> It solves the problem that a e.g. browser eats all your memory.
It doesn't solve that. You get a little bit more headroom, but that's it. Not much ram is considered compressible anyway. On my Mac I'm barely reaching 10% of compressed memory anyway, so it doesn't make that much difference.
No offense, but you are being a very precise in defense but very broad in your (in general incorrect) claim.
The representation of an image sitting in memory will be a bitmap array, and for sure that will compress quite well. Video data as well but any decompressed frames are so transient I agree they won't benefit. ML-models don't compress well, but training data certainly does.
If you put aside mapping already compressed or non-compressable data into memory, all the rest of the things ram is used for can be compressed. Day to day you will have a lot of memory allocated that can be compressed. Most memory in use right now on most computers is compressible.
yes, it's not the ultimate solution but if your machine behaves in 98% of cases snappy and does not slow down vs. let's say only 70% of cases then that's a huge usability difference. Sometimes you just need a little headroom on top and not more. As some user point out it really depends on the workload and data etc. Browsers are a good example because in my experience browser cache can be compressed quite good.
It doesn't solve that. You get a little bit more headroom, but that's it. Not much ram is considered compressible anyway. On my Mac I'm barely reaching 10% of compressed memory anyway, so it doesn't make that much difference.