> We did with 256MB of RAM
256 != 16MB. We're already 16x past the original claim, and it's still not as useful as my current machine.
And were those photos the same resolution and bit depth? Would you say the experience is really similar? Back when I had 256MB of RAM, editing even a couple megapixel photo from my Nikon Coolpix 2000 was usually pretty slow. There's no way it would reasonably process a 20MP photo and have an acceptable experience.
Still no VR gaming.
And yeah, sure, I did video calls at 256MB RAM. It was a pretty crappy experience, like 320x240 at like 10fps, nowhere near comparable to having multiple participants in HD and reasonable frame rates. I did maybe a handful of calls a month, now I have several calls a day. However, I never did video calls on a machine with 16MB of RAM.
The person I was replying to was talking about a 16MB desktop, not a 256MB desktop.
And like, yeah, if you scale back the expectations to the other stuff we had when desktops had 256MB of RAM on average, and you squint real hard, it kind of looks the same. But that 2MP photo isn't the same as a 20MP RAW, they're not really comparable. A laggy, pixelated, single video call really isn't the same as multi person HD calls. The expansion in features makes these things a lot more viable in actually using them day to day. Like, I didn't bother video calling many people because the experience in 256MB RAM was miserable. Now I do it all the time, because the experience is way better because our computers are just so much more powerful.
If the experience of doing it is so bad from it's limitations that you practically never use it, it's utility value is practically zero.