>>107579125Kek
>>107579125i used a laptop with 2GB of DDR4 RAM for a couple years, I'll find a way to cope.
>>107579125Someone bought from me 2x128MB 133Mhz FSB SDRam recently
>>107579125>>107579162I ran Damn Small Linux on a 100MHz Pentium laptop with 8MB RAM and could even browse the web with graphics, granted like 15 years ago.
Try to use it today
>>107579125>apparently will be forcing laptop manufacturers to restrict laptops to 8gb maxI wonder if this shortage might force software developers to optimize their shit properly. I highly doubt it, though
The modern web is overrated anyhow. Anybody who was around at the time knows we aren't doing one thing we weren't doing in the 1990s. Oh sure it's in full HD now or whatever but that's the only difference. I mean people thought the blink tag was bad. We didn't know how innocent of a time that was.But it's pretty easy to stop using all the modern horse shit. There are special search engines now that don't even use HTTPS which cater to older computers. Proxifiers, which you can run yourself, which will boil down web pages and make them possibly usable on ancient computers. Heck there's a sixel based terminal remote command browser you can use with a modern browser running Firefox as the slave. But the real thing is all the web is totally optional, there's IRC, Usenet is getting popular again and it's mostly oldfags and non-retards since Google Groups unhooked from it.Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and screamed that you have to use the modern web all day. Just chill out. Get a C64 and learn to program it, they're still affordable unlike a lot of older computers. Even they can get on the Internet easily these days if you want. Plenty to do with zero modern web.As for me I have this old HP plasma-screen 486 Unix computer, it was really heart-stoppingly expensive as configures (over $14,000 I have the invoice too!) and it runs a UNIX from ROMs. It has like 20MB of ROM. And it's lightning fast. But the hard drive is iffy.
>>107579176It's not even developers who are at fault, when it comes to commercial software, it's companies not paying for optimization, the developers simply have to half ass it sometimes. This shitstorm won't be big enough to make a dent but technically if people switch to better running alternatives for a piece of software because hardware is expensive or unavailable, there might be more competition in optimization.
>>107579301Nah the problem is the platforms, you have the OS, they you choose the language, then the frameworks, then etc. and blah blah... it's shit.All this stuff together takes up most of the computer's capabilities and always has, it's how they get away with selling us, by comparison, virtual supercomputers which are basically no faster to use than the ones we had thirty years ago.Back when going from like 33 to 40 MHz was a three year leap? There was optimization. Now you just hope the compiler can auto-vectorize and loop-unroll it all. Modern computers are no fun. Nobody likes coding with AI, or frameworks that always change, or anything like that. It's just sucked the joy and fun out of computers. Zoomers can sense it, they have this desire to use old technology. It's almost cargo cultism. They know just instinctually that times were better.
>>107579358>Back when going from like 33 to 40 MHz was a three year leap?Niggy, we went from 66MHz to 1GHz on the same ISA in 6 years, not to mention all the SIMD instructions that got bolted on turning the same period.
>>107579384>66MHz to 1GHz on the same ISA in 6 yearsNo we didn't stop falling for lies. We double pumped the clock, the cache went on-die and got really fast, but the base PCI bus stayed slower but they eventually double pumped that but RAM and disk are still slow.IF you can pack everything you are doing into the chip it's fast as fuck, hit ram it's like still "fast but '90s" speed.Also the bus is no longer a lockstep beautiful thing where you can do small things in order, you have to send packets down it and etc. what a mess. Ever look into even trying to program something with a PCI bus interface? It's stupidly dumb to even try really.It's the same basic thing that happened to software. Harware's overly complicated.
>>107579418>No we didn't stop falling for lies.What are you talking about, I literally had a 66MHz P1 that came out in 1993, in 1996. First 1GHz Athlon came out in 1999 already, had a Coppermine myself that was 733MHz in 2001, even though there was a 1GHz SKU.
>>107579125Just stop being poor.
>>107579125If only. Windows 2000 ran better on its hardware than Windows 11 23H2 does on my 14900K. I really hope MS is serious about focusing on performance like it was Vista to 7.
hmm I bought the macbook pro m4 pro with 2GB RAM on release, maybe I should have bought more RAM.
>>107581185*24GB RAM
>>107579533This. The 90s were wild.
web developers in 2024> unused ram is wasted ramweb developers in 2026> maybe we can try and do with a little less
>>107579125nothing short of global catastrophe will bring it back
