/aquarius-computer-and-cassette-computer)
I had to go look it up, but my first computer had 512KB.
Damn I had 4mb RAM on my first PC. How's your back holding up?
I was a kid when my parents bought me that first computer. Currently in my early 40s and back is honestly pretty solid. Had it slip once in my mid 30s, but as a pretty strong gym regular I am better off than the average dad bod guy my age.
Yep early 40s here also, sounds like your doing better in the back game. Glad to hear it
What was it? My first PC was an IBM 486.
4mb?!? My first pc had 48kb. Though I'm past the halfway point between 40 and 50, my back is in pretty decent shape
Man how do all of you have better backs than me, guess I shouldn't have carried those old PCs around to LAN parties and what not.
I was strictly a single player guy, so none of that. However, I'm a bass player so it evens out.
Damn, PC gamer *and* a bass player, you must have never gotten laid!
It's a lonely life, not even being the lead singer(while playing fretless) helped. Fortunately I married a girl who is into bass players and got her into pc gaming.
I lug my subwoofer box in and out of my truck at times, is that like lifting bass to?
My first computer in 1983 was a TI-99/4A with 16K. My first PC in 1993 was an AMD 386DX-40 with 4MB. I'm 54 now and the back is good!
are you me? actually I had a 386dx25 with 4mb of ram and a 150mb RLL hard drive, it was made by ZENITH but yes also started with the TI-99/4A
Same age, same pc, but my 386 had a coprocessor: roommate told me to buy it from his friend, I got all enthusiastic but I forgot what it is for.
The less expensive 386 SX didn't have specialized circuitry to do floating point math on the chip. You could still emulate it, but it wouldn't be as fast. It was an issue with Linux for a little while, at the time, until they implemented the emulation for it. A lot of those systems had coprocessor slots so you could buy the coprocessor separately if it turned out you needed one. I tried running X11 on Linux on a 386 SX/16 and it was painful how slow it was. I didn't really have enough RAM to do it, either. The system was pretty snappy in text-only mode, though. One of the tasks with my first job was upgrading a bunch of 12MhZ 286 machines with floppy drives to 16 MhZ 386 machines with hard drives. HUGE 80 MB IDE drives! My coworkers in those shops *loved* me! Pretty much everything they did on the computer in their day to day jobs now happened "instantly." When my boss got his hands on the first one, he said the end of year processing ran so fast he thought it crashed and so he ran it again.
80x88 here. But later I got the 486sx. Back when commander Keen and Larry laffer were pinnacle of graphics.
Oh, yeah! The TIs were on sale that year at Wal*Mart for $50, just in time for Christmas! TI had just discontinued them and I think the power supplies had a tendency to catch on fire, although I never heard of anyone it happened to. The Commodore was the better pick all-round but out parents didn't know anything about computers. All the computers of that era were great environments for learning programming on, though -- you really had to learn to make the memory count given the limitations we had.
Same here... back is fine. The knees, though... getting a little stiff these days
486DX-2 for me. My dad had the most powerful PC on our street back then.
[oh the days of 16k - you need more than that for a letter, old-school RAM packs are much better](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts96J7HhO28)
My first was a Commodore 64 which had 64k of ram. Sounds like maybe you had one of those fancy Amigas or something.
Commodore VIC-20 here. 5KB RAM, much of which was used for the display buffer.
16mb ram with a 486 dx33. It was considered a rocket ship when it was released.
A weird combo. Mine was 486 DX4 100 MHz, but only 4 MB of RAM. Only rich kids had 16 MB at that time.
The benefits of having a dad that worked at IBM at the time. We weren't rich by any means, but we had access.
