8 ms·

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 wel

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 - sometimes any price. Those things cost Apple money. Other PC makers cheap out on them. In order for Apple to earn higher margins, they make the RAM and storage upgrades very expensive. So the base versions actually offer great values. It's the upgraded RAM/storage that decreases the value but still good value overall considering what you're getting. I understand why 8GB is still the base. Everything except the RAM is outstanding and unmatched. Apple makes the money on RAM and storage upgrades. Perhaps Apple will start at 12GB for M4 generation. Perhaps the arrival of local LLMs will skyrocket RAM upgrade demand such that Apple can start the base at 16GB and still have plenty of people who want to upgrade to 32GB. The problem for Apple will always be if they can increase the base without hurting upgrade profit. On a slightly related note: $/GB for RAM hit a wall starting in 2011. https://assets.ourworldindata.org/grapher/exports/historical-cost-of-computer-memory-and-storage.svg https://assets.ourworldindata.org/grapher/exports/historical...

shmde 3y ago
Apple geeks eating up and justifying anything and everything that apple throws at them is hilarious to see. It takes 50-60$ for a 8GB stick and people justifying that 200$ markup because Apple needs to make profit too. Is it Stockholm syndrome I dont know.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aurareturn 3y ago
  It probably costs Apple way less than $50-$60 for 8GB. The margins must be very high. I understand the business aspect of this for Apple. I'm not mad at them. I'll pay $200 to upgrade the RAM so that I can keep using macOS and have a well-built laptop that makes no noise. Apple knows this. It's just good business in my opinion. But I guess to you, I'm an Apple geek who has Stockholm syndrome.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    Well... yeah, your behavior is that of someone who has Stockholm syndrome. I'm not saying this to be hostile, but there's a world of difference between "I accept this because it's the best option for me despite the drawbacks" and "I don't mind getting price gouged because the big tech company has to make money somehow". We all make business decisions that aren't ideal (because we have to), but you don't need to lick the company boot while you're at it.
    - sbuk 3y ago
      So disagreeing with someone else’s behaviour when choosing their tech means they have Stockholm syndrome? No, you may not think you’re being hostile, but you are.
      - tpush 3y ago
        > So disagreeing with someone else’s behaviour when choosing their tech means they have Stockholm syndrome? No, they perfectly explained why that isn't the case. Please read the post carefully instead of knee jerk responding.
        sbuk 3y ago
        > but you don't need to lick the company boot while you're at it. That’s hostile. It’s obnoxious as suggesting a difference of opinion is “Stockholm syndrome”. It the same as saying “I’m not being rude, but you’re an idiot”. Yeah, you’re being rude.
  - ksec 3y ago
    At its highest point it wouldn't even be $50 for 8GB LPDDR. At its lowest point it would be close to $20. You can add a maximum of $5 for testing and packaging within SoC.
- jack1243star 3y ago
  Their argument seems like CPU binning for me, except less crazy? (lesser CPU takes more procedure to fuse out the disabled cores)
- radicalbyte 3y ago
  I dislike Apple - especially the way they rewrite history to remove Commodore/ Spectrum/Acorn/Atari - is disgraceful. HOWEVER, my M1 Air (with 8GB RAM) has and continues to be a great little machine for web browsing, email, Discord and writing. It can comes in clutch occasionally for coding. Value? No, it's not great value. I bought a $500 Lenovo with 1TB SSD and 16GB RAM as a backup machine and the only areas where the M1 Air beats it are in the trackpad. The Lenovo even has a sleep mode which actually works and the battery life is fantastic. Even the screen is a toss-up - the OLED screen on the Lenovo is in a different class to the Apple screen in some ways but it isn't as bright so less good if you're working in direct sunlight.
  - Klonoar 3y ago
    You are off in a parallel universe if sleep mode on your Mac is a failing comparison point here.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Well, on the other hand, they got AS great performance, amazing battery life, tremendous snapiness, no noise, and so on, first - which you didn't get for a while on the Windows laptop world, even for comparable priced machines, even if they had double the RAM. Not even getting into the trackpad, build quality and materials over cheapo plastic, and so on. For personal and work purposes I use both Apple and Windows laptops and its no comparison on those areas really, even if you go for the nice one's (Lenovo, Dell Latitude, Surface, etc). And if you add the other configurations, you get closer to the MBP price. Eg. Latitude 7440 laptop was the one left after filtering for all the "high end" attributes (> 8GB mem, highest intel processor available for the series, FHD+ etc). Configured at: 14", 16GB, the highest processor configuration they offer, 14.0-in. display Full HD+ (which is just 1920X1200, way worse than "retina") goes for $1,659.00 on Dell's website. I'd get the M1 over that anyday, even if I had to pay $100-$200 extra for the 16GB option. Especially since it will keep its resale value way better.
  - CoolGuySteve 3y ago
