[Bartweiss]

I always think about Windows Vista when I hear "unlimited memory". Somebody looked at expanding memory and processing, and decided "let's have an animated 3D background for the OS, that'll be good". Memory is always going to be pushed to its limits unless devs and users alike go out of their way to keep it intact.

[jooke]

What's the point of having more memory if not for new features?

[Bartweiss]

In general, nothing.

For example, Chrome eats pretty much all free memory keeping tabs loaded, but surrenders it gracefully when needed. That's a great use of memory.

But for an OS, and specifically for a feature that doesn't devolve unless the user goes and manually changes it, it's obnoxious. The OS is inherently a support layer for the things the user opens by choice; I'd argue any expansion of its resource footprint ought to have a clear justification.

[lostgame]

In an Operating System, that ‘more memory’ could be used for applications instead of bloat.

[hoosieree]

Sorry, I don't trust myself or you to exercise restraint. The ONLY thing that keeps memory usage in check is physics.