Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Portables (Apple) Desktops (Apple) Apple Hardware Technology

Is 8GB of RAM Enough For a Mac? (pcgamer.com) 465

Apple is doubling down on 8GB of RAM for many of its entry-level Macs, claiming that it's "suitable for many tasks," including browsing, video streaming and even "light" video and image editing. As of this writing, all MacBook Air laptops, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook Pro 14 all start with a base configuration of 8GB RAM -- which can't be upgraded at a later date since the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard. "That might have been OK were it not for the fact that Apple charges a ridiculous $200 to upgrade any of those machines from 8GB to 16GB," notes PC Gamer's Jeremy Laird. Even if an 8GB Mac does some of the previously stated tasks tolerably well, Laird argues that "8GB still isn't acceptable." From the report: That's because a Mac with 8GB can easily run out of memory just browsing the web. That's particularly true with Chrome, which just so happens to be the most popular browser around. Regular Chrome users will know what a memory hog Chrome can be. Right now, I have about 15 tabs open, which is actually pretty low for me. Often, my tab count can blow well past 50 in multiple windows. Handily, Chrome shows you memory usage if you mouse-over a given tab. And three of my current tabs are chewing up over 500MB each. So, that's 1.5GB for just three Chrome tabs. Add a couple more, plus MacOS's underlying memory footprint for just being up and running and you're bang out of RAM.

Overall, I'm using 12.5GB of memory and the only application I have open is Chrome. Oh, and did I mention I'm typing this on a 16GB MacBook Air? I used to have an 8GB Apple silicon Air and to be frank it was a nightmare, constantly running out of memory just browsing the web. That's the point most observers miss. The usual narrative is that 8GB isn't good enough for serious workflows. It isn't but that completely misses the more important point. 8GB isn't even enough for browsing the web.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is 8GB of RAM Enough For a Mac?

Comments Filter:
  • by Lavandera ( 7308312 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @05:06AM (#64404018)

    This is all done by Apple on purpose...

    8 GB version is only to be able to say 'new .. starting as low as ...'

    Also it might be enough for chromebook users..

    • by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @06:09AM (#64404178)

      I'm not even sure of that. Its just like this stupid weird habit that Apple has always had of undergunning entry level macs for ram that went well back into the era when upgrading was as easy as it was for a pc. Its like they just cant shake the idea that Ram isn't a big deal when in reality it IS a big deal and as a Unix based operating system is more sensitive to ram than it necessarily is to CPU speeds for most non crunchy tasks. Sure the ridiculous speed SSDs means swapping isnt QUITE the drag it used to be, that also comes with the caveat that swapping on SSDs is a stone cold cycle killer.

      Apple needs to figure out how to let macs do modular ram.

      • that also comes with the caveat that swapping on SSDs is a stone cold cycle killer.

        And also a stone cold SSD killer.

        Apple needs to figure out how to let macs do modular ram.

        They can't get this kind of performance (for those short-running tasks that actually perform well on an inadequately cooled system anyway) with modular RAM. It would also take some of the profit out of the machine, or they would have to charge an even more ridiculous price in order to maintain their enormous margins.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's upsell. Back when you could upgrade it, a lot of people would just pay Apple prices to avoid the hassle of finding compatible RAM and dealing with potential warranty issues arising from/with it. Keep the base price low for the headlines, so people are interested and can talk themselves into the upgrade.

        Nowadays you can't upgrade the RAM, or the SSD, so there is even more pressure to take the upgrade. Apple have zero competition so the prices are ridiculous.

        • by unrtst ( 777550 )

          Back when you could upgrade it...

          Soldered on ram in 2024 on laptops and mini desktops just blows my mind. WHY!?!?! We've been through this. Even if what they're supplying is OK today (it isn't), if there was just a slot to add more, even if it had to match whatever was soldered on, it would greatly extend the life of these machines. And they already know that most people will end up getting their upgraded ram from Apple. Cutting off that upgrade path makes no sense, IMO; It's cannibalizing their own business and users to ensure no one gets

          • by unrtst ( 777550 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @08:59AM (#64404662)

            ... current Mac Pro offering:
            * $6,999 base price
            * 1tb - 8tb storage!??!?!? THAT'S ALL!??!

