• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    No, of course not. Why have all that RAM and not use any of it? This is a very common misunderstanding.

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is true but only to a point. I have 64GB of RAM and I have seen Photoshop overshoot that and start eating up 20gb of page file. Working with the exact same files in Affinity Photo - it uses a quarter of that.

      There is a difference between “Efficiently use available memory for program functions” and “Fill all available memory with bloat and poorly coded rubbish”

      If your software’s function can be replicated using only 1/4 of system memory then your software is poorly written. Which Photoshop is.

    • AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The benefit of having unused RAM is that every program you are using can remain in memory for quick multitasking access and when you go to launch a new program it can be loaded into that unused RAM without unloading any of the currently running programs. What part about that is a misunderstanding? Would the user be better off if the application in focus aggressively reserved RAM it didn’t need to slow down every other running application? Because that’s what Photoshop does

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        What part about that is a misunderstanding?

        The part where you assumed 20GB is 100% of OP’s RAM, leaving nothing for any other programs.