We went over this though.
You're approaching this from the angle of what you think it should or shouldn't use.
I'm strictly dealing with the facts of what it is showing it needs.
Nothing more to say. You can reject the reality and say it shouldn't need that, but it doesn't change things. Maybe it shouldn't, but it clearly does.
Huh? Where do you get this idea?
You can't reduce load on other parts of the PC because you increase use on another part. I mean, sometimes that is possible depending on the details but it's not the norm. You have a misunderstanding of hardware and how software interacts with it if that's your baseline expectation.
Or maybe I misunderstand what you're saying here.
Because I'm not saying that, and I've been trying to get you to realize that distinction.
I'm not, in any way, shape, or form addressing the conversation from the level of what something should or shouldn't need. That's neither here nor there.
I'm addressing it from the angle of what it's showing it needs, based on your own description. You can refuse to accept the reality all you want, but you yourself are describing a scenario where a memory workload is pushing memory resources.
I'm not sure what else you expect me to say there.
Hardware doesn't remain equally capable forever. The fact that it was overkill for you once upon a time doesn't mean anything now. I want to repeat the obvious; you yourself are describing a scenario where you are lacking memory resources for the memory workload you are attempting to do. We can dance around that fact until the llamas come home but it's not going to change anything.
16 GB was pretty overkill for me in 2011 when I got it too. That stopped being the case shy of a decade later. Stuff doesn't remain as capable as it once was forever. If you want to argue that angle, we should all go back to some kilobytes of RAM and limit ourselves to that then? After all, once upon a time, it was overkill too. You're asking the wider tech and software world to stop moving on because you "disapprove" of it.
Having been on Windows 10 from the start doesn't mean you can ignore the trend that software needs go up. Windows 10 from whenever you started using it likely isn't the same as it is now. Web browsers aren't the same. Drivers aren't the same. It all adds up. And 8 GB just isn't a lot anymore. 5+ years ago, maybe.
If you are allocating 5 GB to the JVM, that explains your problem. Windows itself will use a "not insignificant" chunk of 8 GB these days (about half, give or take). Minecraft, with 5 GB allocated, will actually use up to a lot more than 5 GB.
This is too apparent. You clearly need more memory for the workload you are attempting to run. Everything you describe indicates this. Alternatively, just... allocate 2 GB or less instead of 5 GB? Why are you allocating so much to an older version that likely doesn't need it anyway? This alone might go a long way to cutting back memory use.