            So, how much are Apple's SSD upgrades?
            * 2TB SSD Upgrade kit for for Mac Pro: $1000
            * 4TB SSD Upgrade kit for for Mac Pro: $1600
            * 8TB SSD Upgrade kit for for Mac Pro: $2800

            Meanwhile, Samsung 990 PRO PCIe NVMe:
            * 2TB: $188
            * 4TB: $325
            * 8TB (QVO SSD): $595
            * 8TB (Corsair MP600 Pro): $979

            It's not just 2x as expensive, or even 3x or 4x. It's FIVE TIMES the price of similar products. How does anyone justify that premium?

            Upgrading an older Mac Pro? They sell a 1TB kit for $600... but it's actually 2x 512gb SSD's. And they all use proprietary connectors. Hard pass.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 )

              ... current Mac Pro offering:
              * $6,999 base price
              * 1tb - 8tb storage!??!?!? THAT'S ALL!??!

              So, how much are Apple's SSD upgrades?
              * 2TB SSD Upgrade kit for for Mac Pro: $1000
              * 4TB SSD Upgrade kit for for Mac Pro: $1600
              * 8TB SSD Upgrade kit for for Mac Pro: $2800

              Meanwhile, Samsung 990 PRO PCIe NVMe:
              * 2TB: $188
              * 4TB: $325
              * 8TB (QVO SSD): $595
              * 8TB (Corsair MP600 Pro): $979

              It's not just 2x as expensive, or even 3x or 4x. It's FIVE TIMES the price of similar products. How does anyone justify that premium?

              Upgrading an older Mac Pro? They sell a 1TB kit for $600... but it's actually 2x 512gb SSD's. And they all use proprietary connectors. Hard pass.

              Um, Math anyone?

              $979 x 5 = $4895, not the real price of $2200 (and certainly not the bullshit $2800 you quoted). Quit lying.

              https://www.apple.com/shop/buy... [apple.com]

              Plus, you can still stick SATA Drives/RAID into an ASi Mac Pro.

          • It's not soldered on - it's on-die. It's the SSD that's soldered. A base build of 16GB and these would have a lot more resale value when they are 5-7 years old. A casual user could easily be buying a used Macbook Air rather than a new machine anyway.

            Their pricing tiers have always been ridiculous. A flat $200 to bump up to the next level of either storage or RAM, no matter what the market prices really are. You can get a whole junk laptop with that much RAM for just the upgrade price.

        • Apple have zero competition so the prices are ridiculous.

          What's ridiculous is your statement. There are plenty of laptop manufacturers besides Apple.

        • It's upsell. Back when you could upgrade it, a lot of people would just pay Apple prices to avoid the hassle of finding compatible RAM and dealing with potential warranty issues arising from/with it. Keep the base price low for the headlines, so people are interested and can talk themselves into the upgrade.

          Nowadays you can't upgrade the RAM, or the SSD, so there is even more pressure to take the upgrade. Apple have zero competition so the prices are ridiculous.

          Citations to prove that you cannot upgrade RAM or SSD. Perhaps I am hallucinating when I do this?

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        that also comes with the caveat that swapping on SSDs is a stone cold cycle killer.

        A lot of SSDs have 4GB RAM cache. I wonder if a SSD Volume type couldn't be created for "Non-persistent/Ramdisk/swap-optimized partition".. then start expanding how much RAM SSDs have to support the Ramdisk function.

        Hardware support for this would entail that changes are not guaranteed persistent across power-off, But no cycles occur as long as the SSD has enough spare RAM.

        You could imagine then having a SSD that plugs

      • I'm not even sure of that. Its just like this stupid weird habit that Apple has always had of undergunning entry level macs for ram that went well back into the era when upgrading was as easy as it was for a pc. Its like they just cant shake the idea that Ram isn't a big deal when in reality it IS a big deal and as a Unix based operating system is more sensitive to ram than it necessarily is to CPU speeds for most non crunchy tasks. Sure the ridiculous speed SSDs means swapping isnt QUITE the drag it used to be, that also comes with the caveat that swapping on SSDs is a stone cold cycle killer.

        Apple needs to figure out how to let macs do modular ram.

        On My iMac, RAM access is about as easy as you can get. A little panel on the back that you push once and it opens up. You change out or add your RAM and pop the cover back on.

        Otherwise, I agree.

    • 8 GB version is only to be able to say 'new .. starting as low as ...'

      And it's still one of the most expensive on the market.

      • I'm really surprised 8GB are still even made, but also that 8GB still costs a whole $20. Not having shopped for a computer for several years, 8GB was the standard low-end configuration back then. It seems progress has ceased.

