There's rather a lot of information in a single uncompressed 1080p image. I can't help but wonder what it all gets used to for.
For example, Java applications will claim much more memory than they need for the heap. Most of that memory will be unused, but it's necessary to have a faster running application. If you've ever run a Java app at consistently 90% heap usage, you know it grinds to an absolute halt with constant collection.
The same is true for caching techniques. Reading from storage is slow, so it often makes sense to put stuff in RAM even if you're not using it very often.
But I remember in 2016 Fedora Gnome consumed about 1.6GB of RAM on my PC with 2GB of RAM a decade ago. Considering that after a decade the standard Ubuntu Gnome consumes only 400MB more RAM and also that my new laptop has 16GB of RAM (the system might use more RAM when more RAM is installed), I think the increase is not that bad for a decade. I thought it would be much worse.
What has changed? Why do I need 10x the RAM to open a handful of terminals and a text editor?
> What has changed? Why do I need 10x the RAM to open a handful of terminals and a text editor?
It’s not a factor of ten, but a 4K monitor has about four times as many pixels. Cached font bitmaps scale with that, photos take more memory, etc.
> When Windows 2000 came out
In those times, when part of a window became uncovered, the OS would ask the application to redraw that part. Nowadays, the OS knows what’s there because it keeps the pixels around, so it can bitblit the pixels in.
Again, not a factor of ten, but it contributes.
The number of background processes likely also increased, and chances are you used to run fewer applications at the same time. Your handful of terminals may be a bit fuller now than it was back then.
Neither of those really explain why you need gigabytes of RAM nowadays, though, but they didn’t explain why Windows 2000 needed whatever it needed at its time, either.
The main real reason is “because we can afford to”.
Partly because increased RAM usage can sometimes improve execution speed / smoothness or security (caching, browser tab isolation).
Partly because developers have less pressure to optimize software performance, so they optimize other things, such as development time.
Here is an article about bloat: https://waspdev.com/articles/2025-11-04/some-software-bloat-...
But raw imagery is one of the few cases where you can legitimately require large amounts of RAM because of the squaring nature of area. You only need that raw state in a limited number of situations where you are manipulating the data though. If you are dealing with images without descending to pixels then there's pretty much no reason to keep it all floating around in that form, You generally don't have more than a hundred icons onscreen, and once you start fetching data from the slowest RAM in your machine you get pretty decent speed gains from using decompression than trying to move the uncompressed form around.
anyways, I bet there's like a million little buffers all over the place in the graphics stack. It would be neat to go through all that and just see how slim you could get it, even if it broke a bunch of stuff.
The culprit is browsers, mostly.