• Toes♀@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    They should just rollback to windows xp and patch the security issues. It happily ran on 128MB of ram.

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 hours ago

    What the headline doesn’t say: It tested nearly double as slow as Windows 10’s File Explorer with this RAM usage increase.

    Windows is getting worse. Not better.

  • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    This is one area where I will agree with MS. 32 MB extra RAM consumption is worth it for even a moderate speed boost.

    That being said, the vast majority of modern applications run like shit. You have electron apps which are comically terrible in their performance metrics, but even beyond that you often have apps takeing up 100s of MBs and eating up a stupid amount of RAM considering what they do.

    • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Making desktop applications has become a nightmare in anything but C or C# and that isn’t exactly a language people really want to be programming in these days. That is a big part of the problem there aren’t good GUI bindings for a lot of languages and most programmers nowadays have been building websites and working with GUI APIs is a huge step back.

      Everyone is preferring server/web solutions now as its easier to charge customers for it and keep it up to date and the knock on consequence is desktop app support isn’t great or considered important.

    • Rob Bos@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I also agree, but … it’s an attitude that gets you in trouble fast and it only works once. Throwing hardware at a problem never works for very long, and hardly ever gets you the order of magnitude increases that reevaluated algorithms and data structures will get you. No amount of hardware gets you past an O(n^2) for long.

    • IonTempted@lemmynsfw.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It might be one of those placebo feelings, but I think my PC is running slightly worse and I’m working on a video right now I need to edit with Premiere so I’m thinking of formatting my PC, I haven’t done so in many years.

      • Melonpoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I mean, Premiere is known to be a buggy mess. I have no idea why companies still force people to use it when Resolve exists. Good luck to you sir.

      • Axolotl@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If you are not forced to use premiere then use Davinci resolve and if you think it’s good and still worried about performance you might want to try Linux. Though you should do it only if not satisfied with your current system

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Resolve has some quirks on Linux. In particular it doesn’t support certain codecs.