    The difference is that you got an Intel CPU instead of an AMD one that's built on a smaller node and has a far more efficient GPU.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Those AMD CPUs are still not as efficient in those aspects in PC laptops
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  I like my mac book pro but I'm not eating it up or justifying it. I'm just biting my tongue and paying it, knowing I get roughly 2x as much time out of my apple devices as I do out of cheaper PC/Android stuff. Plus I need a mac for some of my work that is proprietary.
torginus 3y ago
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 untrue. I regularly saw Dock and Finder leak and eat gigabytes of RAM each. The unfortunate reality is that base Mac models always existed as an upsell. There were a few precious historical exceptions, most recently the M1 Mac, but that doesn't change this rule.
- seec 3y ago
  The reality is that the exact same hardware uses less RAM on a base install of Windows than it does on a base install of macOS. Having used both hackintosh and real Mac booted on Windows (without bootcamp, as a "real" PC) I am certain of that fact. And in usage I also find macOS and its Apps to more often than not actually take more RAM. It isn't a bad thing pe se, it often means more speed because more things are cached, available fast and the like. However, it is quite annoying when Apple simultaneously pretend the contrary and at the same time upcharge for their soldered RAM in a greedy way. If anything, a "Pro" PC laptop in this price range will have not only at least 16GB as default but is highly likely to have 4-8GB for its dedicated GPU when with Apple Silicon, the RAM advertised has to be shared and any GPU activity lower even more what can comfortably be used as system memory. The more time passes, the more Apple Silicon feels like the ultimate scam. At this you better have a very real need for battery life because it really does not make a lot of sense otherwise. In fact, if it is only autonomy that you need and not true mobility, it would be better to buy cheaper performance equivalent PC and buy one of those large carriable battery.
- al_borland 3y ago
  If Chrome is the only reason someone feels they need more RAM, maybe what they really need is a new browser. A web browser should never even enter the conversation when talking about hitting hardware limitations.
  - 3y ago
tntaben 3y ago
The lifespan of a Macbook Pro will be increased if the RAM is upgraded from 8GB to 16GB, which is very unfriendly to the environment. Ironically, Apple's official website makes a big deal about how low-carbon they are. Note: Customers cannot upgrade the RAM by themselves.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  I talked about that point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38215666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38215666
  - weweersdfsd 3y ago
    I have a 2011 Thinkpad T520 which still works fine, upgraded it to 16GB of RAM. There are high quality Windows laptops out there, but of course they cost as much as a Macbook. I'm okay with laptops being sold with 8GB of RAM, but I'm not okay with artifically shortened lifespan caused by lack of upgradability. Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM. I don't care what new technological innovations that may require to offer same speeds as current soldered RAM does, it's simply the right thing to do.
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      >Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM. Disagreed. You can't make RAM upgradeable and have unified memory architecture that makes Apple Silicon good. Let's not regulate technology like this. There were studies done that showed most people do not upgrade their RAM/storage even though they could. They just bought new computers. I can't find them now but you could probably find them if you dig around.
      - ahartmetz 3y ago
        > You can't make RAM upgradeable and have unified memory architecture Silicon Graphics did it in the 90s, x86 laptops do something similar but it's not true UMA AFAIU mostly due to software / graphics API limitations. > that makes Apple Silicon good. Good interplay between CPU and GPU, the major advantage of UMA, does nothing for raw CPU performance. What I find attractive about Apple silicon is that it has very high performance, high efficiency CPU cores. Nothing to do with UMA. Soldered RAM can be somewhat higher speed and lower energy than replaceable, I think that's the main real advantage. Still, I wouldn't want it.
pjmlp 3y ago
No it isn't, because of lazy developers that keep pushing Electron apps for those office workers and students.
- coldtea 3y ago
  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.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Getting by today, doesn't mean one gets by tomorrow.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Why, are we waiting something drastic in the next 4-5 years before the users gets the new model?
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Because that is forced obsolence and damaging for the environment, the computer from today should be perfectly usable in 4-5 years. The upgrade treadmill from the 20 century computers is no longer relevant for most users, besides storage.
        coldtea 3y ago
        >Because that is forced obsolence and damaging for the environment, the computer from today should be perfectly usable in 4-5 years. And for most users it will be. If we're talking "forced obsolence" Apple is probably the last to blame, given their stuff retains high ratio of original-vs-resale value (meaning they have long second hand careers).
