I can explain this, I think. I often do searches to find resources, and Command-click them all to open in new taps. After I've collected a lot of things to read, then I'll go through the tabs one by one and read them. I'm basically using the tab list as a queue of links.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
16GB is NOT enough for anything greater than administrative work.
- Thread starter CM_1986
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can explain this, I think. I often do searches to find resources, and Command-click them all to open in new taps. After I've collected a lot of things to read, then I'll go through the tabs one by one and read them. I'm basically using the tab list as a queue of links.
False.
I'm sitting here running Atom, Chrome, SourceTree, Terminal, an express server, Safari, and countless other background apps. Used: 9.x Free 6.x
I'm sitting here running Atom, Chrome, SourceTree, Terminal, an express server, Safari, and countless other background apps. Used: 9.x Free 6.x
Well, stop reading tvtropes.org then!
But seriously - if you want to pay extra for 32GB of RAM so that you can enjoy that little luxury, its your money (although a quick google reveals a ton of "Reading list" extensions for Chrome that might be a cheaper solution). You'll be wanting the 16" to fit all those tabs across your screen anyway...
The problem with this thread is people who need 32GB declaring that therefore everybody needs it for anything more than "admin".
Although I have 32GB myself and was tempted to go for 64, other than extreme cases, doesn't this not matter with an ultra fast SSD?
Forgive me if I'm being naive, but it used to be if you ran out of RAM you'd swap to HDD which was super slow, but now you're swapping to an SSD which is almost as fast as RAM itself?
Forgive me if I'm being naive, but it used to be if you ran out of RAM you'd swap to HDD which was super slow, but now you're swapping to an SSD which is almost as fast as RAM itself?
Well, stop reading tvtropes.org then!
Like that's even a choice!
FWIW, Safari is a lot lighter with a zillion of tabs than Chrome. I agree, 16GB is fine for that.
[automerge]1580666916[/automerge]
Swapping to SSD is a LOT LOT better than a spinning disk. With SSD, you have to go pretty deep into swap to start seeing slowness. My general rule of thumb is that if I'm running heavy into swap all the time, I need more RAM. If it's only once in a while, I have the right amount of RAM.
I run Windows 10 with a full on VS 2019 Pro dev environment with Oracle via Parallels with my 16GB MBP. Been working fine for me for years now. I guess I never got the memo that 16GB was only for administrative work. Didn't know this was not possible. (/s)
My ram load stays "green" when giving Parallels 8GB while having Safari opened with many tabs, OneNote, Word, Excel, and many other apps.
Didn't know this was not possible. (/s)My ram load stays "green" when giving Parallels 8GB while having Safari opened with many tabs, OneNote, Word, Excel, and many other apps.
I'm going through this debate now.
On the Windows side, I have 2 apps I need to run...an internal industry based CRM app and Internet Explorer (sigh, we need Java).
On the Mac side, its just "admin stuff".
Looks like if I can detach myself from Chrome and use Safari I can save myself a tonne of ram consumption.
Thoughts?
On the Windows side, I have 2 apps I need to run...an internal industry based CRM app and Internet Explorer (sigh, we need Java).
On the Mac side, its just "admin stuff".
Looks like if I can detach myself from Chrome and use Safari I can save myself a tonne of ram consumption.
Thoughts?
Or ditch both and use Firefox. I use Safari for banking or stuff I'm worried about security but Firefox for everything else.
That said, when I bought my 16 GB MBP, they didn't offer 32.
Now that they do, I'm buying 32, because I try to make investment that will work no matter what for the next several years.
Now that they do, I'm buying 32, because I try to make investment that will work no matter what for the next several years.
Well, yes and no. I have used VMs with 8GB of memory. But it's very limiting what you can do. For photo editing and development: same thing, it's possible but it's limiting. If you compare this to Excel or PowerPoint, it's almost impossible to make a sheet or a presentation so big it won't fit into 8GB. But with a VM, it's quite easy to think of a VM that needs 4GB, which leaves only 4GB for macOS, so it also limits what you can do at the same time.
