When looking at historic fluctuations there are different reasons for them. For example, in 1993 it was a supply constraint due to a factory fire.

In contrast, the current price inflation is the result of a surge in demand from AI companies. Whether this eases any time soon will depend on how much an uptake there is with AI technology and whether than industry starts to become profitable (or whether funding can continue).

To me this is similar to the surge in GPU prices driven by crypto demand. And as we've seen, GPU prices haven't exactly normalized since then.

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-01-12, 13:58:

When looking at historic fluctuations there are different reasons for them. For example, in 1993 it was a supply constraint due to a factory fire.

I might modify that a bit. There was a fire, but there was enough product in the channel to weather the storm. The fire kicked off a wave of speculation in the market. Add in that manufacturing was transitioning from 1m to 4m chips so it was hard to bring on more capacity to handle the speculative demand and so prices doubled in short order.

Good, I bought this DDR4 2x32Gb memory modules 2.5 years ago for just $130:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09DTG3BD7

Now similar low cost memory modules 2.5 times more expensive!

douglar wrote on 2026-01-12, 14:30:

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-01-12, 13:58:

When looking at historic fluctuations there are different reasons for them. For example, in 1993 it was a supply constraint due to a factory fire.

I might modify that a bit. There was a fire, but there was enough product in the channel to weather the storm. The fire kicked off a wave of speculation in the market. Add in that manufacturing was transitioning from 1m to 4m chips so it was hard to bring on more capacity to handle the speculative demand and so prices doubled in short order.

Also during a period where everyone began to demand 4MB for "Windows" (Doom) and shortly thereafter 8MB... I know enthusiasts/prosumers had way more RAM earlier in the day, we're talking about SOHO and general computing populace. Then also PC demand curve had steepened upward.

Apparently at present point in time, PCs, Tablets, Phones, Consoles, all personal electronic digital devices are seeing a decline in sales, since before covid, so serving a shrinking market is not high on a RAM manufacturer's list of priorities.

I'm always late with RAM upgrades, at the end of last year, I ordered 2x 4 GB DDR3 sticks for my poor laptop that only has 2 GB. Reminds me of buying DDR1 for my previous desktop when DDR2 was mainstream.

I know right, outgoing RAM tech always goes to the price floor, then as everyone with old machines realise that they need a lot more RAM to keep it useable, it does a dead cat bounce and gets spendier for a bit then drops again as even with max RAM those systems can't keep up any more. I know this, but somehow it always gets me a little wrong footed, because I haven't been paying attention to the price drops in time, and then I wake up to it as they're climbing again, derp.

The good news, is that Linux adoption is sky-rocketing due to the devastating one-two-punch of Windows 10 sunsetting and new hardware being outrageously expensive, driving people to reuse older DDR4 and early DDR5 hardware that can't be upgraded to Windows 11, due to it's bizarre system requirements.

RetroGamer4Ever wrote on 2026-01-13, 19:00:

The good news, is that Linux adoption is sky-rocketing due to the devastating one-two-punch of Windows 10 sunsetting and new hardware being outrageously expensive, driving people to reuse older DDR4 and early DDR5 hardware that can't be upgraded to Windows 11, due to it's bizarre system requirements.

Which DDR5 hardware can't be upgraded to Windows 11?

The vast majority of people are never going to go download a Linux distro. I think Windows 10's death and the goofy hatred of Windows 11 would be more likely to spike Apple's or ChromeOS's marketshare. Or maybe they will just go tablet/phone-only lifestyle.

Most DDR3 based machines can run even Win 11 25H2 by running an ISO through Rufus and checking a couple boxes. Can also do an in-place upgrade install by running "setupprep /product server" on the Win11 ISO.

I agree, your average person isn't going to download and install Linux.

I suspect wider adoption of Linux would be driven by system builders offering inexpensive PC builds (relatively speaking) with Linux pre-installed.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-01-13, 19:44:

RetroGamer4Ever wrote on 2026-01-13, 19:00:

The good news, is that Linux adoption is sky-rocketing due to the devastating one-two-punch of Windows 10 sunsetting and new hardware being outrageously expensive, driving people to reuse older DDR4 and early DDR5 hardware that can't be upgraded to Windows 11, due to it's bizarre system requirements.

Which DDR5 hardware can't be upgraded to Windows 11?

