How would this line up be better?
8 GB MBA $999
vs
4 GB MBA $899
8 GB MBA $999
Do you think that if the 4 GB version didn't exist that the 8 GB version would be $899, or something? I don't know why the existence of a product infuriates people.
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.
Apple Updates MacBook Airs with Faster Haswell Processors and $100 Price Drop [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How would this line up be better?
8 GB MBA $999
vs
4 GB MBA $899
8 GB MBA $999
Do you think that if the 4 GB version didn't exist that the 8 GB version would be $899, or something? I don't know why the existence of a product infuriates people.
Coincidentally Apple sells no Mac with less than 4 GB of RAM.
Because 4 is enough, the minimum should be 8. That doesn't make much sense.
Except when you compress the data in memory.
No need for. You can not double compress data that has already been compressed. Apples own version of RAM Doubler is part of Mavericks and enabled by default. Installing another memory compression application on top of it is futile.
Memory compression brings RAM Doubler to OS X Mavericks
I'm disappointed to say that the "advanced technologies" in Mavericks are bogus. My desktop, despite having spinning discs, was perfectly responsive in every version of OS X, even the dreaded Lion. Then I tried Mavericks, which was not. Apple claimed it would be faster, but it was most definitely slower. There is absolutely no way you can blame my computer for that unless you claim that Mavericks isn't compatible with my Mac, in which case Apple still goofed up. Same goes with my laptop, which in addition suffers from rare/random loginwindow crashes, one of the common Mavericks bugs.
Funny, that. I have a 2012 work MBP with 4GB RAM, and 4 is barely enough for light use. After using it for 4hrs (cold start) (email, word open/closed, chemdraw open/closed, google news -- all safari, mind you) I have 2.24 GB of swap with 1.25GB RAM wired. Sweet RAM management, there. 8 really should be standard.
So if you were to buy a new MBA today and were going to maybe from time to time use VMware Fusion which the minimum requirements of memory is 4GB, would you get a 4 or 8GB? I5 or I7?
Thanks in advance
Last edited:
Do you actually use a Mac as a tool, or do you sit there dreaming about them?
Lets see I have Mavericks running and 2 Safari tabs open. That's using 3.5GB of memory, so basically you are saying that if you want to multi-task on a Mac tough luck, if you run anything that requires more than 500MB of RAM tough luck?
4GB was tight six years ago. Today it's nothing more than profiteering.
As for spouting the stuff about RamDoubler in Mavericks. It's a lie. It takes more Ram to get my machine up to desktop for use than it ever has before. Now surely it should be taking less, if this "magical, unicorn powered" RAM Doubler works as you blindly claim.
As michaelsviews points out heaven help anyone that needs to use a VM in your little world.
With a virtual machine you're running one OS on top of another OS and you want to have enough memory and storage for each OS. So I'd get 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD minimum. CPU speed won't be a problem except for gaming and you can't get a quad-core in the MBA anyway. So stick with the i5.
But look out for good deals on a MBA with 512GB SSD. The important part is to buy one with PCIe-based SSD, that is Mid 2013 or Early 2014. If you can get a Mid 2013 MBA with 512GB for roughly the price as an Early 2014 with 256GB, take the first one.
I had a 2008 C2D with 4GB of ram and mavericks and ran multiple tabs in safari, and vmware , itunes, and mail, now granted it was not blazing speed but I did not see the beach ball either. Then I'm thinking it'll work with a more up to date system now.
No it never was perfectly responsive. You've only been used to wait on spinning disks, so you wouldn't notice. Now that there is something faster, you start realizing how slow HDDs always have been.
I'm not blaming your computer. I'm blaming you, for not buying a cheap 120 GB SSD and creating a fusion drive as the system volume in your Mac Pro. It's really your fault, not one version of OS X over another.
I'm saying no matter how much RAM you have, your system will use all of it. If you have 4 GB it will use 3.9 GB, if you have 8 GB it uses 7,9 GB, if you have 16 GB it uses 15.9 GB and so on. That's what memory is good for, to be filled with inactive data.
Open Activity Monitor in Mavericks and look at your Memory Pressure.
If it's green everything is fine.
Only when it starts to get yellow, you're in a rare situation where more RAM could be beneficial. You only need more RAM when you're in the red.
4 GB was enough for most people six years ago. Today with SSDs and Memory Compression, being limited to 4 GB RAM is even less of a problem. What has changed is RAM is soldered now and Apple doesn't pass price reductions to its customers. So you have to pay Apples inflated upgrade prices and you have to decide whether to upgrade right when buying the machine, not just down the road. Except that you can't upgrade later anymore, 4 GB are as good as they always have been.
You're saying that I got used to my computers being slow due to HDDs, so then I thought they were slower once Mavericks came out? That doesn't make any sense. And no, I'm not going to spend money on a 120GB SSD just so Mavericks can get its act together. I've already downgraded.