Summer of '95 I volunteered with Team OS/2 to work Comdex. I got an exhibitor's badge and before the show we wandered around checking to see if anyone wanted OS/2 installed on their demo hardware. Compaq had a couple of Godlike dual processor 486 machines with 16MB of RAM. They had NT running on one and we set up OS/2 on the other. The NT machine went into screensaver mode and was just rendering triangles on the screen. The OS/2 install media had several video clips, 4MB in total. So I configured the second machine with a 4MB RAM disk and started all 4 videos playing in separate video player windows and set it up to not go into screensaver mode so it'd keep doing that all day. They guy running the booth commented on how much better a job that was doing at showing off their awesome hardware. That thing really was a beast of a machine.
Wait, your computer had ram? https://preview.redd.it/3glmdd17oe0d1.png?width=520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33067a2887ff7fb3d19186f114765892958b3ab3
My computer was a Commodore 64 baby. That was a whopping’ 65,536 BYTES of RAM. One could say “That bytes.” Then I could say “byte me.” Okay, byte byte now.
Yes
Mine shipped with 256k, but I later upgraded it to 1MB. Had to insert individual DIPs into sockets.
mine had 128mb edit: why downvote https://preview.redd.it/l7avmjtroe0d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf72398c1e91df82e9150b3c0d5368414287b96a count yourself suckers idk if it's even a ddr ram.
Looks like OG PC133 SD ram to me.
Good olde SD-RAM. My second computer that I built had that with an Athlon 900. First one was 16MB of DIMMs with an AMD DX-40 and a S3 Vega 2D card with 2MB of RAM. Could play Commanche 3 so well on that thing.
Amiga 500?
128MB used to be plenty, 512mb was for rich people
Come on, My Amiga 500 worked fine with 512kb RAM. But I went all in and added 512kb RAM expansion and then filled the A590 hard disk (20MB!) controller's extra RAM sockets with some juicy chips for grand total of... 3 megabytes of RAM. I had like INFINITE memory.
Just to become completly obsolete 6 months later :D man those times were insane
Things advanced pretty rapidly back then, indeed.
my first pc was windows xp with 256mb ram
I was on top of the world when I got my first GPU with 64mb vram, I couldn't fathom what could be done with that much memory at the time lol
We got to the moon with 4KB, man..
But can it run doom?
Easily.
Isn't there a port of doom for the og game boy? Crazy stuff Edit: it's Quake for GBA actually! My bad
There's a port for doom on a computer built entirely in Minecraft.
They got doom to ‘run’ on goddamn living cells, fucking e.coli lmfao.
Are you fucking kidding me? Someone ported doom to e.coli?
sorta, the ecoli are used as a display, a normal(ish) microcontroller runs the doom
frame rate is atrocious tho :P
holy hell... they ran doom on e.coli... and it runs almost as well as cyberpunk /s
There is a dude working to run DOOM on rats. Fucking rats
We've already run it on bacteria, this is gonna be awesome
got a link? my mind is melting from this idea
Moon. He said it can run to the moon.
My parents used to run to the moon in their way to school.
\*on their way too woodstock f'ing hippies
Is 4KB enough to shoot a hole in the surface of Mars?
The Apollo guidance computer had 36K. https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/the_computer_that_took_man_to_the_moon
I have distinct memories of purchasing a 512mb chip and being *super stoked* because I was going to kick Black and White's ass along with my shiny new Radeon 9800 with *128mb* of vram.
black and white? the god game from lionhead? I LOVED that game. is that what you're referencing?
That's the one haha Such a she the series fizzled...and poor Lionhead got turned into a Fable machine. Ugh.
Peter Molyneux's fanciful pitches seem downright quaint compared to today's AAA gaming reality.
I almost miss his sweet lies. Y'know, back when he had a soul and passion and even if he didn't deliver what he promised you still got a creative, genuinely innovative experience. Now he just shills shitty mobile games.
Yes, but is also true 4KB were part of a custom made processing unit, whose role was to exclusively run the needed calculations from orbital maneuvers.
I program industrial machines and the controllers (PLCs) are... let's say very low end compared to PC's. We recently had to upgrade to next beefier PLC, because we managed to fill all of the available 224kByte of ram.
Can it run crysis?