When you look for examples it’s mostly business Intel systems with early ddr5 with a long lived socket type and the oldest cpu that technically works. I was trying to find what combo that could be and think it’s bs or a fringe case.

The other situation is if you re-use obsolete components in a newer board like a gpu. Which should be possible to work around anyway.

It would be interesting to see if anything actually does get blocked by vanilla 11.

rmay635703 wrote on 2026-01-14, 00:50:

When you look for examples it’s mostly business Intel systems with early ddr5 with a long lived socket type and the oldest cpu t […]
Show full quote

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-01-13, 19:44:

RetroGamer4Ever wrote on 2026-01-13, 19:00:

The good news, is that Linux adoption is sky-rocketing due to the devastating one-two-punch of Windows 10 sunsetting and new hardware being outrageously expensive, driving people to reuse older DDR4 and early DDR5 hardware that can't be upgraded to Windows 11, due to it's bizarre system requirements.

Which DDR5 hardware can't be upgraded to Windows 11?

When you look for examples it’s mostly business Intel systems with early ddr5 with a long lived socket type and the oldest cpu that technically works. I was trying to find what combo that could be and think it’s bs or a fringe case.

The other situation is if you re-use obsolete components in a newer board like a gpu. Which should be possible to work around anyway.

It would be interesting to see if anything actually does get blocked by vanilla 11.

Yeah, that's why I asked. I can't think of a single system that could possibly support DDR5 and wouldn't be new enough to support being updated to Windows 11.

The first production DDR5 was announced in October of 2020, so there weren't any platforms actually using it for a while after that. The first were Intel's 12th gen in 2021 and AMD's AM5 in 2022, neither of which could be used with processors from previous generations.

Assuming the board isn't missing some necessary TPM features, anything from Intel 8th Gen or Ryzen 2000 series and newer (2017-2018) should be supported, as well as some others, like the Ryzen 5 1600AF, which is a 2600 with lower clocks, or some of the 7th Gen chips that were used in Surface tablets (hmm...).

So really, only DDR3 and early DDR4 systems have much to be concerned about with regard to updating.

Anyway, I still haven't made the jump personally. I haven't seen any reason to upgrade yet aside from the doom and gloom about support ending. The past three and a half years with no significant changes brought on by Microsoft updates have been the most trouble-free I've had with the OS in years. I almost never have to do house calls for systems have that bricked themselves, and my PCs tend to always start up normally with no surprises. From what I've read, this is more than can be said even for a lot of Linux distros. I will do whatever I have to do to keep this trouble-free computer usage going for as long as I can.

It's just a shame that the programmers and management at Microsoft can't just leave Windows 10 as it is, keep enough people on board to patch bugs and fix security flaws while the rest move on to do something else with their lives, rather than having to ensure that the rest of the world sacrifices their time, energy, sanity and money to keep them employed for another unnecessary OS cycle.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-01-14, 03:42:

It's just a shame that the programmers and management at Microsoft can't just leave Windows 10 as it is, keep enough people on board to patch bugs and fix security flaws while the rest move on to do something else with their lives, rather than having to ensure that the rest of the world sacrifices their time, energy, sanity and money to keep them employed for another unnecessary OS cycle.

Isn’t that their entire goal? It would be a contradiction of their entire history if they did something different this time.

swaaye wrote on 2026-01-13, 21:17:

The vast majority of people are never going to go download a Linux distro. I think Windows 10's death and the goofy hatred of Windows 11 would be more likely to spike Apple's or ChromeOS's marketshare. Or maybe they will just go tablet/phone-only lifestyle.

Most DDR3 based machines can run even Win 11 25H2 by running an ISO through Rufus and checking a couple boxes. Can also do an in-place upgrade install by running "setupprep /product server" on the Win11 ISO.

You would be wrong about that, a lot of people have downloaded distros of late . .far more than ever before.

Its not hard and the easier ones like Mint, Bazzite, CachyOS and ZoranOS have had huge numbers of people migrate to them.

Its not difficult to grab a distro and install it now, its easier and faster than Windows.

Also most people know how shit ChromeOS is and its generally avoided like the plague. Only people migrating to Apple are the ones who can afford to which isn't the people stuck on Win10 with machines that cant run Win11.

st31276a wrote on 2026-01-14, 05:23:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-01-14, 03:42:

It's just a shame that the programmers and management at Microsoft can't just leave Windows 10 as it is, keep enough people on board to patch bugs and fix security flaws while the rest move on to do something else with their lives, rather than having to ensure that the rest of the world sacrifices their time, energy, sanity and money to keep them employed for another unnecessary OS cycle.

