3 ms·

Everything you said is true; I'll even add that MacOS is probably the best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions! However the parent is right, it'

by dijit 4y ago

Everything you said is true; I'll even add that MacOS is probably the best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions! However the parent is right, it's disgusting how much memory capacity is needed to run a basic environment. Maybe having exceptionally fast machines with limited ram will cause people to actually think about their resource usage.

davidy123 4y ago
> the answer to bloated apps RAM is dirt cheap these days. Bloated apps are bad, but 8GB really is simply a joke that punishes many people for the sake of product categories, at least until RAM is indistinguishable from storage.
- Tepix 4y ago
  Not all RAM is dirt cheap. RAM in DDR4 sockets is dirt cheap.
  - cmatthias 4y ago
    8GB of general-purpose RAM, regardless of form factor, is dirt cheap. In fact, not having the sockets might make it cheaper than socketed RAM in volume, since there are fewer parts in total.
    - jimsmart 4y ago
      Except, with Apple's new kit here, the RAM isn't simply some external chip soldered to the main board, it's actually on-die with the CPU silicon (and everything else in that silicon: GPU, memory controllers, etc). So yes, arguably there are fewer parts (just one), but in the event of e.g. some bad RAM during manufacture, it's far more costly to throw out the chip containing that bad RAM.
      - jeffbee 4y ago
        No. It is not possible to make DRAM on the same silicon process as high-performance CPU logic. It is a myth that Apple Silicon includes the RAM on its die. Apple uses external LPDDR packages, just like everyone else, which you can clearly see in this photograph of the mac mini's CPU module: https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_chip-900x900.jpeg https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_ch...
        jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.
      - cmatthias 4y ago
        I don't think this is correct. https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-unified-memory-architecture/ https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-un... is an article which describes the architecture. It's not on-die, it's next to the CPU, basically as close as it could physically possibly be without being on the die. Here's a photo of an M1 CPU: https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf6775b9b4c9b60cc4436eab5a3c.jpeg https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf... Those chips on the right side are LPDDR4x chips (which you can verify by googling the part numbers visible on them). They are "off-the-shelf" so to speak, not custom on-die memory.
        jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.
qwytw 4y ago
> best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions Not it's not. Gnome or KDE can have 2x if not 3x memory overhead. > with limited ram will cause people to actually think about their resource usage Why? Memory is cheaper than designing new CPUs. 8GB in the base model is just a way for Apple to upsell upgrades and improve margins through market segmentation. If they shipped 16GB in the base model they'd have to cut prices or lose customers. It's a simple as that.
- dijit 4y ago
  GNOME and KDE are desktop environments, not operating systems. Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. Solaris run (ran?) GNOME and was also excellent when there was low memory Why force people to build software more efficiently? Because I have a desktop with 64G of ram and it is doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 was doing, only a few more pixels, a few less animations and a whole bunch of people thinking that hardware can pick up the slack from development companies externalising their costs (since devs cost money, right!?). well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software.
  - qwytw 4y ago
    > Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. I assumed you were talking about system with low amounts of memory rather than well almost all available memory is already used. You might be right about the second case (of course why would anyone have a new Linux PC with just 8GB of memory. Linux laptop OEMs charge the same for an upgrade to 64GB as Apple does for 16GB) Why do you need to buy the latest macbook with a very fast CPU? Well you wouldn't, if software was more efficient. It's exactly the same argument as with memory. > doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 Similarly to how your desktop from 2008 was doing the "same" job as a Windows 98 machine? Except it's not really doing the same job, expectations consumers have on software have changed dramatically over the last 15 years. > well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software. Yes it does cost money. Because Apple charges extremely high margins on memory upgrades. If you could update your own RAM or if Apple's upgrades had the same margin as the base model itself additional 8GB wouldn't be more than extra $50 (maybe a $100 at most if the memory Apple uses is so 'advanced' AFAIK it's not..).

by dijit 4y ago

davidy123 4y ago

> the answer to bloated apps RAM is dirt cheap these days. Bloated apps are bad, but 8GB really is simply a joke that punishes many people for the sake of product categories, at least until RAM is indistinguishable from storage.

Tepix 4y ago
Not all RAM is dirt cheap. RAM in DDR4 sockets is dirt cheap.
- cmatthias 4y ago
  8GB of general-purpose RAM, regardless of form factor, is dirt cheap. In fact, not having the sockets might make it cheaper than socketed RAM in volume, since there are fewer parts in total.
  - jimsmart 4y ago
    Except, with Apple's new kit here, the RAM isn't simply some external chip soldered to the main board, it's actually on-die with the CPU silicon (and everything else in that silicon: GPU, memory controllers, etc). So yes, arguably there are fewer parts (just one), but in the event of e.g. some bad RAM during manufacture, it's far more costly to throw out the chip containing that bad RAM.
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      No. It is not possible to make DRAM on the same silicon process as high-performance CPU logic. It is a myth that Apple Silicon includes the RAM on its die. Apple uses external LPDDR packages, just like everyone else, which you can clearly see in this photograph of the mac mini's CPU module: https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_chip-900x900.jpeg https://valkyrie.cdn.ifixit.com/media/2021/01/28102657/m1_ch...
      - jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.
    - cmatthias 4y ago
      I don't think this is correct. https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-unified-memory-architecture/ https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/understanding-apples-un... is an article which describes the architecture. It's not on-die, it's next to the CPU, basically as close as it could physically possibly be without being on the die. Here's a photo of an M1 CPU: https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf6775b9b4c9b60cc4436eab5a3c.jpeg https://www.techinreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2feddf... Those chips on the right side are LPDDR4x chips (which you can verify by googling the part numbers visible on them). They are "off-the-shelf" so to speak, not custom on-die memory.
      - jimsmart 4y ago
        Thanks for the correction, appreciated.

qwytw 4y ago

> best functioning Desktop OS under low memory conditions Not it's not. Gnome or KDE can have 2x if not 3x memory overhead. > with limited ram will cause people to actually think about their resource usage Why? Memory is cheaper than designing new CPUs. 8GB in the base model is just a way for Apple to upsell upgrades and improve margins through market segmentation. If they shipped 16GB in the base model they'd have to cut prices or lose customers. It's a simple as that.

dijit 4y ago
GNOME and KDE are desktop environments, not operating systems. Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. Solaris run (ran?) GNOME and was also excellent when there was low memory Why force people to build software more efficiently? Because I have a desktop with 64G of ram and it is doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 was doing, only a few more pixels, a few less animations and a whole bunch of people thinking that hardware can pick up the slack from development companies externalising their costs (since devs cost money, right!?). well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software.
- qwytw 4y ago
  > Linux (probably the operating system you mean) performs terribly when there is no available memory. I assumed you were talking about system with low amounts of memory rather than well almost all available memory is already used. You might be right about the second case (of course why would anyone have a new Linux PC with just 8GB of memory. Linux laptop OEMs charge the same for an upgrade to 64GB as Apple does for 16GB) Why do you need to buy the latest macbook with a very fast CPU? Well you wouldn't, if software was more efficient. It's exactly the same argument as with memory. > doing the same thing my desktop from 2008 Similarly to how your desktop from 2008 was doing the "same" job as a Windows 98 machine? Except it's not really doing the same job, expectations consumers have on software have changed dramatically over the last 15 years. > well. hardware costs money for us. fix your software. Yes it does cost money. Because Apple charges extremely high margins on memory upgrades. If you could update your own RAM or if Apple's upgrades had the same margin as the base model itself additional 8GB wouldn't be more than extra $50 (maybe a $100 at most if the memory Apple uses is so 'advanced' AFAIK it's not..).