8gb in a "pro" machine is rediculous. And the 8gb == 16gb thing was always rubbish.
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
173 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37747 readers
180 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And at this point the cost difference couldn’t possibly be so stark that they have to make it a great leap in price. I think they offer these 8GB models for non power-users. People doing spreadsheets and presentations all day, but honestly even then 8GB of memory just seems like they’re cheaping out.
Even then, 8GB isn't really enough. Get a few browser tabs going (with full apps integrated) in a Zoom meeting and you'll run out of memory right quick.
Hell, I regularly use all of my 32GB of memory. Granted, with my job and ADHD, I often have 20+ tabs open in each of several browser windows at the same time with multiple documents and spreadsheets and other apps all running.
But, still. 16GB+ is non-negotiable for me in an entry-level laptop today. And there are decent options available for under $500 CAD rn.
Nothing has made my computer slower than trying to open Excel. FFS. You need min 32GBs of RAM and a 4060 for that thing.
Hell, I regularly use all of my 32GB of memory
On what operating system?
I have 16GB on my Mac and half of it goes to a virtual machine. And I'm definitely a heavy user - five browser windows open with who knows how many tabs is pretty common. An IDE or even two, plus all sorts of other stuff, and a bunch of electron apps too.
MacOS definitely uses "all of the memory", but often at least a few gigabytes (as in, almost half my memory aside from the VM) is dedicated to caching files on disk. And with a fast SSD that's not buying you much performance.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I bet the 8 GB model ismore for lowering the advertised price then it being useable.
My company is deploying new basic, mass-produced, small form-factor office PCs. No graphics-editing, no programming, integrated graphics card, just basically spreadsheets and web browsers. The standard is that each of them have 32gb of memory. 8 is ridiculous...
Computers are cheap, employee time is expensive. Giving your employees computers that limit or slow them down is a very poor investment. Maxing RAM, CPU and GPU even for relatively basic work can make some sense if you look at it that way (within reason, dont need to give everyone 4090's, but definitely go better than an etch-a-sketch :) ).
When I built my first computer a decade ago, I put 16gb of ram in lol.
Is it just me or is 16GB even on the low side for a pro user? I have 128 on my desktop and 80GB usage is normal for what I do (software dev; lots of local virtualization)
All I do is game and stream, occasionally edit some photos and 32GB is the minimum for me now.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I thought. So I don’t understand why people are pretending that eight or 16 is going to cut it.
Maybe they are just happy purposefully limiting usage due to a constraint that they don’t realize is easy to raise.
I like to have 3 4k monitors and four desktops and 10 chrome tabs opened on each one along with SQL stuff and a half dozen vscode windows, and a full visual studio or 2, wsl2 running with a dozen docker containers, plus all of the collaboration programs like Telegram and Discord. And I don’t like to close any of that down when I go play flight simulator. So the extra couple hundos is nothing so that I can be sure to never run out of ram.
The M3 is powerful enough that even 32GB can be a constraint for what you'd be able to run on it
That entirely depends on if what you’re running requires lots of ram or is more cpu bound. I wouldn’t conflate the two as directly related.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Let's be honest 8gb is lower end for a phone now never mind a computer. Then again if someone just wants to watch YouTube or shop on the Web it's fine.
Shouldn't be on anything named pro though.
But if you just want to watch YouTube and shop on the Web you definitely don't need an M3.
An M3 chip with a 8gb RAM is just plain stupid. The problem it's not the 8gb RAM per sé.
If that's all you wanna do then get a tablet, not a damn MacBook pro
... one of the tests here is editing an 8K video. That's not an every day use case.
There are pro users that don't need anywhere near that much memory.
For example QLab. It's definitely "pro" software - but it's just automation software and commonly used for tasks like sending a 20 character text string to another computer on the network when you hit a button... it can do more complex things but most of the time the cheapest Raspberry Pi has enough compute power (you can't run it, or anything like it, on Linux however).
A MacBook Air would be useless, because it doesn't have HDMI, and that often is needed. Professionals don't want to use dongles.
While most people running QLab won't be too budget sensitive... they might be buying six Macs that won't be used to do anything else ever*,... so since it only uses a few hundred megabytes of RAM why spend Apple's premium prices on 16GB?
