Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

macworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 409 posts

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#121

Post by renegat0x0 »

aurareturn wrote: post #59
torginus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. A ton of programs used by regular people (Chrome etc.) are RAM hogs, if you are a dev, then Docker is also an egregious example. If you happen to play games (a big thing for average people), that 8GB will be shared between the CPU and the GPU. Even the Steam Deck, admittedly a budget device, comes with 16GB. It's often mentioned that macOS is more frugal with RAM, a claim which I flat out found to be unt…

> No it's not. A ton of programs used by regular people (Chrome etc.) are RAM hogs, if you are a dev, then Docker is also an egregious example. If you happen to play games (a big thing for average people), that 8GB will be shared between the CPU and the GPU. Even the Steam Deck, admittedly a budget device, comes with 16GB. That's why I said normal office workers and students. I never said 8GB is enough for devs. It w…

This article is about the PRO model. I doubt that normal should use PRO model. PRO model should have enough memory for a PRO person.

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#122

Post by Osiris »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #85
matsemann wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also unable to read the argument in any other way. If you have a better explanation please provide it.

The jump from developers will use more RAM on abstraction layers to computers shouldnt get faster was never made by the original comment, and implying it was made is the worst possible reading of the argument made which is against HN guidelines.

That’s not how I read it “IF you give them more RAM… they’ll just use it”. Thus, more RAM is effectively the same as less RAM. Conclusion: no need for more RAM.

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#123

Post by ksec »

aurareturn wrote: post #8

8GB is still good enough for office workers and students. Heck, I used an M1 8GB Air for 1 year as a dev. Although I wish I had more RAM, it still served me well. For $899 (on sale sometimes), the 8GB M2 Air is absolutely a steal. The screen quality, thinness, battery life, build quality, SoC, quietness, coolness, metal enclosure, touchpad, and speakers are simply unmatched by anything in the PC world at that price -…

8GB on MBA may have been fine. But 8GB on MBP?

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#124

Post by coldtea »

flohofwoe wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Electron apps (VSCode, Slack, etc). They are bloated compared to native apps, but that running a few of them somehow makes 8GB "not enough" is overblown. You get by just fine. It's wanting to run big VMs that is the real pain point with 8GB.

Native apps aren't automatically less bloated, take Xcode vs VSCode for instance. Native apps might just have more optimization potential, but that doesn't mean that the potential is realized. The most efficient applications are 10 or 20 years old, running on modern hardware ;)

>Native apps aren't automatically less bloated, take Xcode vs VSCode for instance

What about them? XCode is quite efficient with memory, and it by definition doesn't pass everything through a interpret+JIT for a higher level language.

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#125

Post by coldtea »

pjmlp wrote: post #114
coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Electron apps (VSCode, Slack, etc). They are bloated compared to native apps, but that running a few of them somehow makes 8GB "not enough" is overblown. You get by just fine. It's wanting to run big VMs that is the real pain point with 8GB.

Getting by today, doesn't mean one gets by tomorrow.

Why, are we waiting something drastic in the next 4-5 years before the users gets the new model?

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#126

Post by flohofwoe »

coldtea wrote: post #124
flohofwoe wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Native apps aren't automatically less bloated, take Xcode vs VSCode for instance. Native apps might just have more optimization potential, but that doesn't mean that the potential is realized. The most efficient applications are 10 or 20 years old, running on modern hardware ;)

> Native apps aren't automatically less bloated, take Xcode vs VSCode for instance What about them? XCode is quite efficient with memory, and it by definition doesn't pass everything through a interpret+JIT for a higher level language.

IME (and I work with both every day), Xcode is slower for almost every UI interaction than VSCode on the same machine. It already starts with Xcode's extremely slow startup, just now it took 15(!) seconds for Xcode to cold-start. And that's on a 32 GBytes M1 Pro.

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#127

Post by Canada »

aurareturn wrote: post #117
deafpolygon wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why I said normal office workers and students. What? NO. 8GB is not enough for browsing and the proliferation of Electron apps these days. The solution shouldn't be constantly swapping, which is what all 8GB Apple devices do. This will lead to early SSD death and since the SSD is soldered on, that means the entire device is useless.

