Blame Chrome.
I couldn't resist.

I can see how loading potentially hundreds of thumbnail images (by pressing “see more” a few times) could eat up 1.3 gigabytes of RAM.

A different browser may use less… and as BigNate469 mentioned the my stuff page has the potential to be pretty demanding depending on how many projects you have loaded

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

What OS are you on :D (honestly just curious i wont annoy you about it lol)

IGNITEstudios wrote:

A different browser may use less… and as BigNate469 mentioned the my stuff page has the potential to be pretty demanding depending on how many projects you have loaded

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

Could be on an older computer or 32-bit
Edit: Anyway, that makes me feel old lol

IGNITEstudios wrote:

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

Yeah it's 32_000_000_000 memory circuits!!! How does that fit into a computer???

IGNITEstudios wrote:

A different browser may use less… and as BigNate469 mentioned the my stuff page has the potential to be pretty demanding depending on how many projects you have loaded

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

4gb means the OP is likely on a chromebook or similar device. Most chromebook ship with 4gb (only 3gb after system use though ) I had to deal with problems like this with big projects which would freeze and, essentially, crash it.

nembence wrote:

IGNITEstudios wrote:

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

Yeah it's 32_000_000_000 memory circuits!!! How does that fit into a computer???

Human innovation

For the record, I managed to run Scratch 3.0 on an iPad with 2 gigs of RAM for 4 years, with the only real issues I encountered being in extremely large projects that the processor probably couldn't handle even if it had enough RAM to load them.

My point is, Scratch's minimum RAM requirements are pretty low anyways- so with the exception of the My Stuff page (which, as I mentioned above, could be taking up that much just because of images), 4GB shouldn't really be a problem.

BigNate469 wrote:

I can see how loading potentially hundreds of thumbnail images (by pressing “see more” a few times) could eat up 1.3 gigabytes of RAM.

with how small they are shouldn't it be just a few megabytes, even if they are stored uncompressed?

MonkeyBean2 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I can see how loading potentially hundreds of thumbnail images (by pressing “see more” a few times) could eat up 1.3 gigabytes of RAM.

with how small they are shouldn't it be just a few megabytes, even if they are stored uncompressed?

It's likely Chrome itself eating up most of the ram. From my experience on a 4gb system (chromebook): 1.5-2gb were dedicated to the OS, then chrome took roughly 1-1.5 gb (not considering possible extensions and # of tabs), this leaves only a few hundred mb for user use.

medians wrote:

What OS are you on :D (honestly just curious i wont annoy you about it lol)

IGNITEstudios wrote:

A different browser may use less… and as BigNate469 mentioned the my stuff page has the potential to be pretty demanding depending on how many projects you have loaded

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

Could be on an older computer or 32-bit
Edit: Anyway, that makes me feel old lol

I'm on Chromebook… (which SUCKS)

IGNITEstudios wrote:

A different browser may use less… and as BigNate469 mentioned the my stuff page has the potential to be pretty demanding depending on how many projects you have loaded

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

I'm on Chromebook, and this was 500 dollars so it was a SO much scam, and I'm gonna just buy a PC, since I'm sick of this…

TechNerd64 wrote:

MonkeyBean2 wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I can see how loading potentially hundreds of thumbnail images (by pressing “see more” a few times) could eat up 1.3 gigabytes of RAM.

with how small they are shouldn't it be just a few megabytes, even if they are stored uncompressed?

It's likely Chrome itself eating up most of the ram. From my experience on a 4gb system (chromebook): 1.5-2gb were dedicated to the OS, then chrome took roughly 1-1.5 gb (not considering possible extensions and # of tabs), this leaves only a few hundred mb for user use.

I do have some extensions including a cache clearer (auto), and a Ad blocker, which saves me a lot of ram for using ram.

BigNate469 wrote:

I can see how loading potentially hundreds of thumbnail images (by pressing “see more” a few times) could eat up 1.3 gigabytes of RAM.

I do have quite a bit of projects, but it only takes high end 500mb of ram and NOW it is only taking up that much, I can and will not be coding until Scratch fixes this or I get my new PC.

SuperSonicmario wrote:

Blame Chrome.
I couldn't resist.

You do make a point, it's just non-removeable and it uses processes in the background, which getting a new browser would just be taking up MORE ram because chrome is still running even when it's off, so, I would've swapped to Opera, or something… BUT, it wouldn't help ram once so ever…

Hiikk22alt wrote:

medians wrote:

What OS are you on :D (honestly just curious i wont annoy you about it lol)

IGNITEstudios wrote:

A different browser may use less… and as BigNate469 mentioned the my stuff page has the potential to be pretty demanding depending on how many projects you have loaded

(also 4 gb of ram in 2025 is crazy?)

Could be on an older computer or 32-bit
Edit: Anyway, that makes me feel old lol

I'm on Chromebook… (which SUCKS)

Chrome OS is slightly more efficient than Windows at handling memory (Windows is more bloated, has more processes) , so I doubt it really holds you back as much as your hardware.

Hiikk22alt wrote:

BigNate469 wrote:

I can see how loading potentially hundreds of thumbnail images (by pressing “see more” a few times) could eat up 1.3 gigabytes of RAM.

I do have quite a bit of projects, but it only takes high end 500mb of ram and NOW it is only taking up that much, I can and will not be coding until Scratch fixes this or I get my new PC.

Scratch doesn't have to fix anything, since loading tons of images/comments uses up a large amount of memory on any website.