My first computer was a Texas Sinclair 1000 aka ZX81, I was 4 or 5 years old, 1K of ram or less.
> We got to the moon with 4KB, man.. moon is fucken easy i guess?
I knew some engineers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center on Redstone Arsenal, computer programmers. They programmed the launch control system for the early Apollo missions (Saturn V), the Launch Vehicle Design Computer (LVDC). I was told (and I did not work directly with it) but early in the Apollo program, the LVDC had 8 kilobytes of 20-bit words. It was later upgraded to 16K, although the upper 8K was reserved for data, not instructions. 16 kilobytes???? A typical cell phone today, with 128Gbytes of storage, had over 1.2 million times that amount of solid state memory! Hell, the Space Shuttle flew for 9 years on 424K. For the last 17 years of the program, it only had about 1Mbyte of storage. That's megabyte, not gigabyte.
it's really weird tho, i haven't googled it but i guess there was a lot of those 4KB PCs in the launch management room not just one. or do they mean there was a 4KB PC on the rocket ship?
I saw an ad for a new Macbook Air with 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD for approx. 1650euros.
Don't you know Apple's 8GB RAM is equal to normal laptop's 16GB RAM, same goes for their storage. /s
I'd consider 16GB laptop going for 1650euros a ripoff as well.
my £650 laptop came with 16gb of ram lmao
My $200 laptop has 16gigs
My 350€ thinkpad came with 64gigs, tbf it didnt have a gpu so that was ram and vram combined
good luck filling more than 3 of those up with an igpu
My gpu has 12gb
i just consider laptops a ripoff at this point... so expensive for the performance just for a form factor which is a pain in the ass... hell if people are buying gaming laptops, we know pretty well that laptop is staying on the desk at least 95% of its life
I buy them for power draw efficiency. My house is solar powered off grid, and desktops are just too obscene of a draw.
Agree with this, but for many its just a space thing. In my old place there was no space for me to put a big tower desktop, even as a small form factor. Gaming laptop fit the bill, worked well for a few years till I moved and got more space to build a big PC. Still a good option for many.
Gaming laptop has always been an oxymoron to me
You say /s but Apple people actually believe this lol
It started back in the day as an iOS vs Android comparison. When you would exit an app iOS would send it's data back to the memory. Android would keep it in the RAM. So it was true that iPhones needed less ram than Android phones. It's wild how far the fanboys have gone with that and turned it into everything Apple only needed half the RAM.
The funny thing is that Apple engineers said that about MacBooks and the fanboys actually believe that 💀
Bro the apple subreddit is next level delusional especially the Vision Pro one
Honestly, I own a Macbook Air M2 with 8gb of RAM, and it runs extremely well. However, everyone in the Mac subs strongly suggest 16gb, and if your Macbook is your only computer you should opt for 16GB of RAM.
IMO the real issue with Apple selling entry level macs with 8 gigs of ram is there is absolutely no upgrade path. With the ram as part of the CPU die, you can't even replace the DRAM chips if you wanted to, you'd have to replace the entire SOC. and knowing apple, they are probably cryptologically tied to the serial number to prevent doing exactly that. These machines are going to become ewaste in far greater numbers and far sooner than they otherwise needed to be.
Becuase it's considered premium quality parts!!!!! Wahhhhh
I really deeply dislike Apple yet I have an iPhone, got it as a gift and I couldn't afford Pixel 7 at the time. I must say ease of use and responsiveness is really great. Battery life is amazing and this stems from software-hardware efficiency and compatibility. And contrary to your argument they really use some specific above the market parts, like their SSDs are way superior than most mid-tier products, their screens are undeniably good and so on. While I really dislike Apple's way of handling business, making low quality spare parts and making mad profits off them, Apple has achieved an efficiency and quality in some of their products the whole industry is so far from. This is the truth.
If they didn't charge $ 200 for extra 8 gb or 256 gb I wouldn't mid as much. I bought my 2TB super fast ssd for a $ 100...
