OK I currently am using a 14" Macbook Pro with 16 gb of memory. Granted it is an M! and they are talking the M3 now but the architecture is the same. I just saw this article and it truly makes me laugh. The 8 gig is enough arguent is complete BS because 16 Gig isn't really enough for Lightroom or Photoshop with high resolution photo's. I shoot a Sony A7iv at 33 MP. It is either the Mac OS or the hardware but it doesn't release memory well. One or two photo's are OK but starting with the third one every process slows down a little more. Apple just doesn't want to give up that extra $200 for every 8 gig bump in memory.
Regular people do not load 40GB of RAW picture(s) image on their laptop or desktop. Regular people do not compile application and test complex enterprise software.
Then those people don't need a Macbook PRO. A lesser specced Air would be more than ample.
Why the professional people complain about RAM size? Either your company willing to pay what they need or your own business can paid off higher RAM upgrade. It is business expenses.
If regular people think they need more RAM then they still stuck on old windows experience.
I disagree. Not every "professional" person can justify and write off the cost. I have a work-issued PC in the office for my job as a graphic designer. But I still want a high enough spec machine for my own work outside of my job - and I just happen to prefer mac rather than windows for my personal stuff.
There's plenty of amateur photographers and other creatives who like using Macs who do process loads of raw images on a regular basis (actually, I do this too)
Or there's the army of video bloggers and youtubers who regularly process ultra-HD footage as a hobby.
If I'm going to be plonking down a substantial amount of money for my hobby and personal work, I'd rather future-proof it by getting more RAM than the base model so it will last me at least the next 5-7 years.
As someone who does a lot of virtualization (Linux and Windows virtual machines in VMWare, Parallels etc.) I can say that 8 GB of RAM on on the latest, fastest Apple CPU definitely is not analogous to 16 GB RAM on an 8th generation Core i3 from 2017.
I read both posts... but didnt see anywhere where you actually owned a base M1/M2 machine to test your "theory".
A lot of people here are still stuck in the "intel" mindset. I get it hard to shake. I do tech consulting for graphic designers, and over the last 15 years if I had a nickel for every time I said "theres no such thing as too much ram" id be a billionaire.
Happily i dont have to anymore. I moved 15% of my older basic intel clients to M1 minis with 8/512 setups... dual screens + fast SSD external working drives... all loving the speed. those with higher demands went to 16 GB.... many came from 32 GB ram setups. No issues. Watch for refurbs. 16/512 M1 minis were $700. M2 shoudl be th4e same.
First off, I own an M2 Mac Mini. Second, what "theory"? Virtualization is when you use hypervisor software run a virtual computer on your computer hardware and OS. No matter what CPU, architecture, OS, manufacturer etc. you are talking about it is the same because the requirements of the operating system that you are running doesn't change. So you are still going to need 4 GB of RAM to run a Windows 11 VM. You are still going to need 2 GB of RAM to run a Linux VM. Period. Otherwise, your virtual computer's OS will run out of resources just as it would if you were to install the OS on physical hardware that's insufficient to handle the specs. If you don't believe me, go to ServeTheHome.com. They promote low end - meaning slow - hardware that supports a lot of RAM for virtualization servers all the time. A lot of people buy old - meaning slow - machines off Newegg and Ebay to use as virtualization servers because they have a ton of RAM. But hey, don't take my word for it. You install Windows on VirtualBox or VMWare Player and configure it to use 2 GB of RAM instead of 4 GB because "RAM on a Mac is 'effectively' twice that on a PC." See if your Windows VM even boots up.
Even better. Get a photo editor, whether Krita, GIMP, Inkscape or whatever (they are all free). Go download one of those high resolution images from NASA: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/Earth Try to edit one of those bad boys with 8 GB RAM. Don't worry! Apple's executives claim that it is just as good as doing so with 16 GB RAM, so it will work out fine!
You know that if you're doing those things, you don't buy a basic PC or Mac.
Professionals make a living with high end machines, not basic machines. I literally don't know any pros who use current macs with 8GB!
I have 72GB on my iMac because of VM work/pro hobby with 60MP image editing with Adobe software and that's necessary. I make a living using high end computers, not basic computers.
But if I were to surf the internet and do office work and all that, 8GB is dandy fine. Even occasional editing is fine too. We don't need to look at the activity monitor and go "ah ha! that proves 8GB is not enough!" - it is literally ENOUGH for all basic needs! It makes no economic sense to need more RAM or faster CPU for that kind of setup.
I also have 8GB Mac mini which is used as a home server and it works fine. I also use it for XCode development testing on M1 and it's fine as well.
