The fact that I’m here doing just fine with most of the creative stuff I do (excluding 3D), and some gaming, with 16GB RAM, 6GB VRAM and an HDD (not SSD), proves the point I made.
Another thing is: this is just the “create a demand for something people don’t need, then force them to buy it” tactic. Now people have convinced themselves that the new supply of tech is the bare minimum. Eventually, unless we wipe ourselves out sooner than expected, 128GB of RAM will be seen as dated.
It only proves that it works for what you do. That means that you have the right specs for your use.
That being said, it wouldn’t work for me. When I had only 16GB of RAM, editing large RAW images was miserable. You really need more RAM for that. That was ~10 years ago.
Further, your machine wouldn’t be able to play many of the games I enjoy playing. I find playing games with the latest cutting-edge visuals to be fun and exciting. I like that graphics are evolving. Does that mean that older or graphically less sophisticated games can’t be fun? No.
I also suspect whatever CPU you have in that machine would be miserable compiling software which I need to do regularly.
In addition to all of that, I have the requirements of running VMs and various other tasks I do that you may not.
It all boils down to use case and preference. We don’t all use our machines the same way and we don’t all have the same desires.
I can tell you this though. I had a 16C32T AMD Threadripper 2950x, 64GB of RAM and a Radeon 6700 XT and that machine was not fast enough for my daily use. Would it be fast enough for many people. Almost definitely.
That’s why it’s called a Personal Computer 
I do not believe that. People as mindless consumers who are ripped off by industry. Advertising as the key to manipulating consumers. In the end, consumers are defenseless and buy stuff that they do not need and the industry is happy. That might be the case for only a few people, but that is certainly not the majority of us.
I get what you’re saying. You also proved my point, though.
Remote assistance, servers, VMs, video games, digital art/design, etc. all existed before 64GB RAM was “needed” to do those very same things.
Adobe is the industry standard in digital art and design. You’re the saying that the people who can’t even afford their apps, but still find themselves either pirating them or using their dinner money to RENT those apps, don’t feel forced to do so?
In fact, in some cases, they are quite literally forced to do so or not be able to have a job in their local industry, because some (MANY) employers require it. Not just the corporate licence companies, but also the companies using it for free without a proper license, and the ones who tell their employees to get it on their personal devices.
It’s Digital Stockholm Syndrome.
Anyway, I’m gonna shut my mouth on this topic. I’ve talked about this fact too much over the years. It always feels strange arguing with people (especially Linux users) who understand the negative effects of Big Tech that somewhat defend Big Tech without outright saying they are pro-Big tech. Not saying all non-FOSS is bad, but some things are “black and white” for me, unfortunatrely or fortunately.
It’s a case of to each their own.
And I really need to accept that. So sorry to anyone I may have offended.
PS: These typos are crazy. 
Sure. But you can do those things in much more sophisticated way now. You can take higher quality images which require more compute. Go back and look at your digital images from 30 years ago. They look awful now. Things continue to evolve.
I mean, arguably, you could get from place to place just fine in a horse and carriage. Nobody needed to create cars that were horribly expensive and out of many people’s reach. But…for most of my life, I found it pretty convenient to be able to drive. Walking around rural areas or waiting on an uncomfortable horse driven carriage to take me would have been pretty limiting.
We did it with 32 MB of RAM. But what’s the point? Time moved on and gave us new tools which require more tech.
Sometimes you will need even more resources to run locally what Big Tech™️ is trying to sell you as a cloud service nowadays.
My 2015 rig had 32GB DDR4, my 2024 rig had 64GB DDR5, I try and future-proof as much as I can knowing that I’ll be running it for between seven and ten years, if not longer. Is 64GB too much? I can hit that when I’m doing anything postgresql-heavy with large datasets. Probably an edge-case, but with the way things currently are with memory prices, I’m glad I build this rig when I did..
The fact that you can purchase a Mac Studio with an M3 Ultra chip with up to 512 GBs of unified system memory is not only prohibitively expensive, it’s definitely not a system that a regular person would require for their personal rig.
And just recently, they introduced RDMA (remote direct memory access) over Thunderbolt 5. Which would allow you to deploy a local cluster of 4 Mac Studios which could share 128 CPU, 320 GPU and 128 NPU cores with a total 2 TB unified system memory.
I’ve seen at least 3 videos of some tech channels on youtube demonstrating that tech.
I bet you all can easily guess in which context they tested these local clusters…
Emulating Windows 95 so they could run Microsoft Bob?
Because the desktop analogy as used by Xerox for their pioneering work on GUIs has been definitely to complex and was obviously only comprehensible by academics.
And Steve Jobs.
[/s]
The More The Merrier
No, this proves absolutely nothing. Only that it works for YOUR use case.
Yes it existed before, but times have changed. VMs, OS, Video games etc became more demanding as they got more functionality, or in video games, launch unoptimized very often.
Apart from that, when I was in school, learning IT, (~2 years ago) the final task was to create 4 VMs. 1 Windows server for Active directory, 1 debian server as file server, 1 windows Client and 1 Linux client. All these needed to be connected and bound into the AD and able to use the file server. We were required to use our own laptops. Now guess which students took longest and struggled the most? Excacly, those with low ram and old cpus. Even me with my laptop (that already used linux back then) 4C/8T, 16Gb RAM (small gaming laptop) struggled. I still feel bad for those who had like 10 year old laptops. Had one classmate with a laptop that had an Intel core duo, probably 4Gb ram. He was very sad, always waiting for something to happen on the windows server. Poor guy.
Also about the digital art part, it depends. I sometimes do digital art, with krita or gimp. When I draw on krita a picture with 4k resolution and connect my second monitor and graphics tablet to my laptop. The lines very often appear 1 second delayed. It’s not fun. When I use my gaming pc on the other hand it’s smooth.
So in that case:
i7 10th Gen laptop cpu + 16Gb RAM + Gtx 1650ti
VS
i7 14th Gen + 32Gb RAM + RTX 4070ti super
Does indeed make a difference for digital art, esp when doing high resolution art, and your GPU has low vram, 4Gb vram vs 16gb vram can make a difference, and that not just in gaming.
Also video editing does go WAY faster on my gaming pc then my laptop. Waiting for a video to render for 30 minutes, then 1 hour and 15 minutes is a difference I think 
16 Gb is probably the sweet spot for most users. 32 GB is obviously more and beneficial for some. 64 GB well that’s just a boat load for normal users. 128 GB well that’s just bragging but if you can afford it well … as they say Just Do It! It’s like Gpu’s … most of us don’t need an RTX 5090 or an RX 9070 XT but I’m sure it’s nice when one does! 