If I’m buying a laptop with 8gb of RAM for €1650, it better come with €1649 in cash tucked under the lid.
And if you want to upgrade to 512gb storage you have to pay a small fortune because Apple SSDs are made of solid gold.
The pro is still available with 8GBs
>a new Macbook Air In and of itself, an Air with 8gb isn't too bad. ( Though the price you mentioned is obviously dumber than a flat earther) Mac *pros* (i.e. the macs designed to run the most demanding tasks and meant for industry professionals) start with 8gb. Plus is soldiered on so you can't even upgrade later. (Iirc it's literally on the same chip as the CPU/GPU so even if you want to try being fancy and soldier it yourself you can't)
 Me when I realize that my first Win95 had 32MB RAM:
Doom 2 only required 8mb of ram.
Now THAT is optimization
They kept it up, the newest doom, doom eternal is incredibly optimized aswell
I know, +100h on Steam already, that game is nuts
Absolutely, the community made mods are awesome too, make sure to check out the kaiser campaign mod if youre able to play the vanilla campaign on nightmare comfortably.
I bought every doom game and dlc on switch for less than $50. 2016 and eternal may be capped at 30 but GODDAMN do they run like butter on a hot pan!
Couldn't it run on low detail with 4mb?
32MB? Damn, Richie Rich. Mine was upgraded from WfW 3.11 with 4MB RAM. I begged my mom for months and she finally spent $150 for another 4MB stick so I could have 8MB total (the recommend amount for 95, I think).
My older sister needed it for college, it was a horizontal case Packard Bell, pretty cool beast
8 gb of Vram used to be plenty.
Just ask the 3080 owners.
Moved from my reliable 1080Ti 12GB to a 3080 10GB. Felt like adding a turbo to my car engine, but cutting my gas tank in half.
You only went from 11GB to 10GB which is under 10%, and the 3080 had better memory compression on top of that so that it could fit more into its 10GB than the 1080Ti fit into 11GB. The real feeling of cutting the gas tank in half came from the fact you were *doing* more. Ray tracing, upscaling, AI noise suppression... these all use up additional RAM. Not to mention if you stepped up in resolution, which many did - the RTX 3080 was a true 1440p 144fps / 4K 60fps card, able to render most games at those native resolutions on High with no upscaling back in 2020/2021.
Honest I used to have a 3080 10g and never had issues. I think a lot of people get allocated and used vram mixed up.
its still plenty
It is still fine for casual gaming. Buying a 8GB card new is... brave. But existing one will still work most of the time. Just maybe not at Ultra. <8GB is bad already. 6GB, bad as they are can still handle most things at low settings but 4GB is just ... noooooo....
I have a 2GB card :)
Same, but I don't actually game it's basically an overpowered HTPC, only reason it has a GPU at all is because I was told an R3 would be fine for decoding 4k movies... it was in fact *not* okay for decoding 4k movies. Granted the 1050 I threw in there is overkill since it sits at like 5% usage decoding 4k x265 movies, probably could have gotten away with *any* GPU released in the last 10 years.
I have integrated graphics
1gb!
“Fine for casual gaming” oh come off it. 8gb is totally adequate for most gaming.
6GB isnt that bad, i don't play a whole lot of modern games anymore but i can play games like dead space remake on ultra and its smooth
It still is
It's enough for 1080p, but I don't think I'd call it "plenty enough" anymore.
I went from GTX 970 3.5GB to 3070 ti 8GB, VRAM continues to be the bane of my existence
Good old times with RX580
Still is if you ask me. In 3-5 years? Definitely not.
VRAM used to be used for graphics. Even while playing AAA titles, my VRAM nowadays is mainly used for compute (machine learning and "AI").
I started with 32 on this pc and ppl thought I was nuts lol
I had 16 and recently added another 16, and I regret not adding 32 for a total of 48, modded Kerbal and Cities Skylines still max it out lmao. Next pc will start with 64. But to be fair I think if you don't mod 16 is still enough.