For the third time, my computers are noticeably slower, not to mention less reliable, in Mavericks, than in Mountain Lion or lower. Mavericks is straight up slower than the previous versions. Apple claimed it would be faster.
----------
Yep, RamDoubler is a load of BS. Everything requires more RAM to run smoothly in Mavericks. 3GB for a web browser is a crime. And it's even missing some of the features of Mountain Lion, plus some applications aren't compatible with it yet, so why use it?
Yes, but OSX does a poor job at releasing that RAM, and thus you enter into swap hell, where you're constantly rw-ing the drive. This inevitably results in terrible performance for a baseline computer. Don't get me wrong -- upping the RAM fixes all of this, but to sell 4GB as stock given the inevitable performance hit is almost laughable.
Also, to michaelsviews who wanted to VM via Parallels/VMware -- get more RAM. I occasionally VM W7 in coherence mode with Parallels 7 on a work (stock) MBP. You will not like the performance unless you have upwards of 6+ GB RAM, even in coherence -- my iMac G3 with VirtualPC and W98 ran circles around it usability wise -- anything 6GB and above works great. You have been warned.
Yep fully realize that more ram is going to be needed, thanks for the information.
You've been warned? More like you've been informed
And with downgrading you have achieved nothing. A Fusion Drive would make your Mac perfectly responsive indeed, persisting on HDDs achieves the opposite. This way you purposefully maintain an I/O bottleneck harming whatever software you use. It is only your psyche that hinders you to see what has always been there. The spinning disk monster is right beneath your bed. Kill it!
For the last time, your personal experience is not consistent with reality. For everyone else but you Mavericks is a fast and stable OS and a tremendous achievement in maintaining battery life.
Only because the system uses 3 GB for Safari, doesn't mean it requires 3 GB for Safari. The purpose of memory is to be filled. If your browsing session is long enough, it will fill all the installed RAM with caching data. It would make a copy of the whole internet if your RAM were big enough.
These are MacBook Airs with PCIe-SSDs 700 MB/s read&write. How big is your swap file that rw-ing with this speed is becoming a problem? Thanks to memory compression OS X can fit some 6GB of data into 4GB of RAM before it even starts to create a swap file.
I've been using computers with a couple of hundred MBs of RAM just a few years ago. Any current computer is an absolut powerhouse for the average user. So much that the goal of Mavericks (and Haswell as well) was not to make it any faster, but more energy efficient.
The era of performance hits is over.
"Everyone else" includes my entire family and any friends I know who have upgraded to Mavericks. I've heard at least 10 complaints about it being slower from them. The day Mavericks came out, I updated, then I noticed it was lagging a ton, so I went to discussions.apple.com. An avalanche of complaints about it. Mine stopped lagging so badly after a few days but was still slow.
The problem with Safari (or anything else taking RAM for "caching") is that it takes up all the RAM until you've only got 10MB free, and then other things start choking. Maybe because when other things need RAM that Safari doesn't really need but is taking for caching, it takes the system time to give the RAM to other programs. Or the system is just doing it wrong somehow. I don't know, but it slows it down either way.
----------
Sure, everything is fast on a fast computer.
Last edited:
Definitely not enough for an upgrade from last gem MBAs. And definitely not enough horse power (and battery power, for that matter) to sustain a retina display.
I went all-in
Ordered a new 13" MBA w/ 8GB ram and 256G SSD, to replace my 2011 MBA, which I sold for just under $500. Cost to upgrade was ~800+tax.
I see this as a good deal, not great, but life moves on.
My 2011 was slowing down, so taking advantage on new hardware with the new s/w will hopefully make me whole again with the current generation.
I have a iPhone 5s and love the fingerprint ID - if this comes on a MBA within the next 6 moths then I will be kicking my arse, but life is a gamble and at times we have to take risks.....
Those of you thinking that you can use age old hardware to run current programs efficiently are in a different world with unrealistic expectations. S/W can only be backward compatible and efficient for a limited time, then it's like keeping a dinosaur alive in a new environment, not very likely to do well.
Ordered a new 13" MBA w/ 8GB ram and 256G SSD, to replace my 2011 MBA, which I sold for just under $500. Cost to upgrade was ~800+tax.
I see this as a good deal, not great, but life moves on.
My 2011 was slowing down, so taking advantage on new hardware with the new s/w will hopefully make me whole again with the current generation.
I have a iPhone 5s and love the fingerprint ID - if this comes on a MBA within the next 6 moths then I will be kicking my arse, but life is a gamble and at times we have to take risks.....
Those of you thinking that you can use age old hardware to run current programs efficiently are in a different world with unrealistic expectations. S/W can only be backward compatible and efficient for a limited time, then it's like keeping a dinosaur alive in a new environment, not very likely to do well.
Last edited:
I just realised what I wrote
I mistook a GBP to a USD amount, I think I was drunk lolI just realised what I wrote
Wow it took 3 months... That was some hangover man... Please pass the bottle... That is some real good stuff you drink...