(* half of them will probably never even be used, since they'd be backups powered on and ready to swap in with a few seconds notice if the main one fails, which almost never happens)
There are pro users that don't need anywhere near that much memory.
Well, every computer is ”Pro” if you take professional writers as an example. But this is a marketing term anyways, not a definition. If it was an actual definition then I’d take it to cover ”most professional computing tasks”.
It’s the year 2033, Apple releases the M11 MacBook Pro with 8 GB of RAM.
We removed the headphone jack for your benefit.
We kept the lightning cable for your benefit.
We didn’t increase the base model’s memory for your benefit.
Apple enthusiasts claim it's literally double the amount of RAM they need for their workload. They proceed to watch Netflix in a google chrome window where it's the only tab open on their 2500 dollar computer.
Mac SSDs are fast, but they are not nearly fast enough to replace RAM - especially in a UMA where RAM speed is critical to performance. 8GB in a Pro machine is not enough. It’s barely enough for a ChromeBook in this age of electron and web app everything. The prosumer market needs 16GB starting, and while we’re on the topic we need 512GB standard storage too.
8gb RAM and 256 gb storage is perfectly fine for a pro-ish machine in 2023. What's not fine is the price point they are offering it (but if idiots still buy that, that's on them and not apple). I've been using a 8gb ram 256 gb storage Thinkpad for lecturing, small code demos, and light video editing (e.g. zoom recordings) this past year, it works perfectly fine. But as soon as I have to run my own research code, back to the 2022 Xeon I go.
Is it Apple's fault people treat browser tabs as a bookmarking mechanism? No. Is it unethical for Apple to say that their 8GB model fits this weirdly common use case? Definitely.
8gb RAM and 256 gb storage is perfectly fine for a ~~pro-ish~~ machine in 2023.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Are they fast now? The cheapest M2 MacBook Pro does not have a fast SSD.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's the ultimate cash grab in my opinion. Just imagine how much faster the SSD will wear out from all the swap that'll be needed. The SOLDERED SSD.
Gotta love Apples commitment to maintaining a steady stream of e-waste.
So apple made a claim about 8GB Mac vs 16gb non mac, and they're testing here 8gb Mac vs 16gb Mac? Am I seeing that right?
That’s precisely correct. Even if you tested against a 16GB non-Mac machine in that price point ($1799), you would probably see similar results. This is something Apple has been trying to convince people against for decades and at one point they may have been at least somewhat correct.
I don’t get why Apple won’t just add more RAM and storage to their base models. They’ll ship more units and get better PR. Simple as.
Because they get an extra $200 per upgrade to a usable amount, while getting to advertise the lower price. And the low specs force early upgrades for the people who purchase the base model. As always, it's about the money.
Exactly. I forget the term, but companies don't want you to buy the absolute base, budget model. Same with cars. They want it that low to advertise the line, expecting most people to pay a few hundred *more for a vastly better product.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's that whole thing where the medium amount of ram upsells you to the large amount of ram.
The base model has 8gb of ram and 512gb of storage, but is only £1700.... But that's not useable.
1TB of storage is only £200 more, but it doesn't have enough ram.
18gb of ram is only £200 more again, but it's back to a 512gb ssd.
18gb of ram with 1tb ssd is £2500. And that's what most folk would consider to be acceptable.
And that's an £800 upsell, by making little bits unpalatable.
It's aggressive marketing. Or unfair marketing.
Like that thing where a cosmetic is 600 game-coins. 500 game-coins is £5, and 1000 game-coins is £7.50.
Might as well but 1000 game-coins. But then you have 400 game-coins left over, and you will never be able to buy the perfect amount of game-coins to spend on cosmetics, and that little amount left over makes you want a new cosmetic for "only £5 more".
It's just scammy
It’s aggressive marketing. Or unfair marketing.
I believe the technical term is "horseshit"
Have you ever tried to buy the absolute base model car at a dealership? They have few to none in stock.
It's the same phenomenon. Smaller number on the advertisement, fleece you on the upgrade.
This could be something different, but apple often feels like they intentionally hold upgrades back and instead release them in small improvements over multiple releases.
Smaller number on the advertisment really
The purpose of the base model is to make the more expensive higher end models look better in comparison than they otherwise would.