Well, Apple has been using SSDs for a long time now. Do you know Mac users personally where the SSD died before something else in the computer?

Yes I have seen this. The disk write speed randomly gets super slow and tons of stuff just locks up at random as many many programs assume it'll be fine to do little writes synchronously. The whole machine becomes totally unusable.

I see it on computers (and phones too) whose owners bought the smallest capacity to avoid spending money on something they didn't think they would use.

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#128

Post by librasteve »

I agree that 8GB is too small. My theory is that the Apple M processor guys have entered a dark pact with the marketing guys that runs like this: - we are going to need a speed bump after the initial switch to the M series to keep the momentum - we can get 8GB on the same SOC as the CPU much cheaper than 16GB (this was different with the Intel non SOC multi package architecture)

And so RAM for a mac is now analogous to camera lenses on an iPhone … it going to be the main driver of upgrades when the step change to M / SOC saturates

It also explains why the late Intel modules were limited to 8GB

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#129

Post by skrebbel »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #69
skrebbel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may take a guess, maybe you get downvoted not because of the content of your arguments but because of their coherence. For instance, who is this “you” you’re raving against? How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM? Consider re-reading your comment before you hit post and the downvotes might well disappear.

I would disagree. Usually my comments have some upvotes or none. But my Apple comments get consistent downvotes. "How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM?" "But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost" I did write this in the comment I think and the others - but I agree not as clearly in this one as in others. (My Apple/M[x]/M…

> "How is CPU performance related to the cost if 8gb RAM?"

> "But the Mx performace you get is partially because of the wide memory bus of the unified memory. The downside is the cost"

FWIW I still have no idea what you mean here.

Re: Apple has a memory problem and we're all paying for it

#130

Post by reroute22 »

renegat0x0 wrote: post #121
aurareturn wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No it's not. A ton of programs used by regular people (Chrome etc.) are RAM hogs, if you are a dev, then Docker is also an egregious example. If you happen to play games (a big thing for average people), that 8GB will be shared between the CPU and the GPU. Even the Steam Deck, admittedly a budget device, comes with 16GB. That's why I said normal office workers and students. I never said 8GB is enough for devs. It w…

This article is about the PRO model. I doubt that normal should use PRO model. PRO model should have enough memory for a PRO person.

To be completely fair, base 14" MBP is only Pro in the name. That laptop has only 2 ports, supports only 1 external monitor, has a low core count CPU, and a relatively weak GPU, disqualifying it for any "Pro" work well before RAM (or storage) even enter the discussion.

On the flip side, the very same laptop has a much better display than competing MacBook Air, and better in a manner that is observable in its entirety in non-professional casual use: visually better scrolling of web pages and documents; easier to see in bright sun; much more superior HDR movie watching experience.

It also has much better laptop speakers - completely irrelevant for professional use (like music production), but very relevant for movie watching.

Base 14" MBP is merely a better Netflix machine than MacBook Air is.

What you said about Pro, and what the article says about Pro, is very fair and quite excellent in fact for, uhm, actual Pro laptops, which is Mx Pro/Max based machines, not the new base 14" MBP on an Mx (small one) chip.

What I indeed find perplexing is the fact that 2 default 14" Mx MBP configurations that do not require any changes (they often ship faster, being default is a tangible difference) aren't 8 GB 512 and 16 GB 512, but 8 GB 512 and 8 GB 1TB. That I find odd, because I think yes, a small subset of office users might find a low core count but bigger RAM version useful in practice (I'm thinking some very heavy spreadsheet hitters kind of office power users, managers probably), but virtually no one in that category would actually care to have 1TB of SSD with everything being web-based and/or stored on company's servers in corporate environment. That is indeed odd. But maybe I'm wrong in my assumptions for this one - it's easy to be lacking any actual stats or data - and it's appropriate as well. I don't know.

Post reply on HN