        Yeah it looks like it nearly leveled off about 2010. That's about when I remember 16 GB being a pretty decent / normal configuration.

        https://aiimpacts.org/trends-i... [aiimpacts.org]

    • Maybe the EU can specify the minimum memory that devices have to come with. Everything from your calculator, computer, watch, refrigerator, etc.

    • This is all done by Apple on purpose...

      8 GB version is only to be able to say 'new .. starting as low as ...'

      Also it might be enough for chromebook users..

      Three issues with that

      RAM is pretty cheap.

      Apple users are not.

      You go online, and can build the Mac you want.

      I will note that 8GB of RAM is not all that hot. You'll be doing a lot of swapping. I recommend at least 32 GBytes.

  • 8 GB RAM sucks, even 16 is on the iffy side. I think they do it deliberately so you upgrade.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      8GB wasn't enough in my 2008 MacBook; it is appalling yet comical that Apple would still ship a machine with that little RAM 16 years later. Now, some Apple apologist will drop by to explain how wonderful it is.

    • Re:Absolutely not. (Score:4, Informative)

      by christoban ( 3028573 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @05:38AM (#64404106)

      It's brave. Of them to be so greedy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Oddroot ( 4245189 )

      8 GB RAM sucks, even 16 is on the iffy side. I think they do it deliberately so you upgrade.

      I see you have stumbled upon how business works and the secret to making a profit! ;)

      In all seriousness though, my tablet has 8GiB of RAM in it, and I often use it to browse the web, play videos in the Youtube app (often simultaneously) and edit documents in the Android version of Office just fine, and never notice any problem whatsoever.

      The fact that Chrome is a shit sandwich isn't really the fault of Apple, heh

      • But... Apple charge a lot to spec a machine with > 8GiB, and it's not user upgradable afterwards.

        I do appreciate that it makes sense for them from a business perspective, but previously Apple products, whilst expensive, have generally been over-specified, and thus continue to be usable for many years after purchase. 8GiB is a bit tight though... if they charged less for the entry level, non-upgradable machine... then perhaps that's useful, but otherwise, it seems unwise to buy the low-end hardware beca
      • The fact that Chrome is a shit sandwich isn't really the fault of Apple, heh
        Exactly.

        • It's never apples fault.
          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            In this case its really not. Chrome malware. Its a shitty wasteful architecture, and it spies on you!

            If you are on a Mac you really are probably best off with Safari. I fully embraced when it became clear Mozilla just can't keep up. Safari is a really nice browser. Its fast and clean and does not consume all the memory on the system.

            On Linux I use ungoogled-chromium mostly at this point. Its a sad state of affairs, I'd really rather use something not Google, but they have as nearly iron grip on the Web

          • I'm reading this page in Firefox. I have 60 tabs open. Total memory use: 3.3 GB.

            It really isn't Apple's fault that Chrome sucks.

    • I think that Apple knows as well as we do that 8 GB of RAM isn't nearly enough for a modern MacBook. They're just offering this "option" so they can get people to spend $200 on an (extremely overpriced) memory upgrade to 16 GB, or sell you a new MacBook 3 or 4 years from now when 16 GB becomes the minimum recommended memory configuration for most desktop applications.

  • by Artem S. Tashkinov ( 764309 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @05:07AM (#64404022) Homepage

    Fat margins don't just happen.

    Last time I had a PC with that much RAM was in 2007.

    • Fat margins don't just happen.

      Last time I had a PC with that much RAM was in 2007.

      Windows isn't macOS.

      Linux isn't macOS.

      A != B .

      • by aitikin ( 909209 )

        Linux isn't macOS.

        Unfortunately. Otherwise, 8 MB of RAM could run the OS [wikipedia.org], though one would like more if they're actually using it for any actual tasks.

        All joking aside, since 10.7, Mac OS X (now macOS) has been getting bloatier and bloatier. I remember having to upgrade to 10.7 for a program I needed and, as memory serves, the OS's memory footprint when not running any other applications nearly doubled from running 10.6.8.

        • by Malc ( 1751 )

          I still run a late 2007 15" MBP with 6GB of memory and OS X 10.11. Itâ(TM)s ok for web browsing, email and Office 2011 (yep, Office 365 donâ(TM)t really offer anything new). I used Lightroom 3 - 5 on it back in the day and VMWare Fusion running Windows 7.

