For those who couldn’t read the Linux GUI:

  • Windows used 3.4 GB / 8GB
  • Linux used 800 MB/ 8 GB
  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh yeah? But does linux allow you to install Ram Booster to instantly free up ram in one click? /s

    • Murdoc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reminds me of companies that raise the price of something just so they can have a sale. “Look how much you save!”

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know this is !LinuxMemes but it’ll throw this here. Comparing memory usage like this is meaningless. My Linux desktop for example consumes around 20GB with nothing visibly started. ZFS would happily gobble up half of the system RAM for caching unless limited. And caching means speed. If your system isn’t caching a lot, it might be leaving speed on the table. Demand caching!

    • Krtek@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t get why this is always mentioned. Windows caches too and uses up all free space for faster application startup, but just because it also does it doesn’t change the fact that it uses more ram for active processes while doing nothing. I remember Minecraft running a lot better on my old MacBook with just 4gb of ram as Ubuntu used less than Mac OS X and I could allocate more to the game, whether cacheing was enabled or not on those OSes was not relevant. This should not be relevant today as 32gb of ram can be purchased for less than 100 bucks but sadly is as Apple and other laptop manufacturers think selling soldered 8gb is ok for a base model in 2023 for a laptop costing more than 300 bucks

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve never owned a laptop that didn’t have upgradeable RAM.

        I also don’t pay for Apple products so that might be why. Vote with your wallets and stop buying their overpriced metal bullshit.

        • Krtek@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The ancient MacBook in question has a firmware limitation and thus only supports 4gb, it was already upgraded from 2gb iirc (black 2007 MacBook 3,1). My current laptop has 16gb soldered, too bad that the hinge will die again before the ram becomes insufficient

            • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m still using my 2014 MBP as a daily driver. They’re surprisingly long lasting. Only thing I’m rolling with still that’s older is a Lenovo X220 that I use to play a starship bridge simulator with haha.

    • Slotos@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      RAM is the fastest and most expensive memory in your PC. It uses energy, regardless of whether you use the memory. Not utilising RAM is a waste of resources.

      There’s a reason good monitoring tools draw a stacked RAM chart.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly. I wish we moved to a process lifecycle that has a “save your data because you’re dying upon the return from this function” stage, similar to the way Android has it. That would allow us to keep a lot more processes in RAM. But it would require massive software changes given the body of software written the classical way and so it’s unlikely to happen.

        • Samsy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ask devs how many issue reports they gather about app consumes too much ram.

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So what you’re saying is that Windows makes better use of available memory, by actually using it, than Linux? Unused memory does nothing for you.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its not even a good comparison. I had GUI Linux running on a Wii console. I think Wii has 100MB of RAM.

  • callyral [he/they]@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    shouldn’t the videos be swapped? like, having the music “dread” part be when he sees how much ram windows uses?

  • devilish666@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sometimes i wonder why Windows use RAM so much compared to Linux ?
    I check Linux run so much service in the background but used so little RAM compared to Windows that run not so many service but still used RAM so much like my PC running supercomputer programs

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Doesn’t Windows reserve ram though, so it’s idle just looks higher?

    I’d imagine it’d be more relevant how their ram usage looks during peaks. I still think it’d be more in Linux’s favor, but not as much.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      iirc, ‘in use’ memory as reported by task manager does include some file cache memory space.

  • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Regular linux users with >4GB RAM don’t need swap IMO. You can use swap for hybernation, but most people don’t even use that feature.

    • Haystack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s always nice to have a failsafe if some process has a major memory leak. Otherwise if your memory fills up your system completely freezes with no way to recover.

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This isn’t quite true. The system does recover. The mechanism doing the recovery is the kernel OOM killer which begins to shoot processes to free up RAM. Now whether or not the processes you care about survive or not and whether they lost any data you care about is a different question. 🤭 That’s a problem elegantly solved on Android by the introduction of its more complex lifecycle which provides data persistence guarantees.

        • kpw@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is EarlyOOM which you can configure to shoot processes except the ones you care about.

      • labsin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually the swapping is what freezes up the PC writing to disk like it was RAM is just too slow… If you don’t have swap enabled, either the kennel will throw out processes or one could crash cause of memory errors.

    • kevincox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need it, but a gig of disk space is basically free, so why not? Swap is generally a good thing.

      The core difference is that with swap when the system needs more RAM the kernel has a choice between A) Evicting pages from the disk cache or B) Swapping out anonymous data (memory not backed by a file). If you don’t have swap the choice is limited to just A. (There are a few other ways to reclaim RAM but these are the biggest two). The means that with swap you will see thrashing if your whole working set doesn’t fit in ram, without swap you will see thrashing if all anonymous memory + the rest of your working set doesn’t fit into RAM. Basically having no swap pins all anonymous memory in RAM, even if it isn’t being used. In most cases it is better to give the kernel more choices, because swapping out some background process that has been sleeping for the last 2h and will probably sleep for another 2 is much better than evicting a page of an active application from the disk cache (that will need to be read back soon).

  • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn, so my machine with 32GB of RAM can use 14.5 GB when I have all my screens full of applications and programs instead of 16GB 😎

    What a score if you’re in 1995 still.

    Don’t get me wrong, I use Linux and have a recycle pile laptop running a jellyfin server but this RAM thing is just so dumb. Modern machines have far more system resources than you’d ever need to optimize your build so much for. Tricks like these are only useful for getting more use from outdated hardware.

    • Pyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Modern machines have far more system resources than you’d ever need

      Clearly you have never opened two Electron apps /s