RAM is 5-10 times faster than an SSD, so it's better than a hard drive, but not comparable to RAM. Swapping still stalls your machine. And swapping can only be done with memory you're not actively using (e.g. you open Photoshop with 100 photos, then you start reading the news and open 25 tabs in Chrome... Photoshop can be swapped out without any problem. It will be slow to switch back to Photoshop and that's how you recognise that your mac is swapping.).
What kind of photo editing software are you folks using that use that much RAM?
If you're talking about Lightroom...
Switch over to Capture One Pro. I don't think I've blown past 3GB of RAM use with it yet, and I edit 50MP photos. This is on both a Windows machine with 8GB of RAM and on a MacBook with 16GB of RAM. I have only ever hit 6GB with a composite 250MP panorama.
Photoshop is also the same hog as Lightroom, being developed by Adobe. Hell, I can't even open the 250MP panorama mentioned above in Photoshop at all with 8GB of RAM... (it'll just freeze up), but Lightroom has no issue. Capture One just breezes through like it's a 25MP photo.
Then you also have Chrome, which is another hog on Mac OS. I'm more surprised that people don't use Safari while on a Mac.
If you're talking about Lightroom...
Switch over to Capture One Pro. I don't think I've blown past 3GB of RAM use with it yet, and I edit 50MP photos. This is on both a Windows machine with 8GB of RAM and on a MacBook with 16GB of RAM. I have only ever hit 6GB with a composite 250MP panorama.
Photoshop is also the same hog as Lightroom, being developed by Adobe. Hell, I can't even open the 250MP panorama mentioned above in Photoshop at all with 8GB of RAM... (it'll just freeze up), but Lightroom has no issue. Capture One just breezes through like it's a 25MP photo.
Then you also have Chrome, which is another hog on Mac OS. I'm more surprised that people don't use Safari while on a Mac.
Iv'e never tried this software. Iv'e heard of it. do they offer a package like the Adobe with cloud storage?
The amount of RAM needed obviously depends on what you're doing. Yes, Chrome is a memory hog, but why do you need to keep 20 tabs open?
In my case, I got 32GB in a Mac Mini because I know I need it:
- Intellij
- A couple Docker containers
- 1 VM in Parallels
- 1 Java server running a ton of things
- Spark executors
- Documentation in a browser
- Slack
- etc.
All of these add up. Right now, my machine says memory used: 23.x GB and I don't have a VM running...
BTW, Safari is a Memory hog too. Just the tab to gmail.com is consuming 624MB of RAM.
In my case, I got 32GB in a Mac Mini because I know I need it:
- Intellij
- A couple Docker containers
- 1 VM in Parallels
- 1 Java server running a ton of things
- Spark executors
- Documentation in a browser
- Slack
- etc.
All of these add up. Right now, my machine says memory used: 23.x GB and I don't have a VM running...
BTW, Safari is a Memory hog too. Just the tab to gmail.com is consuming 624MB of RAM.
16 GB of RAM is more than enough for a greater percentage of Mac users than not.
It is quite easy to determine what you are actually using (check out memory pressure under Activity Monitor memory tab) before throwing money at solving a “problem” that potentially doesn’t exist.
While it is true that Adobe cloud-based products, Chrome, Microsoft Excel (more than the other “perpetual” Office apps and, I don’t know about O365), Safari among other apps are notoriously resource gluttonous, many other apps are quite thrifty and actually efficient.
It is quite easy to determine what you are actually using (check out memory pressure under Activity Monitor memory tab) before throwing money at solving a “problem” that potentially doesn’t exist.
While it is true that Adobe cloud-based products, Chrome, Microsoft Excel (more than the other “perpetual” Office apps and, I don’t know about O365), Safari among other apps are notoriously resource gluttonous, many other apps are quite thrifty and actually efficient.
If the graph is primarily in the green (few if any page out count), with occasional yellow spikes, there is sufficient RAM.
If you observe more constant yellow (significant page out counts), monitor for a few days and have a look into what applications are consuming excessive resources. It may be worth considering alternatives- for example: if Chrome is a major resource pig, consider Safari or some other web browser as your primary (I recommend SRWare Iron).
If the graph is into yellow with red-spike territory you should consider adding more RAM to your existing system or bumping up to the next increment for the next Mac you purchase.