>he thinks 8GiB of ram is acceptable in 2017

>>60215069
>he thinks windows is acceptable in 2017

>running windows in 2017

Says the guy using iTunes...

>>60215069
>he thinks a basic arena shooter using 8GB RAM by itself is acceptable in any year

Enjoy your free-to-play trash.

>>60215119
>paying for software

>Quake
>Discord
>iTunes
>Steam
Do mommy and daddy know you spend all your time playing gaymez instead of looking for a job?

>>60215069
My daily driver has 2gb RAM. Fite me

File: ramlets.png (294KB, 915x678px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 915x678px

>>60215069
When will they learn?

File: king of ramlets.png (5KB, 789x44px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 789x44px

>>60215299
>tfw

>>60215128

>not paying for services
>expecting decent services

The life of the poor freetard must be terrible.

>>60215069
>he thinks his RAM needs are exactly the same as others'
I upgraded from 4GiB to 6GiB around a year ago, been content ever since.

>>60215069
used 4gb with haswell laptop i5 + SSD for like the past 4 years and haven't had a problem.
inb4 chrome meme
literally can have 20+ tabs open with no slowdown/freezing.

>>60216028

>not pirating everything

normies...

After my 8GB laptop died, I bought used Dell Desktop with 4 gigs. No difference 2bh. Chromium and some IDEs run allright

>>60215069
how did you get quake champions invitation?

>Not having 16GB of RAM

TOP KEK

>>60216604
>having more RAM than you need

>>60216151

Are you only using it for solitaire and web browsing?

>He buys lots of RAM to make his computer faster by loading more of programs into RAM and then is upset that his computer utilized his available RAM to make his computer faster by loading more of programs into RAM

Really excogitates my homunculus.

>>60215177
That's like having had 8MB in the year 2000. Would be ok for DOS/Win 3.11 I guess, and just barely enough to run Win95 at all.

>>60218048
I run Windows 10 (ltsb) just fine with it. Seriously

>>60215069
The barely acceptable amount of RAM doubles every two years. You can assume 1GiB for 2010 and extrapolate from there. According to which 8GiB is still barely acceptable, until next year when 16GiB will take its place as the bare minimum in a reasonable system.

>>60218100
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

>>60215834
>King of the RAMlets detected

Don't worry bruv, I only have 4GB (soldered) on my laptop.

>>60218142
My laptop has 1.25GiB RAM

8GB RAM is all I need t b h

File: rams.jpg (10KB, 573x89px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 573x89px

>>60218156
Wew, that'd be cutting it kinda close.

>>60218207
Of course 1 gig of that is Firefox. Why the fuck do web browsers use so much ram these days?

File: ram.png (19KB, 568x332px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 568x332px

>>60218100

>>60218223
giannamichaelscumdumpster.webm

>>60218113
Uh yea? So >>60218339 is "dumb" too, because I'd think it reflects reality pretty well.

>>60218223
Because RAM is there to be used, spergshit. Compaining about RAM usage is about as autistic and retarded as you can get nowadays.

>>60218339
>1990 was thousands of times the RAM ago

>>60218352
It is dumb.

>>60215069
it is

>>60218382
By that logic, we should drink many gallons of water daily "because water is there to be drunk" instead of the half-a-gallon which is perfectly enough most of the time. Memory occupied needlessly is just as bad as not being able to utilize available memory.

>>60218421
Oh is it? So, 2 MB of RAM was acceptable for a reasonable general purpose PC computer in 1996? or 8 MB in 2000? or 64 MB in 2006? Really?

>>60215069
> gayming
saged

>>60218518
I'm not arguing exact RAM amounts, just stating that the chart is dumb.

>>60218382
My entire OS and a torrent client running only use 200MB, Firefox with 5 tabs open on /g/ uses 1000MB. Seems a bit much IMO.

>>60215069
It's humorous that Fallout 4 with mods uses less RAM than Quake. I run with 8GB of RAM and I never have this bullshit.

>>60218339
>2016
>32GiB of ram is only """decent"""

kek

>>60218463
>By that logic, we should drink many gallons of water daily "because water is there to be drunk"
Yeah except your computer doesn't die due to electrolyte imbalance if you install too much RAM. Otherwise, spot on analogy.

>>60218339
>32 GiB in 2016 is "decent"
>8 GiB in 2016 was considered bare minimum
What? Many consumer laptops were coming out with 4GiB of RAM.
>512MiB bare minimum in 2008
The bare minimum in 2008 was two GiB of RAM.

This chart is wrong on my levels.

File: 1471007438949.jpg (62KB, 690x460px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 690x460px

>>60215069
>steam
>discord
>itunes
>windows
Imagine being this retarded.

>>60218920
Yup. It's decent, but it's nothing special - latest desktop motherboards support way more than that, such as 64 or even 128 GB. Even though OS memory overhead hasn't been growing as much as in the older days, programs can consume absurd amounts of memory (especially after the 3-4 GB ceiling vanished with 64-bit going mainstream), and there's applications such as running VMs, working with high resolution images and video, 3D graphics, CAD etc. which can eat any amount of memory. So, overall, it's still pretty linear with the thumb rule of doubling every two years holding (while the exact definition of whether a given amount in a given year is "ok", "decent", or "very decent" is a bit more relative and open to debate).

>>60215076
fpbp

>>60219069
>What? Many consumer laptops were coming out with 4GiB of RAM.

They are the equivalent of 2010's cheapest netbooks running XP and equipped with only 512 MB of RAM.

>The bare minimum in 2008 was two GiB of RAM.
Nah, not at all - 2 GB was decent in 2008, you could run Vista comfily, and there were plenty of sytems sold with only 1 GB. 512 MB was very much viable as a bare minimum if running XP.

>>60219069
>This chart is wrong on my levels.
Then make and post a version which you consider more accurate.

>>60219069
If 8 GB was already 2 or 3 years ago being laughed at as "king of RAMlets", then why would 32 GB (just 4x more) be considered anything better than just "decent" today?

>>60218382
He's not complaining about RAM usage. He's bringing up the question as to why browsers use so much and can't be optimized to operate using less RAM.

File: ram.jpg (121KB, 1142x778px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1142x778px

>>60215069
>He thinks you need more than 4 GB

>you're a ramlet if you have less than 10GB of RAM
>bb-bbut if you have more than 32GB y-you're just overcompensating
my sides

>>60219069
I don't think that more than 4 GB are necessary for browsing.
>>60221184
I can use Firefox with many tabs and the only thing that shutters is my shitty HDD.

It doesn't shutter at all unless you try to run ME Andromeda on it. 4-6 GB are perfect for browsing and desktop tasks, you don't need more unless you game AAA titles or run VMs or video editing.

>>60215176
Get raped and kill yourself, you retarded fucking faggot sack of nigger shit with down syndrome.

>>60215069
DID

YOU

JUST

ASSUME

MY GENDER?????????????????????

>>60221184
holy fucking shit

at least use english, probably would cut your ram usage in half

>OP got approx 14+ (You)'s