But if you want more power and more memory, you have to pay more for it. When you're a professional, you literally pay a lot more for everything just for being a "pro" - you make money as a result of using pro machines.
His statement is true in many instances but not all. If you are editing a multiGB file the 8GB could be a serious issue. Moreover this does nothing to address the insane pricing for memory upgrades that Apple charges its customers. These memory modules are less than $40 for 8GB but Apple charges an insane $200 to upgrade. If it were only $100 most people would stop complaining about the memory limitations. Same applies to the SSD upgrade pricing also 2-3x too expensive.
My bullshit protector just went to 200%. You can access the non-existent lacking memory that much faster. Sure. We all know is only to get a low list price and high-margins at the same time. And obviously those idiots that get the default memory will have to buy a new machine soon because we can't upgrade Apples Single-Use hardware. Win-Win for Apple ... really bad customer experience for the user. But the user no longer counts after the credit card came through.
For 10 years-ish prior to the M series Apple Silicon, Apple was making do with the A series Arm Chips in iPhones AND iPads, using only 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 GBs of RAM, for nam 10 years!
Then they broke out the M1 with 8GB, and some have 16GBs sure, but they HAVE experience under 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 GBs of RAM workloads. I bought an M1 8GB MacMini, that thing is a beast STILL...
Laters...
IOS 10 years ago couldn't remotely work under the same load desktop PCs and Laptops could, they didn't have the processing power, nor the RAM, there's a reason Apple only felt their Pro software Final Cut was only worthwhile for iPad this year, and even now it seems more limited than the Mac version possibly due to the RAM limitation...
So, after all the lovely thoughtful comments here …
I’ll add that my personal experience bears this out. My M1 Max MBP 32Gb absolutely kept up with the Alienware R12 i7 64Gb. The only difference between the two was the graphics card (NVIDIA) performance and the ability to ramp up the processor cycles (and sound like a hair dryer).
I pushed the limits of both machines in video encoding and streaming.
Your mileage may vary.
Your going to have tons more head room at 32 GB+ whether it be Mac or Windows, I doubt you hit ram bottlenecks in those uses. Apple here is using the excuse that a 16GB Windows machine will perform the same as an 8GB Mac, and that's much more likely to hit a bottleneck in both cases.
Not only is this nonsense, it's actually backwards. Unified memory, whether on a PC or a Mac (hint: unified memory is nothing new... all iGPUs are unified memory systems), are offering LESS memory than traditional dGPU-based systems. Not more.
As well, regular everyday OS activities don't individually eat up memory anymore. Maybe Apple is efficient herr, but they're leading away from the real point: modern content creation-- supposedly Apple's specialty -- is the gigantic memory suck. Which is of course why Apple recommends a minimum of 16GiB, even going back to dGPU Intel systems, for this kind of work.
For 10 years-ish prior to the M series Apple Silicon, Apple was making do with the A series Arm Chips in iPhones AND iPads, using only 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 GBs of RAM, for nam 10 years!
Then they broke out the M1 with 8GB, and some have 16GBs sure, but they HAVE experience under 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 GBs of RAM workloads. I bought an M1 8GB MacMini, that thing is a beast STILL...
Completely different workloads. When your iPhone is editing 4K video on dual 4K+ monitors, while running a couple of associated applications, a browser, photo tools, etc. in a normal content production environment, see how far that 4GiB DRAM takes you. Yes, the 8GiB is just dandy if all you do is play Angry Birds...
Not only is this nonsense, it's actually backwards. Unified memory, whether on a PC or a Mac (hint: unified memory is nothing new... all iGPUs are unified memory systems), are offering LESS memory than traditional dGPU-based systems. Not more.
As well, regular everyday OS activities don't individually eat up memory anymore. Maybe Apple is efficient herr, but they're leading away from the real point: modern content creation-- supposedly Apple's specialty -- is the gigantic memory suck. Which is of course why Apple recommends a minimum of 16GiB, even going back to dGPU Intel systems, for this kind of work.
Those are not the same thing from an engineering and design standpoint. Only a layman's understanding of integrated graphics using some of the system memory would call that unified.
