why is every one so mad about 4gb ram

[Not Buff Helpy]

i built a 4gb ram q6600 gtx 750 pc to play games in my room instead of a console for 2010s games and every one is getting so mad for using tiny 11 with 4gb its not slow or takiing more than 3 frames from gamplay its pretty low end and the cpu is at 4% so why is every one so mad also wanted to test tiny 11 on low specs and test the limits of this pc so why so mad you guys

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Ok that's a long time before 2010.
Win7 came out in 2009 so yes, by 2010-2011, 8GB was the norm for a gaming PC. 4GB RAM was fine for more basic usage needs.

[Illusion of Progress]

Yes, my point was precisely that. For Windows XP's actual timeline before Windows Vista, and when Windows Vista released, it was way before 4 GB was common. You were making it sound like 4 GB was common as everyone was moving to Windows Vista (instead it was more like 1 GB or 2 GB, so a quarter to half that), and that by time 2010 came, 8 GB was common (instead it was more like 4 GB, and maybe 8 GB was starting to be adopted by enthusiasts at best, but not yet "common"). 8 GB became common more in the early to early-mid 2010s.

[Lunch-b0x]

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

Yes, my point was precisely that. For Windows XP's actual timeline before Windows Vista, and when Windows Vista released, it was way before 4 GB was common. You were making it sound like 4 GB was common as everyone was moving to Windows Vista (instead it was more like 1 GB or 2 GB, so a quarter to half that), and that by time 2010 came, 8 GB was common (instead it was more like 4 GB, and maybe 8 GB was starting to be adopted by enthusiasts at best, but not yet "common"). 8 GB became common more in the early to early-mid 2010s.

It's fine. Bad 💀 Motha is just ignorant, and gives out the worst advice and wrongest "facts" on these forums. There's a reason why the vast majority of people ignore them.

[Illusion of Progress]

I don't agree with that. He's intelligent and generally gives good advice. Not everyone has perfect memory, and I think he just misremembered the past (or had a different opinion of it, or whatever).

[Bad 💀 Motha]

All I know for sure is once Win7 came out in 2009. By 2010-2011 pretty much every Build we were doing came with 8GB with Intel based systems. 2GB per slot. Now AMD stuff most likely not cause most of the cheaper AM2 boards only supported 1GB max per slot. So yes if you had any kind of an AM2 board early on, like 2009 yes then I could see how you were on 4GB RAM.

Heck in 2005 I was already using 4GB RAM with XP on my Athlon64-939 system.

Anyways no point in us going on about it.

[Illusion of Progress]

There's no ultimate point to anything. The point is the discussion if anything, especially in non-support threads like this one. Different views and all, it's fun to share and discuss. Even if the views don't agree. I like hearing what others say even if I have a different opinion. This entire thread's overarching theme is discussing memory amounts so if ever there's a point to discussing it, it's here. I don't know about other people who call you ignorant or whatever but I like hearing what you say (this goes to everyone not just you) even if I disagree with it. So by all means carry on about your recollection of things.

Anyway it sounds like you were way ahead of everyone in 2005 then.

My own memory of the mid 2000s is that the big 1 GB was the desirable amount to have around then. Along with the Athlon 64 and the GeForce 6800. I remember discussions on whether 512 MB was still enough a bit after games like Far Cry 3 and Doom 3 were out (and the consensus I remember from then was that yes, it was insofar as actual game performance, but it might be a bit constrained like having some longer loading, or be pushing it if you were multi-tasking). Back in the mid 2000s, many of us may have still been scuffling along with just 256 MB or 512 MB RAM (I specifically remember having 384 MB for a long while).

It was a bit before Windows Vista (and partly because of it) that 2 GB started becoming common in my mind. By time 4 GB was actually standard was closer to the release of Windows 7. Then DDR2 got super cheap in the very late 2000s (which is why I got another 4 GB to add to my existing 4 GB) right before DDR3 came, which was super expensive at first and then got cheap after a single generation (which made Sandy Bridge super popular) which made some people go with 16 GB (like me) so yeah you're probably rather accurate on 8 GB being the early 2010s, at least if you're talking about the go-to amount to buy for gamers/enthusiasts. But there's a difference between that and what is "common". People may have started buying 8 GB in those times but it took a bit longer to become more common. Like people may have shifted more towards buying 32 GB these days but Steam shows the average as 16 GB, and likely will for a while (as I think a couple/few short years ago it still showed 8 GB?).

[_I_]

i remember pcs being sold with vista and 2g of ram, those were horrible times

[CZI]

İlk olarak Bing Chilling tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak The Presence tarafından gönderildi:

I don't see anyone being mad, but I can understand if they were to question that decision.

the OP is referencing an earlier post from a day or so ago

Ah, this post. I don't think it's hardware issue.