          Chrome is definitely a pig though. I havenâ(TM)t touched it with a barge pole for years, but my wife uses it on this Mac.

        • Linux isn't macOS.

          Unfortunately. Otherwise, 8 MB of RAM could run the OS [wikipedia.org], though one would like more if they're actually using it for any actual tasks.

          All joking aside, since 10.7, Mac OS X (now macOS) has been getting bloatier and bloatier. I remember having to upgrade to 10.7 for a program I needed and, as memory serves, the OS's memory footprint when not running any other applications nearly doubled from running 10.6.8.

          I ran my 2012 MacBook Pro on its 4 GB of Internal RAM for years. It currently has macOS 10.13 (High Sierra) Installed (and fully supported up through 10.15, Catalina). In that configuration, I have done 16 track multitrack live recording in Logic Pro, Edited 1080p Videos in Final Cut Pro, done iOS Development in XCode, etc, without feeling the pain.

          I originally intended to Upgrade the RAM; but honestly, just never felt the need-to. And believe me, having used several RAM-starved Windows computers, I am well

  • How much RAM do the iphones have?

  • by laughing_badger ( 628416 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @05:22AM (#64404058) Homepage

    There are some good arguments about why 8 GB might not be enough for some people, but 'when I choose to download an additional browser that is known to be inefficient, and when I then use it in a way that consumes as much memory as possible, I run out of memory' really isn't one of them.

    There really are people out there who are perfectly happy browsing away in Safari on their 8 GB Airs.

    $200 for 8 GB of RAM is a lot. Lowering the price of your base machine by more than what you've saved by removing memory so that you have a base price that is as low as possible is another way to look at it.

    • I am not gonna pay for a $1200 Mac when I can browse the internet perfectly well on a $200 Chromebook.

      • And that's absolutely the right decision - buy the cheapest thing that does _everything_ that you want it to. For a lot of people, that's a Chromebook. For some others, that's an 8 GB MacBook Air.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by christoban ( 3028573 )

          I don't know, with 8GB - video memory, I doubt it can do anything more that would justify $1000 added to the price.

    • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      This.

      I know a few people with 8GB airs, and they're perfectly fine for their use cases. For the few people who need higher specs there are such models available - the M3 macbook pro is now offered with 128GB if you need that much, and even the air can be specced with 24GB. Of course they're not cheap, but Apple have never tried to compete in the cheap laptops market.

      The air is a small, light and fanless design intended for light casual use, it's not marketed as a power user laptop.

    • by udittmer ( 89588 )

      +1 on all of your points. Well said :)

    • There are some good arguments about why 8 GB might not be enough for some people, but 'when I choose to download an additional browser that is known to be inefficient, and when I then use it in a way that consumes as much memory as possible, I run out of memory' really isn't one of them.

      Neither is throwing more RAM at the problem while ignoring why a browser is responsible for it. This is akin to recommending air suspension and off road tires for every car because tanks are tearing up the roads, and for some reason we shouldn’t ever blame the tanks.

      $200 for 8 GB of RAM is a lot. Lowering the price of your base machine by more than what you've saved by removing memory so that you have a base price that is as low as possible is another way to look at it.

      An accurate way of looking at it, is knowing 80% of Apple price premium is driven by fashion demand, not technical demand. Apple is a fashion company that sells computing hardware and software. And it shows. When the fashion dies down,

  • MacOS X is a hungry operating system. It needs memory to run. The more in-memory, the faster. Apple M-chip levels up communication with basically a monolithic memory map where all data are 1st order communicators. This enabled Apple to do away with traffic, cache and memory management overhead.

    IF MacOS X use is used for browser-centric tasks AND you aren’t tiling 20 windows across your tab bar then 8gig might be comfortable. For sure AAPL are selling you memory and the heavy users of memory intensive

  • The OS will swap data it doesn't have space for in physical RAM to disk.
    These days, "disk" is an SSD with a r/w speed of ~6GB/s.
    So a 500MB inactive tab that isn't in physical RAM could theoretically swap back in in around 166ms (500MB has to be swapped out to make space, then 500MB is swapped in).
    That's not a lot but it will be noticeable.

  • They don't want people using entry level macs to do development.
    • They don't want people using entry level macs to do development.

      Wrong. You have it exactly backwards. The onus is on the purchaser to do their Due Diligence before any Purchase.

      Do I have 8 children? Better get the Bigger Box of Cereal! Do I have a St. Bernard? Better not rent that Efficiency Apartment! Do I Edit 4k Video every day? Better not get a minimum-spec Computer!

