This really hasn't been true on consumer devices for a while now. Sure, you can add RAM to a server for cheap, but no one really runs a browser there. In many cases now, adding more memory to a device means buying a completely new device. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter much if the component is cheap if there's no way to actually install it.
I think the parent's comment still stands if you're comparing the cost of memory relative to processing power. Most devices have more memory than most people need, but there is never enough processing power. So, given the tradeoff of having Chrome (or whatever other program) use more memory in exchange for speed, I would take it.
I guess we're going to have agree to disagree. My experience is many people have more processor power than they can make use of but never have enough memory. Laptops are shipping with 7th gen i5s (granted, mobile components), which are more than suitable for many consumer applications, but still only have 4 - 8 GB RAM. Memory configurations in laptops & desktops haven't really changed much over the past several years. Mobile devices still ship with much less than that.
But in either event, the parent was directly replying to someone whose experience suggests Chrome's memory usage is a problem. Telling him to just add more RAM is disingenuous because that's simply not possible in many (probably most) cases now. Taking him at his word that memory consumption is a problem, what's the real solution?
Frankly, I'm in the same boat. And it's a trivial search to find numerous people that find the increasing memory usage of Chrome to be problematic. For my part, it's been a long time since I've visited a site and wished it did something faster that wasn't directly attributable to a bad code pattern in use on that site. Continuing to improve performance here has been of minimal benefit while increasing memory consumption is something I feel acutely.
Due to the way RAM works, you also always have a use for more RAM. Chrome is slowing down other programs on your system by using more RAM, so it's not using more memory in exchange for speed, it's sacrificing the speed of the rest of your system to speed itself up.
Just because your disk cache is expanding to fill your available RAM (which doesn't even always happen depending on the kernel/RAM size) doesn't mean that extra cache buys you anything. At some point it's just going to be holding stuff that isn't used before it's evicted.
Not for many people. Look at the stats for how many people are running old android versions to get an idea of what percentage of users are getting by with 1-2gb of memory.
Also some not-very-low-end computers still ship with 4GB of soldered on RAM, like the $1000 model of the new Surface Pro or the €1399 model of the Matebook X.
not only that, but crashes correlate with too-high memory usage (I already use the great suspender to fold tabs up until I'm ready for them - still too high).
This is sometimes devastating for me, as described here:
