• helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 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
        ·
        5 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
        5 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
          ·
          5 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.