Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
released?

I say, nope, there are too few advantages to the platform. I could
dual-boot if I had a second SSD, but even that is pretty useless. I
would actually give away my WinPro product key.

--
Joel W. Crump

Joel wrote:
> Win11 is a resource hog

yea , you said this already

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 18:36:38 -0500, Joel wrote:

> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return to
> Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is released?

Moore's Law of Resource Hogging. iirc my first i86 box, DOS not Windows,
had either a 5 or 10 MB hard drive. What will I ever do with all that
space? Around 20 years ago I remember frantically searching through our
AIX collection to find one with enough free space to restore a 3 GB
database backup. RAM has followed the same trajectory.

That's why I play around with devices like this in my spare time:

https://gilberttanner.com/blog/arduino-nano-33-ble-sense-overview/

1 MB of flash, 256 KB of SRAM. Count ever damn byte, just like the good
old days. When I interviewed for my current job the head of engineering
posed a problem and said 'assume you have unlimited RAM'. "well, shit!" I
thought.

After I was hired he said that during the interview I had looked at him
like 'What planet are you from?' He was right, I was wrong. Everybody
assumes there a gigabytes if not terabytes there for the asking.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7t08lihoa1t32hdqjoq9et0d5elvmimdaq@4ax.com:

> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
> to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
> released?
>
> I say, nope, there are too few advantages to the platform. I could
> dual-boot if I had a second SSD, but even that is pretty useless. I
> would actually give away my WinPro product key.
>

Addng RAM will help any platform.

My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old. I'm not a
gamer though.

David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
>> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
>> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
>> to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
>> released?
>>
>> I say, nope, there are too few advantages to the platform. I could
>> dual-boot if I had a second SSD, but even that is pretty useless. I
>> would actually give away my WinPro product key.
>
>Addng RAM will help any platform.

I really had no idea what the prices were for what I would need, but I
went into my order history on Newegg, and the same exact pair of 8 GB
RAM sticks I bought for the then-new computer were available for $40
plus sales tax. Looked to be cheaper than the comparable sets would
be from other brands, and I knew they would work. Definitely would
help Win11 and soon to be 12, but it's just something that seems right
to do, just routine expansion, not a radical change.

>My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old. I'm not a
>gamer though.

There are things that won't run without 10 or 11.

--
Joel W. Crump

On 11/14/23 10:05 PM, this is what rbowman wrote:
> Moore's Law of Resource Hogging. iirc my first i86 box, DOS not Windows,
> had either a 5 or 10 MB hard drive.

Oh I was smarter than you (ha ha), I bought a larger drive for my first ibm clone. I got a 20M drive. I was a
programmer then and knew hard drive was needed. It only cost me $500. Wasn't I smart 👎
--
Linux Mint 21.2 Cinnamon
Al

Joel wrote:
> David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
>>> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
>>> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
>>> to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
>>> released?
>>>
>>> I say, nope, there are too few advantages to the platform. I could
>>> dual-boot if I had a second SSD, but even that is pretty useless. I
>>> would actually give away my WinPro product key.
>>
>> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>
>
> I really had no idea what the prices were for what I would need, but I
> went into my order history on Newegg, and the same exact pair of 8 GB
> RAM sticks I bought for the then-new computer were available for $40
> plus sales tax. Looked to be cheaper than the comparable sets would
> be from other brands, and I knew they would work. Definitely would
> help Win11 and soon to be 12, but it's just something that seems right
> to do, just routine expansion, not a radical change.
>
>
>> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old. I'm not a
>> gamer though.
>
>
> There are things that won't run without 10 or 11.
>
are you one of them

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 03:50:15 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue
<huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
<XnsB0BCE84A1814Ehueydlltampabayrrcom@135.181.20.170>:

> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:7t08lihoa1t32hdqjoq9et0d5elvmimdaq@4ax.com:
>
>> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
>> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
>> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
>> to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
>> released?
>>
>> I say, nope, there are too few advantages to the platform. I could
>> dual-boot if I had a second SSD, but even that is pretty useless. I
>> would actually give away my WinPro product key.
>>
>
> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>
> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old. I'm not a
> gamer though.

That's plenty for a gamer, and still more than the average home
computer I bet.

I wanted to "future-proof" my new workstation, so got it with
a decent amount of RAM:

$ free
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 263780224 7482272 250499608 2048944 5798344 252177528
Swap: 2097148 0 2097148

$ free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 251Gi 7.0Gi 239Gi 1.9Gi 5.5Gi 240Gi
Swap: 2.0Gi 0B 2.0Gi

As Linux uses the filesystems, they cache in buff/cache. Just like
SMARTDRV, but for Linux.

