this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
554 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

83449 readers
3010 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kamen@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Regardless of the OS, if you're using the computer for anything productive, the application software, not the OS, will eat the majority of the RAM anyway. If you're looking at the minimum requirements, chances are you're not looking to do anything besides browsing the web with 5 tabs open.

It sucks though, I agree - software should get more efficient over time, just like hardware does. Out of curiosity, do we have anything more specific, i.e. how they tested that, what apps were running and so on? Or maybe they now deem that more things should be running?

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Which is exactly what Ubuntu is doing. The desktop and even most native desktop applications that come with it will run just fine with 1 or 2GB of ram. If you used it like a 90s computer for 90s computer tasks, it will work fine.

In practice, however, users will open a web browser to some “modern” websites or a couple electron apps and have a very bad experience.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

It sucks though, I agree - software should get more efficient over time, just like hardware does.

It generally does, for any given computing task, but the problem is that generally software adds more features over time, not least of which is supporting new hardware that hits the ecosystem.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 19 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

This doesn't seem so bad, though. 2 GB more in about 10 years is pretty reasonable in terms of an increase.

It's not like they doubled it.

[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 7 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

It seems to imply that software has gotten way worse in the last 10 years.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

All of the default software that comes with the Ubuntu desktop will run reasonably well with 2Gb. Its the websites and electon apps (i.e., websites) that will make it swap. That and modern users that want to keep dozens of programs or websites open -which users 10 or 20 years ago may have known not to do.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 13 hours ago

Worse is relative, a proportion of the requirement increase will be due to worse code, but much more will be for features to make the software more accessible to more people, and adding features without needing to remove old ones, neither of which are a bad thing, otherwise everything would be a command line tool that removes options every few months and only has one way to use it

[–] ksh@aussie.zone 2 points 12 hours ago

2GB is a lot

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

no it is not reasonable. What the hell do they need an extra 2gb for? What the hell is the operating system taking up that much resources for?

My first pc needed 4MiB of ram for the os. Why does this need 1536x as much to provide.... not much else tbh?

[–] T156@lemmy.world 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

According to the article linked in the article, it's not that the operating system itself is more demanding, but more that the DE, and Browsers/Websites are more demanding now.

It feels like that Canonical basically needs to do the games thing of having a set of minimum specs for Ubuntu to run at all, and a recommend specs for Ubuntu to run well. Canonically basically bumped up the latter, but it's being taken as the former.

[–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 hours ago

I mean the headline in your linked article literally calls it the 'minimum system requirements' not 'reccomended'. Games have had two sets of requirements for decades, I don't see why they couldn't do the same. Regardless if you need to run Linux on older/less powerful hardware there's much better choices than Ubuntu, which is designed to be as beginner-friendly as possible at the cost of performance and customizability as is, so in their case I guess it kinda makes sense to dumb it down.

[–] jungfred@lemmy.ml 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Ubuntu is the Windows of Linux.

It's getting more and more bloated with unnecessary and unwanted things, because of canonicals bad management decisions. They seemingly care more about "business" rather than users.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

I’m not a fan, but thats extreme. The Ubuntu desktop will boot to the DE on half a gig of ram, and can open basic desktop apps with 1 or 2. Its the websites, containered apps, and more complex applications that Ubuntu is worried about UX disappointment from naive users (which is their segment). Windows 11 requires many times that just to get to a desktop and open a text file in notepad. They are not the same.

[–] bold_omi@lemmy.today 20 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Use Debian if you want a system like Ubuntu that isn't full of Canonical's corporate shit. Ubuntu is based on Debian.

[–] mapleseedfall@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago

Honestly, dont take anyones recommendation. It takes 10 minutes to create a bootable USB for a Linux distro once you get the hang of it. Try a handful of different “easy” distros and desktops on a Saturday morning and pick one that seems to work well on your computer and that you find you like. What you find intuitive isnt necessarily good for another, etc. A little time invested in shopping will pay off later (which is true for a lot of things).

[–] flubba86@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago

Yeah, LMDE is pretty good. I used it for a couple of years during my rage-against-Ubuntu phase.

[–] webkitten@piefed.social 5 points 20 hours ago

My Tandy Sensation required 256MB and everything worked fine.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] Sgarcnl@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] parlaptie@feddit.org 2 points 15 hours ago

I use arch myself but I don't think it's a good alternative top Ubuntu

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Shocked i got this far without someone blaming snaps

[–] Alberat@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

i blame snaps

[–] elbiter@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago
  1. Everything is a framework under a framework running on a pseudo virtual machine. 6 GB are just for the notepad and the mouse driver.
[–] moxymarauder@thelemmy.club 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wonder how much of this is just modern web apps... even running without a containerized distro and a leaner DE - I still have +90% of my RAM taken up by websites.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Modern UI development is such fucking shit. I have no idea why they went with all of these heavyweight shit frameworks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Me with 16 GB on my computer

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

[–] KonkeNeo@feddit.org 2 points 14 hours ago

That's not an argument for me, because less RAM usage by the operating system leaves you with more resources left for your applications and programms.

[–] umbraroze@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fun thing, I just booted up an old computer. Started right up. It had Ubuntu 11.10 on it.

Now, I obviously didn't connect the thing to the Internet. Updates would have probably failed hard. Not because it's missing over a decade of updates so there might be some complications on that front, but because it's a Pentium III with Definitely Not Even a Gigabyte of memory. (Oh and a Nvidia GeForce 2 MX. I'm pretty sure that's not supported by... any driver any more.)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] azvasKvklenko@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 46 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"HERE'S A NICKLE, KID. GET YOURSELF A BETTER COMPUTER."

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago

20 years ago when Scott Adams was still a moderately sane human.

load more comments
view more: next ›