        3y ago
justinclift 3y ago
> 8GB is still good enough for office workers and students. That's not the target users for the "MacBook Pro" series.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  The 8GB 14" MBP M3 is a strange one. I personally don't think this SKU should even exist. I think the 15" MBA can replace the now-deprecated 13" MBP Touchbar in the lineup. Apple did open themselves up to ridicule for putting 8GB on a $1600 "Pro" laptop.
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    I don't see why a user who only did light tasks on their Mac wouldn't want a 120hz screen.
SkiFire13 3y ago
> 8GB is still good enough for office workers and students. The article specifically talks about the _Macbook Pro_, which shouldn't target office workers and students.
- clippyplz 3y ago
  Why not?
ksec 3y ago
8GB on MBA may have been fine. But 8GB on MBP?
dns_snek 3y ago
> On a slightly related note: $/GB for RAM hit a wall starting in 2011 Now that's just disingenuous, it's a log scale and it shows that memory prices fell 40% from 2012 to 2022. Apple charges $200 to upgrade M1 Macbook Air from 8GB to 16GB. A comparable 8GB stick of DDR4-3600 costs $25 retail.
- sbuk 3y ago
  You’re comparing apples to oranges. The RAM is (or extremely close to being) part of the package. A stick of RAM is a commodity part. The M-series package isn’t.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    You can bend over backwards all you want, but if you're going to claim that Apple's Unified Memory costs 10x as much as commodity RAM in terms of BOM, you better bring some receipts.
  - lost_tourist 3y ago
    It doesn't cost apple $200 to go from 8GB to 16GB, it's likely 1/10th of that since they are ordering processors in the millions at the lowest point available in silicon manufacturing. I've never had an apple product fail either and I can't say that for other laptops (hp/dell) I still have my MacBook pro from 2011, using it as a NAS (running linux tho) my Dell from that year is long since dead.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Which explains why they had the exact same RAM upgrade pricing since the mid 2000s when they were using off the shelf Intel processors right? It's basically always been $200 extra dollars for the next step up above base for Apple RAM, even when they were user replaceable sticks that you could find compatible commodity versions of!
benhurmarcel 3y ago
The M2 Air 8Gb starts at $1100, not $900. And it's €1300 in Europe. It's not a cheap laptop at all.
mmcnl 3y ago
8GB is way too little for office workers. Outlook, MS Teams and the Office 365 integrations consume a lot of memory. Especially if you are collaborating in big presentations with a few people. My previous Dell 16GB office laptop frequently ran to its limits with regular office work.
pentae 3y ago
I think you missed the point - we're talking about computers marketed as "Pro" devices which should be able to handle "Pro" workloads. 8GB on the Airs is a completely different issue as these are not marketed as Pro devices. Consumers place a lot of faith in Apple as a brand so when they go and purchase a "Macbook Pro" they should be able to assume Apple has their back and it's actually going to do what it says on the tin. It's 2023, memory demand is higher than it ever has been and selling a "Pro" computer thats destined to be living on swap so they can try squeeze another $200 out of you is pretty shitty honestly. And it's not like you can just upgrade it, you have to toss it out and get a whole new device.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  I just used the MacBook Air as an example because even at 8GB, it’s still an amazing machine. I know the $1600 MBP with 8GB is strange. It shouldn’t exist. But it does so Apple opened itself up for ridicule.
- ndiddy 3y ago
  Agreed. IMO the only reason why the 8GB model exists is so Apple can advertise the Macbook Pro line with a starting price that has lower margins than they would otherwise make and then charge anyone who actually wants to use the computer for a professional workload an extra $200-400.
- jrm4 3y ago
  This from the company found liable for deliberately slowing their stuff, for all their proprietary dongles, for getting rid of the headphone jack, etc. etc. As much of a conversation killer calling people "sheep" can be, as someone who doesn't use their stuff, what is surprising about this?
- gizmo 3y ago
  "Pro" usage doesn't mean docker. There are many "pro" workloads that work just fine with 8gb ram. You can get a lot of real work done with an 8gb machine that has terrific battery life, is great for travel, great screen, etc. If you work on large C++/Rust projects you need dedicated build servers with ungodly amount of CPU/ram. A laptop cannot possibly compete with servers that draw 2000 watts each. Desktop PCs also blow laptops out of the water in terms of raw performance. And yet many professional developers have a MBP as their main device because apparently they don't need the extra performance a high end desktop delivers. Somehow many people here believe that: - an 8GB MBP is not pro - a 16GB MBP is pro - desktop with 1TB ram is unnecessary for pro use Somehow their preferred device is the "pro" device and should be called "pro" and less capable and more capable machines are irrelevant.
musha68k 3y ago