--
-v

Relf wrote:
> David_LaRue:
>> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old.
>> I'm not a gamer though.
>
> What are you doing that requires 64 GB of RAM ?
>
i need that to fit in his killfile

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 23:00:37 -0500, Big Al wrote:

> On 11/14/23 10:05 PM, this is what rbowman wrote:
>> Moore's Law of Resource Hogging. iirc my first i86 box, DOS not
>> Windows,
>> had either a 5 or 10 MB hard drive.
>
> Oh I was smarter than you (ha ha), I bought a larger drive for my first
> ibm clone. I got a 20M drive. I was a programmer then and knew hard
> drive was needed. It only cost me $500. Wasn't I smart 👎

I was moving up from a CP/M system with 2 DSDD drives for a massive 720
KB. I did quite a bit of work on that box. The BDS C compiler ran fine
and I was also doing some work with FORTH.

I'm not sure I ever filled the hard drive on the clone. I had a little
burn out, gave all the machines away, and took a little sabbatical for a
few years.

"Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote in news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.14--
8.11pm.Seattle.2023:

> David_LaRue:
>> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old.
>> I'm not a gamer though.
>
> What are you doing that requires 64 GB of RAM ?
>

Hi,

Nothing requires that much. I bought this used laptop with the RAM in it.
More horsepower than I need. I run mostly USENET, email, web, and
ADBlocker, so no real need for anything fancy here. I do recommend the
free ADBlocker as it eliminates almost all ads. I did have to unblock a
few sites because they refused to play sound without the main page allowing
ads. Below that they are still blocked.

On 2023/11/14 6:36 PM, Joel wrote:
> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
> to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
> released?

More RAM is always better. Windows will use otherwise unused RAM to
cache all kinds of stuff, resulting in better performance.

I have 16GB in my current Windows laptop. It is around 6 years old, but
has a 4 core/8 thread i7 and has been updated with a 1TB SSD, so it runs
just fine. It is too old to run Win11 but I really am not interested
in Win11 anyway. I ran Windows 11 in a Hyper-V VM for a few weeks and
was underwhelmed.

Windows 10 is fine for the few remaining things I need Windows for. I
have 32GB in this MacBook Pro. Not that I really needed it, but it was
just too good of a deal to pass up.

And again, more RAM is always better.

"Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:

>David_LaRue:
>> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old.
>> I'm not a gamer though.
>
>What are you doing that requires 64 GB of RAM ?

I ran Win7 in 1 GB at first, that board would only hold 2 GB, which I
put in. Was actually cool, because the first pair I bought didn't
work well, but I didn't return them, I just bought another pair, and
sure enough later used the first pair to upgrade my friend's computer.
Having 64 GB for 64-bit Win7 would have some utility, but not for
most. Today, though, it would be quite common with Win10/11 for high
end use. 16 GB is becoming the realistic minimum.

--
Joel W. Crump

Tyrone <none@none.none> wrote:

>> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
>> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
>> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
>> to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
>> released?
>
>More RAM is always better. Windows will use otherwise unused RAM to
>cache all kinds of stuff, resulting in better performance.
>
>I have 16GB in my current Windows laptop. It is around 6 years old, but
>has a 4 core/8 thread i7 and has been updated with a 1TB SSD, so it runs
>just fine. It is too old to run Win11 but I really am not interested
>in Win11 anyway. I ran Windows 11 in a Hyper-V VM for a few weeks and
>was underwhelmed.
>
>Windows 10 is fine for the few remaining things I need Windows for. I
>have 32GB in this MacBook Pro. Not that I really needed it, but it was
>just too good of a deal to pass up.
>
>And again, more RAM is always better.

Basically, even Win11 23H2 works OK for me in 16 GB, but it was tight,
and Mint Cinnamon isn't super-comfortable either. This seems like a
change that while contradictory of why I left Win11, doesn't suggest I
was actually wrong, given that it wasn't so much the Win11 I had at
that moment, but where I saw it going. 32 GB would've once seemed
extravagant, but the way I've been using the machine, it now seems
right for either platform. It, like the video card to support my new
monitor, is a sensible expansion of the same nuts and bolts I
initially put together, merely completing my build anew.