Isn’t that their entire goal? It would be a contradiction of their entire history if they did something different this time.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for the rest of humanity.

Just like vehicles, appliances, tools and a lot of other things, there is a point of diminishing returns where everyone would probably be fine for decades using the same thing and productivity would probably improve by having things NOT change. But because the people\companies\investors involved in making "things" expect this cycle to continue forever until they die then we are forced to have to keep getting "improved" stuff that tends to be worse in many ways.

It's all great when you go from Windows 2.1 to Windows 7 in 20 years (whew, think about that for a minute...), but we're just three years shy of 20 years since Windows 7... and despite the various improvements that have been made, is customer satisfaction or productivity with the OS improving even remotely close to how it did the previous 20? Unlikely, if at all.

Since the vast majority of PC users would probably be 100% content to run a fully secure and up to date version of Windows 7 if they were given the opportunity, we all know which direction Microsoft had to go to continue making money. The same direction as most major corporations these days. 😔

If you can't make customers want to buy it, then just make them buy it (subscriptions)... or, better yet turn the customers into the product and sell them to people with deeper pockets (everything else that is going on now).

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-01-14, 08:19:

Of course, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for the rest of humanity. […]
Show full quote

st31276a wrote on 2026-01-14, 05:23:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-01-14, 03:42:

It's just a shame that the programmers and management at Microsoft can't just leave Windows 10 as it is, keep enough people on board to patch bugs and fix security flaws while the rest move on to do something else with their lives, rather than having to ensure that the rest of the world sacrifices their time, energy, sanity and money to keep them employed for another unnecessary OS cycle.

Isn’t that their entire goal? It would be a contradiction of their entire history if they did something different this time.

Of course, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck for the rest of humanity.

Just like vehicles, appliances, tools and a lot of other things, there is a point of diminishing returns where everyone would probably be fine for decades using the same thing and productivity would probably improve by having things NOT change. But because the people\companies\investors involved in making "things" expect this cycle to continue forever until they die then we are forced to have to keep getting "improved" stuff that tends to be worse in many ways.

It's all great when you go from Windows 2.1 to Windows 7 in 20 years (whew, think about that for a minute...), but we're just three years shy of 20 years since Windows 7... and despite the various improvements that have been made, is customer satisfaction or productivity with the OS improving even remotely close to how it did the previous 20? Unlikely, if at all.

Since the vast majority of PC users would probably be 100% content to run a fully secure and up to date version of Windows 7 if they were given the opportunity, we all know which direction Microsoft had to go to continue making money. The same direction as most major corporations these days. 😔

Microslop makes no money from Windows itself, its less than 8% of its business these days.

So yeah they naturally had to turn it into a advertisement subscription pushing platform, they have made it so obnoxious to use because they want people to go use their cloud computing. The entire industry is on this push to remove home PCs from the equation, they dont want you to own a PC at home you can do everything on . .they have cloud computing and streaming for that. So the entire price jacking the industry is currently doing is because they NEED to sell you the solution to a problem they created.

Nvidia wants people to use Geforce Now, so they reduce production for home users and build an AI empire to buy up all the Ram .. a self created problem. Listening to recent Jensen interviews its Obvious he had it planned out years ago and has been slowly working towards where we are now.

Amazon wants people to use their cloud computers, they even have preview pricing plans for it, they want to sell you a subscription to an entire PC, so naturally they also are in on the AI ram gobbling and tying up TSMC with their shitty AI chips.
Google is on it too ..but they wont go the streaming route . .they already own your Phones, TVs, tablets ETC
Microslop wants the same and is in BIG on the AI program ...in so deep they cannot allow it to fail and they will make Windows so unusable and unsecure that corporations will be forced to use their streaming slop to get any work done.

So don't believe for one second the hardware price hikes are due to shortages, they created the problem to sell you the solution.

This AI bubble cannot pop fast enough and take all these AI bros with it . .and while its at it itll take the entire industry with it too because they all sleep in the same damn bed. My hope is Oracle, Microslop, Google, Amazon and Novideo all get burnt to ash from it and take Scam Altman with them.

