Hacker News Reader

For the time when OS 9 was relevant that would have been a RAM hog. My iBook (first generation) had 32 MB RAM on board (plus an upgrade slot, how refreshing).

Sure, that wasn't top of the line, but it would definitely restrict your ability to multi task with other programs at the same time. My memory is that many programs used far less than that, allowing you to easily have 5-7 programs open (I had a RAM upgrade for a total of 64 MB).

View on HN

> ...many programs used far less than that...

Maybe because those programs were not doing anything as graphically intensive as this. Or perhaps this programs caches more. When OS 9 was relevant were there any programs with comparable capabilities? Such statements are meaningless unless you have insight into how much memory this task should take (and even that is highly variable depending on how one wants to trade-off CPU vs memory usage). Only then can you determine the difference between a “RAM hog” and your computer being too small.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com