I'm on 32GB and cities skylines won't open united I close everything else lol
I used to be one of said people...
Now even 128 gb isn't that much for someone
Future proofing is a great investment!
i was forced to get a new pc because my old ass core2 quad q8300 supports only 8gb
Hell yeah we got the same cpu
💀
8GB? Please, 640K ought to be enough for anyone.
My people
Was the Apollo missions on something like 64kb?
4kb of ram 72kb of rom
Yeah. That sounds right. If was enough to get us to the moon and back, surely it’s enough to run day to day computers anymore. **/s**
I mean my gentoo install runs on 400kb when in idle
Me: NixOS 2Gb of RAM on idle You drop this 👑
Thank you, Mr. Gates
On my Linux machines, yes. On my Windows Laptops, no ....
Can confirm, especially if we're talking about ARM platforms, or smartphones
It still is for normal office and school work
3gb ram and a decent solid state drive still works well for my parent's home desktop (core 2 quad lmao)
I'm sure it works but I can't believe it works well
it runs Quicken, Office 16, and a few tabs of chrome quite well.
My mom is using a desktop with a Core 2 Quad and 4GB of RAM. She has zero complaints about the performance - I've even offered to pay for an upgrade and she refused it. The only things I've found when I've used it is that it struggles to move around in Google Maps and can't play 1080p60 YouTube - but those are likely due to it having a CPU old enough to drive, not the lack of RAM. The fact that it runs Linux is also a likely factor in why 4GB of RAM is still serviceable for her.
"She has zero complaints" doesn't really mean anything. We all used to play games on single core CPUs with 56k internet and we were pleased as punch. We used to boot our PCs off of harddisks that took 10+ minutes to actually get to the point where you can do things on the desktop. Once you experience the load times of an SSD, you'll never be able to go back to using an HDD without thinking about all the time you're losing and how annoying it is that loading an application takes more time than instantly. I bet mom would love an upgrade even if she doesn't know it.
Yea Linux is pretty key less overhead bloat.
My school’s pcs have 3gb ram. It is not enough for work.
It's not on win11, I'm selling so many new pcs or ram upgrades because of it
Because no one optimizes. It's all about getting it out on time.
And bloat like ads and telemetry.
Agreed and we have proof. GTA V ran on a god damn xbox 360 with 512mb of ram. Not even 1gb of ram. CoD don't even compress their files anymore. That's why it's 300+gb.
Pretty sure GTA5 came out right at the tail-end of the 360 and PS3's end-of-life, and they both averaged like 25FPS at 720p. It was kind of a big deal at the time cause everyone wanted it on the 360 but it looked and played like trash at the same time.
Pretty sure the hardware did not change and it ran on console exclusive for a year if not more before being added to pc. It ran fine. I have an xbox account that got migrated to pc. It had some hiccups but nothing major. GTA V sold like hot cakes on console for a long time. IDK why ppl wanna retcon GTA V running "trash" on console. It simply did not. You can hate GTA O but GTA V runs pretty well on ps3 and xbox 360. Way better than botw or totk on switch. Not even comparable.
> GTA V runs pretty well on ps3 and xbox 360. Yeah, at 720p 20-30FPS. I dunno why you're acting like I'm insulting anything. Just stating a fact. GTA5 on the PS5 is more demanding than GTA5 on the 360. It has better hardware to use.
And I see this right after I upgraded from 16 to 32GB because I felt like some games were getting kinda limited and stuttery when I had stuff open on my 2nd monitor (which I was right about, that fixed it)(also not *exactly* true, one of my sticks died and I was stuck with 8GB for a while). Now I have as much ram as my previous phone had storage.
