51–60 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, I've been perfectly happy and even impressed with my 8GB M2 MacBook Air. I have never seen that pop-up but I also use it as a thin client as well. Any heaving lifting should be done on a desktop/server.
Interesting, curious what you're connecting to: a more powerful mac pro, a Windows box, or a Linux box (and is it in the cloud or in your office).
This smells like the MHz comparison of the G4 vs Pentium, when they claimed that their 500Mhz was equivalent to a 1GHz Pentium. There's a tiny nugget of truth surrounded by mostly bullshit. Only this time they put themselves in this position. They should own it, either admit that they couldn't keep their margins otherwise or take the US$ 50 or so profit hit and avoid the bad press on an otherwise great machine.
They also claimed that mAh in the iPhone are different than in all other phones, that's why packing shitty battery was alright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also claimed that mAh in the iPhone are different than in all other phones, that's why packing shitty battery was alright.
Remember that time they removed the headphone jack and claimed it was better without one?
Horse shit. What Apple wants to happen is for you to eat into your soldered SSD's endurance (TBW) through virtual memory swapping out RAM to your storage volume so that you Buy More Stuff. I investigated my unexpectedly high disk writes and made a few changes, disabled some MacOS services, disabled write-caching for video in Firefox etc and this reduced my write volume by tens of gigabytes per day. By this point I th…
On the other hand, the average person who purchases a computer with the knowledge that they need to perform data-intensive tasks will likely also understand that 8/256 is not sufficient for their needs.
Thus, the amount of Mac owners that will realistically actually run into premature SSD failure is probably pretty low.
Apple is just running a multi-pronged strategy here: a “good enough” model for 90% of people, and then a “squeeze every last penny out of them” approach for the people who require performance and are willing to pay the Apple tax.
The actual downsides of this approach are pretty limited, as the swap is fast enough that it won’t create a class of newly disgruntled Mac owners annoyed that their Mac “got slow just like a pc”.
Miserly from their side? Sure. But I’m certain the beancounters weighed every aspect and decided that their RAM budget per board was $2, so 8gb it was. Spending an extra $1.30 for a 16gb LPDDR4X chip would break the bank.
Those are actual, current spot prices on those chips. A 150x profit margin on that upgrade from 8 to 16gb makes for some nice fat CEO bonuses. Where do you think the money to pay Tim Apple his 99 million dollar compensation last year came from?
Horse shit. What Apple wants to happen is for you to eat into your soldered SSD's endurance (TBW) through virtual memory swapping out RAM to your storage volume so that you Buy More Stuff. I investigated my unexpectedly high disk writes and made a few changes, disabled some MacOS services, disabled write-caching for video in Firefox etc and this reduced my write volume by tens of gigabytes per day. By this point I th…
I don’t think the “Buy More Stuff” theory actually applies here. The average purchaser of the 8/256 model just uses it as a Chromebook with a fancy logo. By the time they hit the TBW limit they’ll likely have upgraded anyways because the battery will be completely degraded. On the other hand, the average person who purchases a computer with the knowledge that they need to perform data-intensive tasks will likely also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't know what you're saying. That's because of virtual memory and its much slower. Apple's claim is bullshit and they lie. Every modern OS compresses memory, not just the MacOS. And no 8GB is not equivalent to 16GB on a Mac. Apple says it so foolish people believe it, but its not true. Sure unified has advantages, but they're saying BS.
> You don't know what you're saying. That's because of virtual memory and its much slower. All memory is virtualized by the operating system; applications don't 'see' physical address space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
This smells like the MHz comparison of the G4 vs Pentium, when they claimed that their 500Mhz was equivalent to a 1GHz Pentium. There's a tiny nugget of truth surrounded by mostly bullshit. Only this time they put themselves in this position. They should own it, either admit that they couldn't keep their margins otherwise or take the US$ 50 or so profit hit and avoid the bad press on an otherwise great machine.
They also claimed that mAh in the iPhone are different than in all other phones, that's why packing shitty battery was alright.
That's certain one of the statements of all time. All major OSes compress memory at this point. I'd be curious to see how OoM acts on macOS -- I've seen it on Windows [NT4] and Linux over the years. I've not seen an OS handle it as well as NT does/did.
zswap won't compress pages until they're swapped to disk, so essentially only once you've run out of memory to use and have begun experiencing the horrid performance degradation that comes from swapping to disk. you can use zram instead and put swappiness to a high value so the kernel aggressively swaps pages to the fake swap device made by zram, but then you lose the ability to have on-disk compressed swap pages.
i'm surprised that more work hasn't been done to fix this because memory management on linux is clearly lagging behind and affects a lot more than the minority of people using desktop linux systems, every android phone ships with 1.5x-2x more RAM than the equivalent iphone and performs worse when a bunch of apps are running in the background because of the poor memory management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a 16G M1, and have never ever seen it in those 2 years I have it. I do programming and video editing, and run VMs headless to which I give like 2-4G.
Lucky. I have to restart perhaps once a day/every other day as the UI becomes unresponsive. Sometimes putting the computer to sleep means it restarts by itself, or I have force power it back on.
Could it be something unrelated, like Spotlight getting stuck, or some hungry app? I guess you've consulted Activity Monitor and such