It’s not in my experience. “Normal users” are starting to run into this issue as I can anecdotally pass along (browsing, google suite, slight photoshop use, etc). I actually had lots of reservations before I “green lighted” those first gen M1 MacBook Airs at 8GB across family and friends. Unfortunately I unreasonably fell for the rather over hyped reviews across the board (“I want to believe”). It’s especially on me as my last private intel MBP before my “maxed out” M1 MBP wore out its on-board SSD after only 4 years and that one was large (1TB) with ample memory for the time (16GB). It’s running my personal “hack on Linux” from the SD card slot since so it’s somewhat cool but yeah.. My current work machine, a M2 Pro MBP at 32GB actually has less usable memory than my sluggish i9 MBP had - due to unified memory. We know the CPU/GPU is great but the memory story really isn’t, my system is palpably less responsive with a couple of documentation / bad web interface Safari tabs too many… RAM configurations are just prohibitively expensive even for “well off” companies / purchasers at this point so it’s often a struggle to fight for more. I’ve been a big Apple / Mac fan and loyal customer since Panther but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye here. These constrained memory configurations - even when streamlined OS / system software optimizations are in place (are they? still?) - are probably playing a good part in their great margins but they do need to go with the time (bloated websites and apps) as well of course their own stacks running on top.
- seec 3y ago
  Thank god I'm not the only one to know the truth. My experience is similar to yours and I agree on everything. I started using Macs with Mac OS 9.2 but now I want out. The pricing is absurd and there is no way to circumvent that since no upgrade possible. I don't care much about battery life/power consumption and the actual use case is overblown, if you get one of the powerful chips and push it, you are looking at 30-50W power consumption; so even with a 100kWh battery, we are talking 2-3H at best. In other words, if you want to game, compute, encode, render, or whatever high performance task you are still going to need a cord anyway. The rest of low power task is actually done very nicely on much cheaper devices that have more than enough battery life (from cheap tablets, including iPads to Chromebooks). Also macOS currently has a software problem in my opinion and Apple stupidly push for subscription out of greed. If I have to subscribe for my computing needs I might as well get the cheaper devices and use software that can run anywhere, including sub 500$ potato. Apple has made a terrible mistake strategically; you can't have your cake and eat it too. If they want to sell expensive, limited hardware they need to have cheap non-subscription software that is best in class in enough categories. If their hardware is only useful to run competitors' software and subscription stuff they have to be competitive on the hardware price...
_ea1k 3y ago
I don't really have a problem with 8GB for the base model. There are plenty of people buying Macs, including Pro versions, that won't need more than that. My issue is the heavy price increase for higher RAM amounts. A $2500 machine should come with at least 64GB.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Actually, I don't even have a problem with $2500 coming with 16GB. I have a problem with most higher memory options not being standard retail SKUS, which means they rarely go on sale and have to BTO with longer wait times.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Exactly. They wouldn't be selling it if people weren't buying it. The fact is, 8 GB delivers perfectly speedy performance for many Pro workloads. It's not enough if you're a dev running VM's, but Pro doesn't mean it's for developers only. There are a lot of other types of professionals out there, where their needs are e.g around CPU not memory.
shusaku 3y ago
I bought a think pad just a couple years ago. I had to upgrade it to 16G. I had to upgrade the screen to actually be readable. The whole thing was deceptively priced as being on a permanent sale. I don’t get why Apple is the target here, they’re way better than other companies. 16G is starting to be standard for sure, but Apple is only a little behind the times in that regard.
Const-me 3y ago
> are simply unmatched by anything in the PC world at that price - sometimes any price Technically, comparable Windows laptops do exist, but hardware vendors don’t want to sell them. For some reason, hardware vendors really want to sell Intel CPUs, and discrete GPUs. Both choices are suboptimal for most people, because modern AMD chips are more power efficient than Intel, and their integrated GPUs are pretty good by now. If I wanted a new laptop today, I would look for a model with Ryzen 7 7840U. The chip has 8 Zen4 CPU cores, 12 RDNA3 GPU cores, and 15-30W TDP. Quietness, coolness, performance, and battery life should be very comparable to Apple’s M1 laptops. Sadly, most laptops which have Ryzen 7 7840U include soldered LPDDR5[x] memory, but there’re couple models with DDR5 SO-DIMM slots: Framework 13, and HP EliteBook 845 G10. BTW, I have an older laptop with Ryzen 5 5600U. It’s a generation older, but CPU performance and power efficiency are already good there. GPU performance is not great as GCN5 cores are way slower than RDNA3.
lost_tourist 3y ago
the point is that pure greed keeps them from doubling it and giving people a bit more power.
krsdcbl 3y ago
I'll never understand the Apple effect. Neglecting core components of their hardware that would not hurt their margin to spec acceptably from the start, ripping off their customers to upgrade to bare minimum ... and their customers keep defending them for that?