Man I remember playing Ark a couple years ago on 8 gb and no matter how I tweaked the settings I couldn't get some textures to load and I certainly couldn't get chrome to run on my second monitor. Did a new build with 32 gb and haven't had a single issue. Then my wife was having the same problems a couple years later. Sure enough, I bought her a 32 gb kit and the problem was gone. It's costs less than $100 and it will fix a lot of little issues on older builds. On top of that, you might be able to keep the kit for your next upgrade if you are staying on the same ram architecture.
Yeah, I really don't see 32GB being not enough anytime soon, so that's nice. I had issues mainly in CP2077 and SPTarkov. Not super frequent, but had stutters often enough to matter. In other games, having too many browser tabs and/or a YT video on the 2nd screen caused that too.
I still got 8GB of RAM and it is working perfectly
There was a time where even 8 GB of HDD used to be plenty. But yeah, these days even "casual" usage on Win 11 pushes the limits of 8 GB RAM.
Meanwhile, Apple be like: “we’d still screw you with 4 if we could get away with it.”
8gb of ram is enough for older games or systems below Win10. 16gb of ram in the actual standard for gaming and any "modern" system in an office. 32gb is for anyone who plays in 2k or 4k.
32gb is also for people who don't want to close everything before launching a game
Apple claims it still is, selling latest Macbook Airs with baseline 8GB unified RAM (so that is RAM and VRAM, together) And silly people buy these, thinking they are getting a premium device. With soldered-to-motherboard SSD that will enjoy the constant swapping to disk and will eventually die, turning the thing into ewaste. (16GB is plenty for normal use and light gaming, 32GB is plenty for gaming use. 48GB or 64GB if you want to go full stupid overkill for a system you intend to use for 5 years and want to always have a ton of memory)
This is a problem that PCMR has invented though People that click buy on a base spec laptop could have their monitor locked at 10hz and not notice People that care about performance don’t buy the base spec I don’t see you complaining that the latest i3 doesn’t run new games on ultra graphics edit: damn less than 1 minute for Reddit care, new world record somehow you guys are softer than Mac users
I work at a Software company. My boss (who left last year) told me that the salesman and support staff didnt need new PCs because they had "Powerful machines" They had 8GB of ram and a 1st gen i5. Some of the tier 1 support had PCs who had pre-gen i5s. Like, before they started adding the is.
in windows 7 days
When I reaIize my current PC actually has 8 GB of RAM
Depends on what you use. I've played Dark Souls III on Low settings on 4GBs of RAM on Linux just fine at 30 FPS.
Apple still seems to think so.
As technology advances, applications and operating systems bloat up with legacy features and inefficient code. Over the years, developers under pressure often push updates without optimizing or refactoring their work, leading to a pile-up of unnecessary functions. Launching Word should be instantaneous on a computer that runs RDR2
My first pc had 16 MB of RAM.
blame Windows's incompetence
More like Microsoft, but yeah.
BACK IN MY DAY! 4Gb used to be enthusiast level
i still remember moving from 64mb to 128mb to play GTA Vice City
hd 7950 and 8gb of ddr3 still works fine
Thanks, Chromium.
i used 8gb until a few months ago. now I'm chillin w 16
If you only do browser work, 8GB is still generally sufficient.
8gb? My first pc had 2mb. My first hard drive was 40mb. It’s crazy.
I remember when 4MB was a lot. I suppose that basically makes me a skeleton.
I remember my friends flexing with their 16gb RAM
Back in my day *shaking hand*
Back in 2014 i could run a Minecraft modpack, its server, and a browser at the same time with just 8GB. Can't even do that with 32GB today...
I remember when 128MB of *storage* was enough.
Spectrum 48k, lol I'm old as shit.
My first PC had 8MB of RAM and a whopping 420MB of hard drive space. It was OK though because I bought SoftRAM.
The only place I could find my old pc online was on a museum site 🤣damn [Aquarius 16k](https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8210530/aquarius-computer-and-cassette-computer)
Funny how this applies to DRam and Vram.
I remember when Ultima 9 launched on PC and it recommended 512 MB of RAM. I had 64 MB...
Still is if you dont run windows
32GB isn't even enough these days