      People who intend to do more with their Computer on a regular basis than your typical Grandmother does, probably need to take that into account when Configuring any Computer; especially one where that de

  • Apple will say that 8 GB is enough, until they up the minimum to 12 or 16 GB. Then they will lambaste any competitor that still makes computers with 8.

    • by chrish ( 4714 )

      By then I assume non-Apple laptops will be shipping with 32GB...

      Although, I think 16GB is still fine for "average" users; I rarely see more than 8GB or so in use on my laptop, but it's nice to have the room there if I need it for something. What I'm doing today might not be what I'm doing in 3+ years.

  • It's so brave...of Apple to price them that high w/ just 8GB.

    BTW, Mac laptops must share a big chunk of that 8GB as video memory.

    • by Entrope ( 68843 )

      How big a chunk? Assume an 8Kx2K monitor setup: 16 million pixels. Assume 4 bytes per pixel for HDR, and double buffering. That's 128 MB, or 1/64th of the 8 GB of even an entry level laptop, and a quarter of what was complained about as a large web-browser tab.

      I don't think it's exactly reasonable to count, say, textures against it because most 3D apps using that would need to keep a copy of textures in non-video RAM anyway: you would be penalizing the unified memory scheme by forcing it to emulate a non

  • You're not an Apple customer. Buy the machine you want. Money obviously can't be a concern if you're in that market. Apple users signal "more money than brains", and while they wouldn't put it that way, that's exactly what they intend. Get with the program.

    • by gtall ( 79522 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @06:02AM (#64404166)

      Not really, most of us use Macs because we find Windows a disgusting cesspool of GUI abomination. Linux GUIs are equally as bad.

      • by Ormy ( 1430821 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @06:53AM (#64404248)

        Not really, most of us use Macs because we find Windows a disgusting cesspool of GUI abomination. Linux GUIs are equally as bad.

        Yes really. Modifying the windows GUI to pretty closely resemble XP's (or any other version of windows from the last 2 decades) GUI isn't that difficult, certainly easier than putting up with Apple's shenanigans day after day. Then you went right off the rails, Linux GUIs are the gold standard of user choice and configurability, there's probably a Linux GUI out there already that imitates MacOS. GP is right, Apple products signify "more money than sense" even if unintentionally.

        • Well gnome is giving it the old college try.

          Personally I used Linux because I think it is preferable to the cesspool of the windows GUI and garbage heap of the Mac one.

          Linux is best at being the best Linux, not a shoddy knock-off of a Mac, but that's just my 2p.

          Focus follows mouse and dual clip boards with middle click paste are my hill to die on.

      • Not really, most of us use Macs because we find Windows a disgusting cesspool of GUI abomination. Linux GUIs are equally as bad.

        Precisely!

      • by Holi ( 250190 )

        I've always found the OS wars tedious, The OS just allows you to run the software you need, if you are spending all your time looking at the pretty UI of your OS then you are not using your computer, you're just wasting time.

        • Exactly this. , I use my OS to run applications. I have no idea what apple users do. Sit and stare at the GUI?
    • You're not an Apple customer. Buy the machine you want. Money obviously can't be a concern if you're in that market. Apple users signal "more money than brains", and while they wouldn't put it that way, that's exactly what they intend. Get with the program.

      That's simply untrue and frankly offensive to the millions of Mac-Using Engineers, Developers, Media Creators, Students, etc.

      In fact, several of the Slashdotters with UIDs under 1,000 are Mac Users. But I guess they obviously have "more money than brains", right?

      St. Linus Torvalds often uses his Mac(s) to do Linux Kernel Development, and has for several years! Care to accuse him of having "more money than brains"? Go ahead, I dare you. . .

      https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]

      So, it actually seems that it is you

  • Mac M2/3 laptops don't have a dedicated video card or video memory, so that 8GB RAM includes video memory. So subtract that.

  • by diffract ( 7165501 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @05:40AM (#64404110)
    you have a super fast SSD, which finally justifies using it as swap space.
    I normally have running on my 8GB macbook air m1: firefox, chrome, 4 terminal windows, and any additional program.
    the RAM is constantly full, but i don't feel any slow down because the SSD extends the RAM and everything still feels snappy because the disk is fast.
    my use-case is light browsing, data entry, office tools. i have my linux PC with 32GB of memory that i edit videos on or do some 3d modeling/printing.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Adambomb ( 118938 )

      Only downside is using an SSD as swap is that greatly reduces its lifespan, and basically removes the benefits of wear leveling because of the sheer number of constant write cycles. How quickly would of course vary greatly based on use habits.