shmde 3y ago

Apple geeks eating up and justifying anything and everything that apple throws at them is hilarious to see. It takes 50-60$ for a 8GB stick and people justifying that 200$ markup because Apple needs to make profit too. Is it Stockholm syndrome I dont know.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aurareturn 3y ago
It probably costs Apple way less than $50-$60 for 8GB. The margins must be very high. I understand the business aspect of this for Apple. I'm not mad at them. I'll pay $200 to upgrade the RAM so that I can keep using macOS and have a well-built laptop that makes no noise. Apple knows this. It's just good business in my opinion. But I guess to you, I'm an Apple geek who has Stockholm syndrome.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  Well... yeah, your behavior is that of someone who has Stockholm syndrome. I'm not saying this to be hostile, but there's a world of difference between "I accept this because it's the best option for me despite the drawbacks" and "I don't mind getting price gouged because the big tech company has to make money somehow". We all make business decisions that aren't ideal (because we have to), but you don't need to lick the company boot while you're at it.
  - sbuk 3y ago
    So disagreeing with someone else’s behaviour when choosing their tech means they have Stockholm syndrome? No, you may not think you’re being hostile, but you are.
    - tpush 3y ago
      > So disagreeing with someone else’s behaviour when choosing their tech means they have Stockholm syndrome? No, they perfectly explained why that isn't the case. Please read the post carefully instead of knee jerk responding.
      - sbuk 3y ago
        > but you don't need to lick the company boot while you're at it. That’s hostile. It’s obnoxious as suggesting a difference of opinion is “Stockholm syndrome”. It the same as saying “I’m not being rude, but you’re an idiot”. Yeah, you’re being rude.
- ksec 3y ago
  At its highest point it wouldn't even be $50 for 8GB LPDDR. At its lowest point it would be close to $20. You can add a maximum of $5 for testing and packaging within SoC.
jack1243star 3y ago
Their argument seems like CPU binning for me, except less crazy? (lesser CPU takes more procedure to fuse out the disabled cores)
radicalbyte 3y ago
I dislike Apple - especially the way they rewrite history to remove Commodore/ Spectrum/Acorn/Atari - is disgraceful. HOWEVER, my M1 Air (with 8GB RAM) has and continues to be a great little machine for web browsing, email, Discord and writing. It can comes in clutch occasionally for coding. Value? No, it's not great value. I bought a $500 Lenovo with 1TB SSD and 16GB RAM as a backup machine and the only areas where the M1 Air beats it are in the trackpad. The Lenovo even has a sleep mode which actually works and the battery life is fantastic. Even the screen is a toss-up - the OLED screen on the Lenovo is in a different class to the Apple screen in some ways but it isn't as bright so less good if you're working in direct sunlight.
- Klonoar 3y ago
  You are off in a parallel universe if sleep mode on your Mac is a failing comparison point here.
coldtea 3y ago
Well, on the other hand, they got AS great performance, amazing battery life, tremendous snapiness, no noise, and so on, first - which you didn't get for a while on the Windows laptop world, even for comparable priced machines, even if they had double the RAM. Not even getting into the trackpad, build quality and materials over cheapo plastic, and so on. For personal and work purposes I use both Apple and Windows laptops and its no comparison on those areas really, even if you go for the nice one's (Lenovo, Dell Latitude, Surface, etc). And if you add the other configurations, you get closer to the MBP price. Eg. Latitude 7440 laptop was the one left after filtering for all the "high end" attributes (> 8GB mem, highest intel processor available for the series, FHD+ etc). Configured at: 14", 16GB, the highest processor configuration they offer, 14.0-in. display Full HD+ (which is just 1920X1200, way worse than "retina") goes for $1,659.00 on Dell's website. I'd get the M1 over that anyday, even if I had to pay $100-$200 extra for the 16GB option. Especially since it will keep its resale value way better.
- CoolGuySteve 3y ago
  The difference is that you got an Intel CPU instead of an AMD one that's built on a smaller node and has a far more efficient GPU.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Those AMD CPUs are still not as efficient in those aspects in PC laptops
lost_tourist 3y ago
I like my mac book pro but I'm not eating it up or justifying it. I'm just biting my tongue and paying it, knowing I get roughly 2x as much time out of my apple devices as I do out of cheaper PC/Android stuff. Plus I need a mac for some of my work that is proprietary.