Here's a simple and succinct write up on Quora that spells it out in easy to understand terms:
Intel integrated graphics is a low performance GPU that take up a portion of what would otherwise be CPU components on the CPU and takes away a chunk of system RAM permanently, this is a low cost low performance method to provide very mild graphics acceleration so the CPU is not overloaded with graphics such as when displaying the GUI in Microsoft Windows
Apple Unified Memory is the newest generation of technology that delivers a massive RAM bus with a huge number of RAM channels sits below all the cores and connects all cores simultaneously
This delivers extremely high speed access which supports high performance because all core (CPU, GPU, Neural Engine, Image Processing, Acceleration cores (ProRES, h.264, etc.) all have full access to all RAM directly
This architecture is much faster than the old fashioned Intel integrated graphics so it delivers phenomenal performance to everything the user does on his Apple Silicon powered devices
His statement is true in many instances but not all. If you are editing a multiGB file the 8GB could be a serious issue. Moreover this does nothing to address the insane pricing for memory upgrades that Apple charges its customers. These memory modules are less than $40 for 8GB but Apple charges an insane $200 to upgrade. If it were only $100 most people would stop complaining about the memory limitations. Same applies to the SSD upgrade pricing also 2-3x too expensive.
Perhaps you should test the memory in the machines and external memory bargains that you find on the Internet. They are NOT the same. Even the SSD is super fast compared to what one can buy.
Previously, I would agree that Apple memory was expensive but the price has come down over the years. The FUD of Apple Tax and expensive this and that is not true for what you GET.
Comments
I disagree. Not every "professional" person can justify and write off the cost. I have a work-issued PC in the office for my job as a graphic designer. But I still want a high enough spec machine for my own work outside of my job - and I just happen to prefer mac rather than windows for my personal stuff.
There's plenty of amateur photographers and other creatives who like using Macs who do process loads of raw images on a regular basis (actually, I do this too)
Or there's the army of video bloggers and youtubers who regularly process ultra-HD footage as a hobby.
If I'm going to be plonking down a substantial amount of money for my hobby and personal work, I'd rather future-proof it by getting more RAM than the base model so it will last me at least the next 5-7 years.
We all know that any advanced use cases require more RAM and one should buy as much as they can afford. There's nothing new here.
Professionals make a living with high end machines, not basic machines. I literally don't know any pros who use current macs with 8GB!
I have 72GB on my iMac because of VM work/pro hobby with 60MP image editing with Adobe software and that's necessary. I make a living using high end computers, not basic computers.
But if I were to surf the internet and do office work and all that, 8GB is dandy fine. Even occasional editing is fine too. We don't need to look at the activity monitor and go "ah ha! that proves 8GB is not enough!" - it is literally ENOUGH for all basic needs! It makes no economic sense to need more RAM or faster CPU for that kind of setup.
I also have 8GB Mac mini which is used as a home server and it works fine. I also use it for XCode development testing on M1 and it's fine as well.
But if you want more power and more memory, you have to pay more for it. When you're a professional, you literally pay a lot more for everything just for being a "pro" - you make money as a result of using pro machines.
We all know is only to get a low list price and high-margins at the same time. And obviously those idiots that get the default memory will have to buy a new machine soon because we can't upgrade Apples Single-Use hardware. Win-Win for Apple ... really bad customer experience for the user. But the user no longer counts after the credit card came through.
freeassociate2 said: Your going to have tons more head room at 32 GB+ whether it be Mac or Windows, I doubt you hit ram bottlenecks in those uses. Apple here is using the excuse that a 16GB Windows machine will perform the same as an 8GB Mac, and that's much more likely to hit a bottleneck in both cases.
As well, regular everyday OS activities don't individually eat up memory anymore. Maybe Apple is efficient herr, but they're leading away from the real point: modern content creation-- supposedly Apple's specialty -- is the gigantic memory suck. Which is of course why Apple recommends a minimum of 16GiB, even going back to dGPU Intel systems, for this kind of work.
Here's a simple and succinct write up on Quora that spells it out in easy to understand terms:
Intel integrated graphics is a low performance GPU that take up a portion of what would otherwise be CPU components on the CPU and takes away a chunk of system RAM permanently, this is a low cost low performance method to provide very mild graphics acceleration so the CPU is not overloaded with graphics such as when displaying the GUI in Microsoft Windows
- Apple Unified Memory is the newest generation of technology that delivers a massive RAM bus with a huge number of RAM channels sits below all the cores and connects all cores simultaneously
- This delivers extremely high speed access which supports high performance because all core (CPU, GPU, Neural Engine, Image Processing, Acceleration cores (ProRES, h.264, etc.) all have full access to all RAM directly
- This architecture is much faster than the old fashioned Intel integrated graphics so it delivers phenomenal performance to everything the user does on his Apple Silicon powered devices
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-unified-memory-and-integrated-graphicsPerhaps you should test the memory in the machines and external memory bargains that you find on the Internet. They are NOT the same. Even the SSD is super fast compared to what one can buy.
Previously, I would agree that Apple memory was expensive but the price has come down over the years. The FUD of Apple Tax and expensive this and that is not true for what you GET.