Comment by cfiggers
4 hours ago
I mean... Yes, but there's nuance here.
Using 400 MB of RAM vs 100 MB of RAM is close to unnoticeable in a world of a GB+ for a single Chrome tab... And if "easier for our developers" means the end user is getting more regular updates with fewer critical issues, then it's not an uncomplicated tradeoff at all, parts of it are actually synergistic.
No, no and no.
Last year I paid money to upgrade my laptop's RAM from 16 to 32 GB. I didn't pay it so apps could just be more bloated without offering any significant benefit.
Developers should respect and be efficient using hardware resources. There are no excuses for that.
From CS101 it’s called virtual memory. Things get swapped in and out of memory when they need to. An extra 200MB of memory when Chrome takes gigabytes of memory is a petty thing to complain about.
How much do you want to bet you don’t even use windows media player? It’s fake outrage and if you care that much use VLC.
> Things get swapped in and out of memory when they need to.
Great, so now that SSD I've got can wear out more quickly!
> It’s fake outrage and if you care that much use VLC.
Already do. My heart still aches for those who don't know any better.
Chrome does it, so it must be good? Is a extra 200mb going to cause the computer to choke? probably not, but that doesn't mean people cant complain about the fact that a lot of modern software has gone this route and it all does add up.
> VLC
VLC on my Mac uses about 130 MB of RAM (as reported by Activity Monitor) to play a FLAC file, and about 300 MB to play a high-bitrate 1080p MP4 file. The audio file memory consumption frankly seems high, but it’s fine, and apparently 1/3 that of WMP.
More directly, do you not find it odd and embarrassing for a tech giant to be unable to beat a bunch of volunteers? I mean, ffmpeg famously hand-writes a lot of assembly, but it turns out Microsoft could absolutely do that as well if they really wanted to. They could produce performant, native apps; they just choose not to.
2 replies →
There are 100s of processes running on my Windows without starting anything explicitly. They are using more than 10 gb of RAM. I am already feeling the consequences of this sloppiness. Especially that my IDE/compiler/emulator easily use 20+ GB. My 32 GB of memory is not enough somehow…
It does not matter how well or poorly Chrome mismanages memory, 400MB is still 400MB. If that 400MB is 10% of the free RAM after the share the OS takes, then that is a hefty toll. And the regular updates Windows 11 users are getting are famously not providing value, but taking value away. Case in point right here is the new media player.
People try to use Windows 11 with 4GB of RAM?
I doubt that's viable, honestly... At that point, just don't use microslop software
Windows 10 was viable with 4 GB, assuming you restricted yourself. Nowadays it mostly isn't, precisely because of things like this.
Windows Server 2022 comes up just fine in 4-8GB RAM disposable qubes. I can easily load Adobe MCCS6 applications in that. I can run Mathematica in that. I can load Siemens NX 10-12 in that and do basic modeling!
#StopTheBloat #StopTheOffshoring
IME, there is a negative correlation “justifies increased memory consumption by citing DX” and “ships code with fewer critical issues.”
A single Chrome tab does not use gigabytes. In fact, this app IS a Chrome tab! It's web based, so it's using Edge, which is just Chrome in a trenchcoat.
There is no nuance in 400%...
Of course there is. If it increased from 1MB to 4MB, that would definitely be insignificant
1*4*[all programs on your computer] is very significant. No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
That's how it started though, it's a slippery slope :\
1 reply →
How come I have never seen this tradeoff work in practice?
You see it all the time in Slack, Discord and so on.
Isn’t VS Code an Electron app? Or just its predecessor?
The problem is that it does not. At all.