torginus 3y ago

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 untrue. I regularly saw Dock and Finder leak and eat gigabytes of RAM each. The unfortunate reality is that base Mac models always existed as an upsell. There were a few precious historical exceptions, most recently the M1 Mac, but that doesn't change this rule.

seec 3y ago
The reality is that the exact same hardware uses less RAM on a base install of Windows than it does on a base install of macOS. Having used both hackintosh and real Mac booted on Windows (without bootcamp, as a "real" PC) I am certain of that fact. And in usage I also find macOS and its Apps to more often than not actually take more RAM. It isn't a bad thing pe se, it often means more speed because more things are cached, available fast and the like. However, it is quite annoying when Apple simultaneously pretend the contrary and at the same time upcharge for their soldered RAM in a greedy way. If anything, a "Pro" PC laptop in this price range will have not only at least 16GB as default but is highly likely to have 4-8GB for its dedicated GPU when with Apple Silicon, the RAM advertised has to be shared and any GPU activity lower even more what can comfortably be used as system memory. The more time passes, the more Apple Silicon feels like the ultimate scam. At this you better have a very real need for battery life because it really does not make a lot of sense otherwise. In fact, if it is only autonomy that you need and not true mobility, it would be better to buy cheaper performance equivalent PC and buy one of those large carriable battery.
al_borland 3y ago
If Chrome is the only reason someone feels they need more RAM, maybe what they really need is a new browser. A web browser should never even enter the conversation when talking about hitting hardware limitations.
- 3y ago

tntaben 3y ago

The lifespan of a Macbook Pro will be increased if the RAM is upgraded from 8GB to 16GB, which is very unfriendly to the environment. Ironically, Apple's official website makes a big deal about how low-carbon they are. Note: Customers cannot upgrade the RAM by themselves.

aurareturn 3y ago
I talked about that point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38215666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38215666
- weweersdfsd 3y ago
  I have a 2011 Thinkpad T520 which still works fine, upgraded it to 16GB of RAM. There are high quality Windows laptops out there, but of course they cost as much as a Macbook. I'm okay with laptops being sold with 8GB of RAM, but I'm not okay with artifically shortened lifespan caused by lack of upgradability. Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM. I don't care what new technological innovations that may require to offer same speeds as current soldered RAM does, it's simply the right thing to do.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    >Manufacturers should be regulated to force them offer upgradeable RAM. Disagreed. You can't make RAM upgradeable and have unified memory architecture that makes Apple Silicon good. Let's not regulate technology like this. There were studies done that showed most people do not upgrade their RAM/storage even though they could. They just bought new computers. I can't find them now but you could probably find them if you dig around.
    - ahartmetz 3y ago
      > You can't make RAM upgradeable and have unified memory architecture Silicon Graphics did it in the 90s, x86 laptops do something similar but it's not true UMA AFAIU mostly due to software / graphics API limitations. > that makes Apple Silicon good. Good interplay between CPU and GPU, the major advantage of UMA, does nothing for raw CPU performance. What I find attractive about Apple silicon is that it has very high performance, high efficiency CPU cores. Nothing to do with UMA. Soldered RAM can be somewhat higher speed and lower energy than replaceable, I think that's the main real advantage. Still, I wouldn't want it.

pjmlp 3y ago

No it isn't, because of lazy developers that keep pushing Electron apps for those office workers and students.

coldtea 3y ago
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.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Getting by today, doesn't mean one gets by tomorrow.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Why, are we waiting something drastic in the next 4-5 years before the users gets the new model?
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Because that is forced obsolence and damaging for the environment, the computer from today should be perfectly usable in 4-5 years. The upgrade treadmill from the 20 century computers is no longer relevant for most users, besides storage.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >Because that is forced obsolence and damaging for the environment, the computer from today should be perfectly usable in 4-5 years. And for most users it will be. If we're talking "forced obsolence" Apple is probably the last to blame, given their stuff retains high ratio of original-vs-resale value (meaning they have long second hand careers).
        3y ago

justinclift 3y ago

> 8GB is still good enough for office workers and students. That's not the target users for the "MacBook Pro" series.

aurareturn 3y ago
The 8GB 14" MBP M3 is a strange one. I personally don't think this SKU should even exist. I think the 15" MBA can replace the now-deprecated 13" MBP Touchbar in the lineup. Apple did open themselves up to ridicule for putting 8GB on a $1600 "Pro" laptop.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I don't see why a user who only did light tasks on their Mac wouldn't want a 120hz screen.