      • That's great for Apple. They want you to burn it up and then buy a new one. The used one should have no resale value.

  • My wife had an M1 8G air and it was a Miserable stuttering POS.
    She sold it and bought a 16G MB M1 Pro which works fine.

  • Seriously.

  • Chrome shows you memory usage if you mouse-over a given tab. And three of my current tabs are chewing up over 500MB each. So, that's 1.5GB for just three Chrome tabs.

    Tell me another story of how this is all Apples fault again?

    With browsers and websites acting like that, 32GB of RAM won’t be enough soon. Talk about not seeing the actual problem here and dismissing it with the blame game. How lame.

  • Then you can boot the OS to ram and still have plenty of ram to spare for any tasks
  • Get off my lawn! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jimshortz ( 6309880 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @06:39AM (#64404218)

    I think everyone is missing the larger point. Modern software is so bloated and wasteful that it takes half a billion bytes just to read a news article? WTF!

  • by battingly ( 5065477 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @06:40AM (#64404220)
    The TFA seems to be unaware that MacOS uses virtual memory. Since only one tab of Chrome can be open at a time, memory for other tabs which are not actively performing tasks can be paged out and don't require RAM. Adding up the memory requirements of Chrome tabs to determine how much RAM you need is a poor metric.
  • Given that I am likely to hold on to the laptop for the better part of a decade, it's always a good idea to plan for applications to keep growing in size. If you are going to upgrade on a shorter cycle, you can always fix your purchasing mistake then.
  • Both sides can be true here. Most of us arenâ(TM)t undisciplined enough to be running 50 concurrent browser tabs that canâ(TM)t be zombified, and Apple could add more RAM to their base model for when it is actually needed.
  • It depends, what year is it? I had to replace my folks' machine years ago: It could do everything they wanted, including running 3D games for the grandkids, but its single-core processor started choking on the modern, bloated, world wide web.
  • Google Hate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gabebear ( 251933 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @07:31AM (#64404330) Homepage Journal
    This guy must really LOATH Google... Most Chromebooks are equipped with only 4GB of RAM and are LOCKED into the bloated Chrome browser he's eviscerating in his review. You have to upgrade to the mid-tier Chromebooks to get the 8GB he finds completely unacceptable.
  • Long Answer: If you are doing basic stuff (say, using word to write a papaer while using Firefox to research it, while VLC is plaing misic in the background), you can get by with 8GB, BUT:

    You will have a bunch of compressed memory.
    This will slightly increase latency of your apps (due to compressing and decompressing said memory) AND will make the fans spin faster (and louder) due to the extra heat involved in the extra calculations to compress and decompress.
    If your machine is battery powered, battery life

  • by Dusanyu ( 675778 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @07:50AM (#64404378)
    I have a base M1 I use for my daily carry I chose it because it can run everything i need Unix command line tools and Native MS office. the Cherry on top is how light and the long lasting battery. Looking at Activity monitor with Mail, App store in background updating some software and safari with Slashdot open i am using about 5.5 GB so it seems to be working for my use case.
  • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @08:24AM (#64404486)

    Apple products are not for the poor. Including more RAM should be considered a feature not a bug. Why should any machine have so pathetically little RAM excuses must be made for doing so? The only justification for fixed RAM is planned obsolescence in a supposedly premium machine (other makers are guilty too).

    RAM minimalism without user upgrades is not an accomplishment, it's selling a car with the hood welded shut and I find it hilarious. Why shouldn't a premium computer have 32 or 64GB as a floor?

    It's cheap as chips to do so. Many of us have more than that in our leftover pile but that's from notebooks and desktops which respect choice. Fixed RAM is planned obsolescence. Count the notebooks you've owned and had to retire or demote due to low maximum RAM.

  • my main laptop has 8gb of ram. old thinkpad
    i use google chrome as my browser
    i develop bloated qt software with qts bloated IDE
    i work with audio editing and processing
    i use photoshop and other pro software almost daily
    never had an issue with ram. i could probably live with 4gb
    only difference i can think of is when im done with a browser tab i close the fucking thing, and when im done browsing i close the browser

The "cutting edge" is getting rather dull. -- Andy Purshottam

Working...