I want to replace my 2014 13" MBP. But two things are really weighing on me:
- I have 2 Windows laptops (one that's more for gaming and another that's more for productivity) that do what I need them to do perfectly well; why do I need another laptop? Plus I have two gaming desktops, a couple NUCs, a few servers, some RPIs...I really don't need more computers, seriously.
- Terrible base options with pricey upgrades. I'm tired of having to pay Apple extra for "premium features." I've done with it iPhones over the years -- wtf is 64GB (and now 128GB) base storage -- At least my 2010 MBP I could upgrade aftermarket and did, but for my 2014 MBP, I had to pay the premium for more storage (base was 128GB; got 256GB).
Now I've never used my MBPs for anything resource-intensive. Some light-gaming -- Stellaris and Eve Online, rarely -- is probably the heaviest thing I've done it. Could I get by on 8GB RAM? Yeah, probably.
But it's the principle of the thing. This isn't 10yrs ago anymore, where Windows laptops from various manufacturers kinda sucked. My friend and I were looking at Windows laptops just the other day; so many nice Macbook-esque, thin, lightweight, but powerful enough laptops out there. And for the same price or less of an Macbook base model, they start at 16GB RAM, 512GB SSDs, etc. Many are still upgradable aftermarket.
I'm sure Apple Silicon is worth the premium. But not this other stuff that's considered base on so many Windows machines.
I love Apple products, I do. But I'm not gonna keep throwing money at them for things that shouldn't be considered upgrades. Guess I'll keep holding out.
"Pro" suggests power users, but 8 GB is what you'd find in a low end word processing desktop for office use, or even a kid's chromebook. This is crazy, they are REALLY pushing their luck with this.
I would say maybe if there's enough pushback they'll offer a better option, but I doubt it.
My Thinkpad T400 from 2010 has 8GB of RAM. This was wild back then. But this was 13 years ago. Stop milking your customers by putting insane margins on memory and storage, Apple.
32 GB memsticks are cheap. Apple is scamming their own fanbois.
This benchmarking is just nonsense. (I don't recommend MBP 8GB btw.)
Why do you compare MBP 8GB and 16GB... I believe Apple was talking about MBP M3 8GB vs Windows laptops of non-unified 16GB RAM.
And, of course, you won't use Adobe's creator products on an 8GB MBP.
you won’t use Adobe’s creator products on an 8GB MBP.
there's a shitload of students that buy the cheapest macbook that they can afford, because all they know is "professional designers must use a Mac". They can barely know how to launch Photoshop from the applications folder, how they can know that 8gb is not enough for any kind of work? They see the price it's $1600, it's 2-3x than a cheap Windows PC, so they automatically assume it's the best they can get.
It's a real disservice Apple is doing to their own brand here. I work with college students in adjacent fields every day and the logic follows as you describe. It's a $1600 laptop surely it's capable of anything I need as a student or hobbyist right? Nope. An 8GB machine can barely load the VSTs and other audio thingamajigs they like to pile on it, what is prosumer graphics design going to do to it?
As a professional myself, I can say with 100% experience (currently using a 8GB mac pro) that 8GB is NOT enough and I get memory warnings about once every week that causes me to have to shut down a bunch of programs and slow open them back up as needed. But at the same time, I also think given that the 8gb mac pros are only using standard M(x) silicon I think the better answer would be to just not sell standard silicon as "pro" machines.
And if you look at the pricing between an air and a pro (15" vs 14", both 512 mem, both M3 8/10/8 silicon) the price difference is only $100. The machines are very close in capability; so really the 14" mac pro is little more than a rebranded air. This difference was harder to tell pre Apple silicon as it was easier to have different CPU/GPU/etc between the air and pro to give more of an actual difference. Of course if they did do that then the "base" level price for a "pro" would be $1,999 and not look near as nice as the current $1,599.
Ultimately with the advent of apple silicon apple really should just have a single macbook line and let the silicon be the actual air/pro/etc dividing factor. But I'm sure people would have plenty to complain about if they did that and apple themselves put themselves in this position by starting the whole "pro" vs "pleb" marketing in the first place.
The real crime that apple should be held for is the base level of storage their devices have across all of their devices (Phones, computers, iPads).
view more: next ›