SkiFire13 3y ago

> 8GB is still good enough for office workers and students. The article specifically talks about the _Macbook Pro_, which shouldn't target office workers and students.

clippyplz 3y ago
Why not?

ksec 3y ago

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

dns_snek 3y ago

> On a slightly related note: $/GB for RAM hit a wall starting in 2011 Now that's just disingenuous, it's a log scale and it shows that memory prices fell 40% from 2012 to 2022. Apple charges $200 to upgrade M1 Macbook Air from 8GB to 16GB. A comparable 8GB stick of DDR4-3600 costs $25 retail.

sbuk 3y ago
You’re comparing apples to oranges. The RAM is (or extremely close to being) part of the package. A stick of RAM is a commodity part. The M-series package isn’t.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  You can bend over backwards all you want, but if you're going to claim that Apple's Unified Memory costs 10x as much as commodity RAM in terms of BOM, you better bring some receipts.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  It doesn't cost apple $200 to go from 8GB to 16GB, it's likely 1/10th of that since they are ordering processors in the millions at the lowest point available in silicon manufacturing. I've never had an apple product fail either and I can't say that for other laptops (hp/dell) I still have my MacBook pro from 2011, using it as a NAS (running linux tho) my Dell from that year is long since dead.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Which explains why they had the exact same RAM upgrade pricing since the mid 2000s when they were using off the shelf Intel processors right? It's basically always been $200 extra dollars for the next step up above base for Apple RAM, even when they were user replaceable sticks that you could find compatible commodity versions of!

benhurmarcel 3y ago

The M2 Air 8Gb starts at $1100, not $900. And it's €1300 in Europe. It's not a cheap laptop at all.

mmcnl 3y ago

8GB is way too little for office workers. Outlook, MS Teams and the Office 365 integrations consume a lot of memory. Especially if you are collaborating in big presentations with a few people. My previous Dell 16GB office laptop frequently ran to its limits with regular office work.

pentae 3y ago

I think you missed the point - we're talking about computers marketed as "Pro" devices which should be able to handle "Pro" workloads. 8GB on the Airs is a completely different issue as these are not marketed as Pro devices. Consumers place a lot of faith in Apple as a brand so when they go and purchase a "Macbook Pro" they should be able to assume Apple has their back and it's actually going to do what it says on the tin. It's 2023, memory demand is higher than it ever has been and selling a "Pro" computer thats destined to be living on swap so they can try squeeze another $200 out of you is pretty shitty honestly. And it's not like you can just upgrade it, you have to toss it out and get a whole new device.

aurareturn 3y ago
I just used the MacBook Air as an example because even at 8GB, it’s still an amazing machine. I know the $1600 MBP with 8GB is strange. It shouldn’t exist. But it does so Apple opened itself up for ridicule.
ndiddy 3y ago
Agreed. IMO the only reason why the 8GB model exists is so Apple can advertise the Macbook Pro line with a starting price that has lower margins than they would otherwise make and then charge anyone who actually wants to use the computer for a professional workload an extra $200-400.
jrm4 3y ago
This from the company found liable for deliberately slowing their stuff, for all their proprietary dongles, for getting rid of the headphone jack, etc. etc. As much of a conversation killer calling people "sheep" can be, as someone who doesn't use their stuff, what is surprising about this?
gizmo 3y ago
"Pro" usage doesn't mean docker. There are many "pro" workloads that work just fine with 8gb ram. You can get a lot of real work done with an 8gb machine that has terrific battery life, is great for travel, great screen, etc. If you work on large C++/Rust projects you need dedicated build servers with ungodly amount of CPU/ram. A laptop cannot possibly compete with servers that draw 2000 watts each. Desktop PCs also blow laptops out of the water in terms of raw performance. And yet many professional developers have a MBP as their main device because apparently they don't need the extra performance a high end desktop delivers. Somehow many people here believe that: - an 8GB MBP is not pro - a 16GB MBP is pro - desktop with 1TB ram is unnecessary for pro use Somehow their preferred device is the "pro" device and should be called "pro" and less capable and more capable machines are irrelevant.