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/11/3820780544825870131/

[Bad 💀 Motha]

İlk olarak _I_ tarafından gönderildi:

i remember pcs being sold with vista and 2g of ram, those were horrible times

Yes, everyone in the industry was just laughing when folks like Dell were offering supposed good spec PCs with Vista and 2 or 4 GB of RAM. And then also to see many of those systems shipping with Vista 32bit

Vista was just terrible all around. Win7 ran much better overall with the same amount of RAM compared to Vista. Win7 64bit SP1 was very doable with 4GB of RAM. I remember fixing a hand-me-down PC I had redone for my sister to use. It had AM2+ Motherboard, Phenom II X4 CPU, 4x 1GB DDR2-800, GTX 550 Ti. Wasn't great but it could run Dying Light at 1080p without much issues.

[Skkooomer Lord]

Should have gone Pentium MMX.

[Banana {JESUS IS LORD}]

4gb ram is plenty 1gb ram not so much these days

[Banana {JESUS IS LORD}]

my raspberry pi and galaxy phone have 4gb ram

[_I_]

İlk olarak Banana {JESUS IS LORD} tarafından gönderildi:

my raspberry pi and galaxy phone have 4gb ram

it depends on the device and os
32bit has a 4g limit
windows 10-64 is a much heavier os

[CJM]

İlk olarak Illusion of Progress tarafından gönderildi:

My own memory of the mid 2000s is that the big 1 GB was the desirable amount to have around then. Along with the Athlon 64 and the GeForce 6800. I remember discussions on whether 512 MB was still enough a bit after games like Far Cry 3 and Doom 3 were out

During the late 90's and 00's, PCs evolved at what can be considered breakneck speeds. Like a "big bang" start to the industry. 4 years was a revolution.

Windows XP wasn't around until about 2003, and 1GB machines were prohibitively expensive for most consumers in the USA, but Windows XP brought existing PCs to their knees and forced upgrades. It was the end of the 32-bit era, and since the consumer 32-bit x86 platform didn't support more than 4GB, there was not almost zero appetite for more than that throughout the rest of the decade.

Then Windows 7 arrived as a primarily 64-bit OS, and demanded 4GB minimum. I don't know how many people got around to running the Athlon 64 with Windows 7, as its single core performance is better suited for the 32-bit era.

İlk olarak Bad 💀 Motha tarafından gönderildi:

Yes, everyone in the industry was just laughing when folks like Dell were offering supposed good spec PCs with Vista and 2 or 4 GB of RAM. And then also to see many of those systems shipping with Vista 32bit

Vista was just terrible all around.

Vista's launch was terrible. Vista itself was AWESOME. I 100% preferred it over Windows 7.

Windows Vista was much more aesthetically pleasing and had all the necessary bells and whistles for as long as video games were designed to be backwards compatible with Windows XP. It also had parity with Windows 7 feature support throughout the rest of its lifecycle.

[Illusion of Progress]

İlk olarak CJM tarafından gönderildi:

During the late 90's and 00's, PCs evolved at what can be considered breakneck speeds. Like a "big bang" start to the industry. 4 years was a revolution.

Windows XP wasn't around until about 2003, and 1GB machines were prohibitively expensive for most consumers in the USA, but Windows XP brought existing PCs to their knees and forced upgrades. It was the end of the 32-bit era, and since the consumer 32-bit x86 platform didn't support more than 4GB, there was not almost zero appetite for more than that throughout the rest of the decade.

That's the funny thing. Windows XP needed much more than Windows 9x, yet Windows Vista solely gets placed in the "bad" category for doing the same thing (I'm aware Windows Vista had other issues but this often a big one people cite as to why they disliked it).

Likewise, Windows 7 really didn't "need" less hardware for the most part, and it didn't even inherently "fix" all of the things with Windows Vista (not to say it didn't fix any). Instead, the mere passing of time meant the barriers to entry, like high hardware demands and poor driver support, were just less of issues.

I think the long lifespan of Windows XP just made people lash out at what came next.

Almost like we're seeing the same thing again. Windows 10 enjoys a lifespan twice as long, and Windows 11 is blasted, and people are ALREADY praising Windows 12 without knowing what it will even be! I'm anticipating it will be Windows 11 2.0, just like Windows 7 was Windows Vista 2.0. And likewise, people will likely embrace Windows 12 and not realize the hypocrisy.

İlk olarak CJM tarafından gönderildi:

Vista's launch was terrible. Vista itself was AWESOME. I 100% preferred it over Windows 7.

Though I personally prefer Windows 7 to Windows Vista, it's refreshing to see others can distinguish between "had a bad launch and life cycle" and "was inherently bad".