--
Joel W. Crump

On 14/11/2023 23:36, Joel wrote:
> Win11 is a resource hog in every way imaginable. But modern Linux can
> be used in a pretty similar way. 16 GB just isn't what it used to be,
> and I found doubling that would be pretty cheap. So should I return
> to Windows, now that I'm sure to be at least decent when Win12 is
> released?
>
> I say, nope, there are too few advantages to the platform. I could
> dual-boot if I had a second SSD, but even that is pretty useless. I
> would actually give away my WinPro product key.
>

Good luck with getting Microsoft to validate a used product key on a
different system. That's if you can find the product key in the first place.

--
Regards
wasbit

On 2023-11-15 05:11, Relf wrote:
> David_LaRue:
>> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old.
>> I'm not a gamer though.
>
> What are you doing that requires 64 GB of RAM ?

1 MB is ample enough, someone said.

Well, you can put 64 GB now so that in 10 years time the machine is not
short for memory.

Running two virtual machines with ample memory each, for instance :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in news:jhj8lip736m5liaikapjanuihbfo3eum81
@4ax.com:

> "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:
>
>>David_LaRue:
>>> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>>> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old.
>>> I'm not a gamer though.
>>
>>What are you doing that requires 64 GB of RAM ?
>
>
> I ran Win7 in 1 GB at first, that board would only hold 2 GB, which I
> put in. Was actually cool, because the first pair I bought didn't
> work well, but I didn't return them, I just bought another pair, and
> sure enough later used the first pair to upgrade my friend's computer.
> Having 64 GB for 64-bit Win7 would have some utility, but not for
> most. Today, though, it would be quite common with Win10/11 for high
> end use. 16 GB is becoming the realistic minimum.
>

My original use, as well as that of the previous owner, was to run many
software development tools. Visual Studio always required large resources.
Team is also a hog, IMHO.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in news:krjkkrFt25iU1
@mid.individual.net:

> On 2023-11-15 05:11, Relf wrote:
>> David_LaRue:
>>> Addng RAM will help any platform.
>>> My 64GB for Win 7 Pro does all I need and its over 10 years old.
>>> I'm not a gamer though.
>>
>> What are you doing that requires 64 GB of RAM ?
>
> 1 MB is ample enough, someone said.
>
> Well, you can put 64 GB now so that in 10 years time the machine is not
> short for memory.
>
> Running two virtual machines with ample memory each, for instance :-)
>

I forgot about the linux VM development system we ran along side the
Windows one. I never used it here, but did have a linux and OS/2 VM.

wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> I
>> would actually give away my WinPro product key.
>
>Good luck with getting Microsoft to validate a used product key on a
>different system. That's if you can find the product key in the first place.

It's a full $200 retail key, purchased from Microsoft. I do have it.

--
Joel W. Crump

Joel wrote:
> wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> I
>>> would actually give away my WinPro product key.
>>
>> Good luck with getting Microsoft to validate a used product key on a
>> different system. That's if you can find the product key in the first place.
>
>
> It's a full $200 retail key, purchased from Microsoft. I do have it.
>
i have everything except the stuff i haven't invented yet

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 23:55:40 -0500, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>16 GB is becoming the realistic minimum.

That depends entirely on how the computer is used. For many people,
GB, or even 4GB, is enough for adequate performance.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 11:25:31 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>Well, you can put 64 GB now so that in 10 years time the machine is not
>short for memory.

I have 32GB, which is considerably more than I need, and that's almost
exactly why I have that much..

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>>16 GB [RAM] is becoming the realistic minimum.
>
>That depends entirely on how the computer is used. For many people,
>GB, or even 4GB, is enough for adequate performance.

It'll boot the system, but I like to have everything running at once.

--
Joel W. Crump

On 2023-11-15 10:18 a.m., Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 23:55:40 -0500, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 16 GB is becoming the realistic minimum.
>
>
> That depends entirely on how the computer is used. For many people,
> GB, or even 4GB, is enough for adequate performance.

8GB is fine for most people whereas 4GB is adequate as long as you're
using Linux. It should be noted that Apple gives 8GB as a minimum on its
new computers today. Of course, I agree with them that on the ARM
architecture they're selling, 8GB works as well as 16GB on the x86-64.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Matthew 24:5

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 10:27:25 -0500, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
>>>16 GB [RAM] is becoming the realistic minimum.
>>
>>That depends entirely on how the computer is used. For many people,
>>GB,

8GB

>or even 4GB, is enough for adequate performance.
>
>
>It'll boot the system, but I like to have everything running at once.

Depends on what everything is. Moreover, what's realistic for you (or
me, for that matter) isn't realistic for everyone.