musha68k 3y ago

It’s not in my experience. “Normal users” are starting to run into this issue as I can anecdotally pass along (browsing, google suite, slight photoshop use, etc). I actually had lots of reservations before I “green lighted” those first gen M1 MacBook Airs at 8GB across family and friends. Unfortunately I unreasonably fell for the rather over hyped reviews across the board (“I want to believe”). It’s especially on me as my last private intel MBP before my “maxed out” M1 MBP wore out its on-board SSD after only 4 years and that one was large (1TB) with ample memory for the time (16GB). It’s running my personal “hack on Linux” from the SD card slot since so it’s somewhat cool but yeah.. My current work machine, a M2 Pro MBP at 32GB actually has less usable memory than my sluggish i9 MBP had - due to unified memory. We know the CPU/GPU is great but the memory story really isn’t, my system is palpably less responsive with a couple of documentation / bad web interface Safari tabs too many… RAM configurations are just prohibitively expensive even for “well off” companies / purchasers at this point so it’s often a struggle to fight for more. I’ve been a big Apple / Mac fan and loyal customer since Panther but we shouldn’t turn a blind eye here. These constrained memory configurations - even when streamlined OS / system software optimizations are in place (are they? still?) - are probably playing a good part in their great margins but they do need to go with the time (bloated websites and apps) as well of course their own stacks running on top.

seec 3y ago
Thank god I'm not the only one to know the truth. My experience is similar to yours and I agree on everything. I started using Macs with Mac OS 9.2 but now I want out. The pricing is absurd and there is no way to circumvent that since no upgrade possible. I don't care much about battery life/power consumption and the actual use case is overblown, if you get one of the powerful chips and push it, you are looking at 30-50W power consumption; so even with a 100kWh battery, we are talking 2-3H at best. In other words, if you want to game, compute, encode, render, or whatever high performance task you are still going to need a cord anyway. The rest of low power task is actually done very nicely on much cheaper devices that have more than enough battery life (from cheap tablets, including iPads to Chromebooks). Also macOS currently has a software problem in my opinion and Apple stupidly push for subscription out of greed. If I have to subscribe for my computing needs I might as well get the cheaper devices and use software that can run anywhere, including sub 500$ potato. Apple has made a terrible mistake strategically; you can't have your cake and eat it too. If they want to sell expensive, limited hardware they need to have cheap non-subscription software that is best in class in enough categories. If their hardware is only useful to run competitors' software and subscription stuff they have to be competitive on the hardware price...

_ea1k 3y ago

I don't really have a problem with 8GB for the base model. There are plenty of people buying Macs, including Pro versions, that won't need more than that. My issue is the heavy price increase for higher RAM amounts. A $2500 machine should come with at least 64GB.

aurareturn 3y ago
Actually, I don't even have a problem with $2500 coming with 16GB. I have a problem with most higher memory options not being standard retail SKUS, which means they rarely go on sale and have to BTO with longer wait times.
crazygringo 3y ago
Exactly. They wouldn't be selling it if people weren't buying it. The fact is, 8 GB delivers perfectly speedy performance for many Pro workloads. It's not enough if you're a dev running VM's, but Pro doesn't mean it's for developers only. There are a lot of other types of professionals out there, where their needs are e.g around CPU not memory.

shusaku 3y ago

I bought a think pad just a couple years ago. I had to upgrade it to 16G. I had to upgrade the screen to actually be readable. The whole thing was deceptively priced as being on a permanent sale. I don’t get why Apple is the target here, they’re way better than other companies. 16G is starting to be standard for sure, but Apple is only a little behind the times in that regard.

Const-me 3y ago

> are simply unmatched by anything in the PC world at that price - sometimes any price Technically, comparable Windows laptops do exist, but hardware vendors don’t want to sell them. For some reason, hardware vendors really want to sell Intel CPUs, and discrete GPUs. Both choices are suboptimal for most people, because modern AMD chips are more power efficient than Intel, and their integrated GPUs are pretty good by now. If I wanted a new laptop today, I would look for a model with Ryzen 7 7840U. The chip has 8 Zen4 CPU cores, 12 RDNA3 GPU cores, and 15-30W TDP. Quietness, coolness, performance, and battery life should be very comparable to Apple’s M1 laptops. Sadly, most laptops which have Ryzen 7 7840U include soldered LPDDR5[x] memory, but there’re couple models with DDR5 SO-DIMM slots: Framework 13, and HP EliteBook 845 G10. BTW, I have an older laptop with Ryzen 5 5600U. It’s a generation older, but CPU performance and power efficiency are already good there. GPU performance is not great as GCN5 cores are way slower than RDNA3.

lost_tourist 3y ago

the point is that pure greed keeps them from doubling it and giving people a bit more power.

krsdcbl 3y ago

I'll never understand the Apple effect. Neglecting core components of their hardware that would not hurt their margin to spec acceptably from the start, ripping off their customers to upgrade to bare minimum ... and their customers keep defending them for that?