The Dotcom bubble aint got anything on the AI one.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2026-01-14, 08:19:

It's all great when you go from Windows 2.1 to Windows 7 in 20 years (whew, think about that for a minute...), but we're just three years shy of 20 years since Windows 7... and despite the various improvements that have been made, is customer satisfaction or productivity with the OS improving even remotely close to how it did the previous 20? Unlikely, if at all.

That is insane.

I agree, I also prefer the era when they were still blitting from the back buffer...

Trashbytes wrote on 2026-01-14, 08:25:

Microslop makes no money from Windows itself, its less than 8% of its business these days. […]
Show full quote

Microslop makes no money from Windows itself, its less than 8% of its business these days.

So yeah they naturally had to turn it into a advertisement subscription pushing platform, they have made it so obnoxious to use because they want people to go use their cloud computing. The entire industry is on this push to remove home PCs from the equation, they dont want you to own a PC at home you can do everything on . .they have cloud computing and streaming for that. So the entire price jacking the industry is currently doing is because they NEED to sell you the solution to a problem they created.

Nvidia wants people to use Geforce Now, so they reduce production for home users and build an AI empire to buy up all the Ram .. a self created problem. Listening to recent Je4nse interviews its Obvious he had it planned out years ago and has been slowly working towards where we are now.

Amazon wants people to use their cloud computers, they even have preview pricing plans for it, they want to sell you a subscription to an entire PC, so naturally they also are in on the AI ram gobbling and tying up TSMC with their shitty AI chips.
Google is on it too ..but they wont go the streaming route . .they already own your Phones, TVs, tablets ETC
Microslop wants the same and is in BIG on the AI program ...in so deep they cannot allow it to fail and they will make Windows so unusable and unsecure that corporations will be forced to use their streaming slop to get any work done.

So don't believe for one second the hardware price hikes are due to shortages, they created the problem to sell you the solution.

This AI bubble cannot pop fast enough and take all these AI bros with it . .and while its at it itll take the entire industry with it too because they all sleep in the same damn bed. My hope is Oracle, Microslop, Google, Amazon and Novideo all get burnt to ash from it and take Scam Altman with them.

The Dotcom bubble aint got anything on the AI one.

This is a very sad state of affairs, however, the writing has been on the wall for two decades, at least that is how long I have had an awareness of it.

In the mid 2000's I started realizing there is a strong drive to change the personal computer into a locked-down endpoint for content delivery. It seemed futile back then, because computers were still free and honest.

"Trusted platform" and "platform security" has come a long way since, meaning the exact opposite as the words used.

I also cannot wait for this house of cards to burn down to the ground, however, I do not hold my breath. I am certain they have long plans in place already.

Create the problem, have the solution ready. Very old playbook.

This is all so depressing. In the 60s/70s, computer resources were limited and centralized.
Users had to wait to get their time at the mainframe, there were terminals connected to hosts.

Then by mid-70s, the computer enthusiasts built their first microcomputers from scratch or by using kits.
Computers started to become personal, nolonger had to be shared, worked independently.

By the 80s, families had home computers and kids became tech savy.
In the 90s, PCs became common and the average users knew how to use DOS commands. *

By the turn of century, PCs became so powerful that they could challenge super computers of the past decade.
Yet same time, the users moved torwards centralized concepts again.
What used to be terminals and host computers now were thin clients and servers.

In late 2000s, the smartphones and closed platforms became more dominant.
Users increasingly used centralized services rather than uncentralized ones.

(Originally, the idea of the internet was that all devices could exchange data directly.
Instead of for example using a file hoster, users were expected to directly share a local directory or drive over internet.)

(*simplified, in a nutshell. There also were Atari ST, Amiga, Mac etc.)

You know, I was just thinking...

I wonder how the memory "shortage" is going to impact the warranty and RMA process for RAM.

I have had to replace more defective sticks of DDR4 in active service in the past two years than I have ever had to replace any other type of RAM in a span of probably 15 years. Not sure if anyone else has experienced this, or if it's just been a fluke. When it was only like $15-$20 for 8GB, it wasn't even worth thinking about setting up an RMA. Now though... you can bet more people are going to bother doing an RMA any time something is wrong.

So, how are companies going to deal with that? Most have been offering lifetime warranties on consumer RAM for many years. How many free $300-$900 sets of RAM are companies going to send out there before they start having to make "adjustments" to their RMA system? Don't be surprised if people start getting denied memory replacements for cosmetic damage due a tiny scuffs or scratches.