301–310 of 621 posts
They're pointing to macOS and saying it uses 5 times less RAM there, but is 230MB for a weather app really something to be proud off?
https://tinkerdifferent.com/threads/snazzy-weather-a-snazzie...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a narrative that MS, Google etc want you to believe. They gutted it for ads. That's what's happening. There are workarounds now, that's what the existing ad block options are. They are heavily kneecapped.
[flagged]
And it also ads on it. Really Microsoft? Do you really need all the ads revenue from the weather app? What’s next? Ads on the start menu?
Avert ye eyes for there are no morals in these bad lands of Redmond!
What's worse is that the previous version of the same Weather app was fully native on Windows 10. Why would you take a perfectly working app and downgrade it like this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and a common screen size at the time was 1280x1024 Maybe if you were really rich and only used high end desktops. A lot of the computers I used back then were still 800x600, fancier ones were 1024x768. If you happened to also have a 2D accelerator card you'd potentially have 1280x1024. And lots of apps purposefully ran at a much lower color depth, it was common for games to run at 8 or 16 bit color mode.
Cheapest local brand 15" CRTs could do 1280x1024 in early 2000s. because you weren't limited by the panel unlike LCDs. You'd need better than perfect vision to be able to make use of it, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and a common screen size at the time was 1280x1024 Maybe if you were really rich and only used high end desktops. A lot of the computers I used back then were still 800x600, fancier ones were 1024x768. If you happened to also have a 2D accelerator card you'd potentially have 1280x1024. And lots of apps purposefully ran at a much lower color depth, it was common for games to run at 8 or 16 bit color mode.
Early 90s maybe. By the end of the 90s and definitely early 2000s CRT screens were 1024×768 for the cheap crap and 1600×1200 for the high-end (with 1280×1024 as a mid-range).
It often wasn't a limitation of your monitor, it was a limitation of your video adapter. Rattling off some common specs of monitors isn't telling the full story of what most random people were actually experiencing.
I still remember having to upgrade our main home desktop at the time of Warcraft I I'd release because it didn't have enough video memory to meet the 8MB minimum needed. That was in 2002 on a machine purchased with XP, a Pentium 4 HT with 512MB of system memory. Not necessarily a low end machine, but obviously not a gaming PC at the time and much newer than many systems sold for Windows 98.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only relevant if we assume CPU rendering. The article described system RAM use, not video RAM use. Task Manager doesn't combine the two. They clearly spent it on maintaining their independent Chromium instance instead.
One thing shared between old software rendered desktops and modern videogames is that they shunned these intermediate 'composited' screens. On the desktop, there used to be the screen, and basically windows used to draw on top of each other, there was no intermediate buffer for the whole window to draw itself to, which would then be smushed together with all others. Video games are the same (mostly) - everything is r…
Imagine you have 3 windows visible at the same time: a videogame rendering at the refresh rate of the display 144 Hz, a video player rendering frames at 30 Hz, and a text editor rendering blinking cursor at 2 Hz. Because the videogame wants to deliver frames at 144 Hz, the desktop compositor has to deliver the entire desktop at 144 Hz. Asking the video player and especially the text editor to also deliver frames at that frequency would be wasteful. Irrelevant for desktops with fast discrete GPUs, but directly translates to battery drain on laptops.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> i'm playing a bit fast and loose with what lives on the GPU and what lives on the CPU here. On many systems, they share a memory pool anyway. But on systems with discrete GPUs, most of this is gonna be video memory Yeah this is irrelevant here, windows doesn't share both in 99 of the case.
What do you mean by "windows doesn't share both"? Windows doesn't get a say, Intel iGPU systems literally don't have video memory
It's only been somewhat recent that I've personally seen much hardware that allows for that reservation to be dynamically defined, and not with any Intel integrated graphics so far.