Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Can a casual user ever exceed the 8GB RAM?

energyboy said:
Both my parents are total noobs and they easily exceed 4gb running no more than Firefox, Skype and MS Word.

I looked at my dad's swap file and it was at 2gb, so not far off from the 8gb mark.

That said, I think everyone should be at 16gb.
Click to expand...

What did you do? Look at the activity monitor and this is your assumption? Seriously? :rolleyes:

Your post is misleading and shows complete lack of understanding how mavericks uses ram.

You also dont know how to interpret the activity monitor and this has been discussed before.

If you have no clue i think you shouldnt write posts because you are misleading people.

(What the hell is a "total noob" :confused: is that supposed to mean that they dont use computers much?)
 
Last edited:
iStat Pro says I regularly exceed 4GB with Chrome, Excel and GIMP open (simply open, no files).

Not sure if this is a Mavericks thing. Then again, my rMBP has never been shut off since I bought it 7 weeks ago.
 
applehead12 said:
iStat Pro says I regularly exceed 4GB with Chrome, Excel and GIMP open (simply open, no files).

Not sure if this is a Mavericks thing. Then again, my rMBP has never been shut off since I bought it 7 weeks ago.
Click to expand...

Mavericks uses your ram for file caching. The actual "app memory" required is probably much lower, you can see this in activity monitor. I'm not sure if istat distinguishes between the two.
 
My opinion is that 8gb is more then enough for the casual user, will they ever use more then 8gb of ram, perhaps but OSX is excellent at managing memory.

I think people are getting overly worked up about memory lately.
 
maflynn said:
My opinion is that 8gb is more then enough for the casual user, will they ever use more then 8gb of ram, perhaps but OSX is excellent at managing memory.

I think people are getting overly worked up about memory lately.
Click to expand...

you can say that again, I remember when 2GB of RAM was a tonne

now people want 16GB for a few tabs in safari and some excel spreadsheets
 
maflynn said:
My opinion is that 8gb is more then enough for the casual user, will they ever use more then 8gb of ram, perhaps but OSX is excellent at managing memory.

I think people are getting overly worked up about memory lately.
Click to expand...

It wasn't much of a deal when you could upgrade your memory. Now you have to make a much longer term decision. The only time I ever need more than 8gb is when running Parallels/Windows.
 
Getting as much as you need now when it's soldered in when you want to keep the thing for years is silly. Sure, my old HP laptop from 2010 was great with 4gb...for a while. Wasn't quite enough close to the end. I started paging to disk pretty quick with 4gb in my 2012 MBP. Not acceptable at all. I bought 16gb for like $72 shipped to my door. Can't beat that. Either way, there's no real reason to not get at least what you think might be needed in 2-3 years if you can afford it.
 
To give you more votes on this option, big SSD, 8GB of Ram, even if you get into Photoshop 8 should do you. One of the Macs I used to edit with had 4GB of RAM. 8GB will be good for you.
 
cheesyappleuser said:
If you plan to keep it for the next 3-4 years 8GB is fine.
If you plan to keep it for longer perhaps it's better to reconsider and get the 16GB. Storage space isn't critical (unless it is 128GB) because you can always plug an external HDD/SSD. You can't do that with RAM.
Click to expand...

For those that go for less storage, how do you backup your external drive? I would want a bigger laptop SSD/HD so that I could have everything on there and use Time Machine (backed up to a external drive).
 
Meister said:
Most people dont resell their stuff. I have never resold any tech device i have ever owned. They are all still with me :) so i dont know if this might sell better years in the future.
Click to expand...

I've sold every MBP I've ever owned when upgrading or else I'd have spent close to $10,000 in MBPs not including what I've recouped from selling.
 
VI™ said:
I've sold every MBP I've ever owned when upgrading or else I'd have spent close to $10,000 in MBPs not including what I've recouped from selling.
Click to expand...

I use every device I own to the bitter end. And I love them like children. :D
I couldn't sell them. And how much do you get for a 5+years MacBook?
 
DaveTheRave said:
For those that go for less storage, how do you backup your external drive? I would want a bigger laptop SSD/HD so that I could have everything on there and use Time Machine (backed up to a external drive).
Click to expand...

Another external drive or use RAID.
 
disasterdrone said:
raid is not a backup solution
Click to expand...

Not truly, but it's stops data loss if your external disk dies. RAID is the best way to keep data off of your computer safe ("backed up") in case of a disk failure. If you have a backup running on your backup get a RAID setup. Why does it matter in that posters case?
 
simon48 said:
Not truly, but it's stops data loss if your external disk dies. RAID is the best way to keep data off of your computer safe ("backed up") in case of a disk failure. If you have a backup running on your backup get a RAID setup. Why does it matter in that posters case?
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused about what the poster wants to do, but they should understand that while a raid setup can increase reliability or uptime in the event of failure, it is not a backup. I wanted to make clear that a raid device does not replace the need for a separate, preferably off-site, backup.

----------
heisenberg123 said:
will it be snapier?
Click to expand...

Not with only 8gb....
 
disasterdrone said:
I'm a little confused about what the poster wants to do, but they should understand that while a raid setup can increase reliability or uptime in the event of failure, it is not a backup. I wanted to make clear that a raid device does not replace the need for a separate, preferably off-site, backup.
Click to expand...

No, you put all your extra files on a RAID setup and also backup all your computers it. If you're not having an offsite backup all you need a RAID NAS box. Why would you need more backups?
 
Last edited:
Meister said:
I use every device I own to the bitter end. And I love them like children. :D
I couldn't sell them. And how much do you get for a 5+years MacBook?
Click to expand...

Truthfully? You could sell a 2009 MBP right now in stock form for $500. Slap a 1tb drive in it and 8gb of RAM and you could pull $700-800 if it's nice and you list it in BIN format.

They do nothing for you sitting on a shelf.
 
simon48 said:
No, you put all your extra files on a RAID setup and also backup all your computers it. If your not having an offsite backup all you need a RAID NAS box. Why would you need more backups?
Click to expand...

So, just so I'm clear, you are suggesting that you store the extra files on the RAID, and use the same box as the backup? Or are you suggesting that the computer, and the RAID with extra files, are backed up to a third backup unit?
 
The first one, just a computer and one external backup system running RAID.
 
simon48 said:
The first one, just a computer and one external backup system running RAID.
Click to expand...

Then that's not a backup.
The computer is backed up to an external drive, but the files that are not on the computer are only present on the RAID, are not backed up.
While a RAID can increase reliability (if set up properly) it does not prevent loss due to accidental erasure or corruption, theft, fire, power damage, controller failure (and subsequent data loss) etc.
You still need a separate backup, even for files stored on a RAID unit.
 
Last edited:
disasterdrone said:
Then that's not a backup.
The computer is backed up to an external drive, but the files that are not on the computer are only present on the RAID, and are not backed up.
Click to expand...

I don't mean something insecure like RAID 0, I mean a RAID with a parity like RAID 5. If a drive dies you won't lose data, what's the problem with that?

Why would you need the even more safety, we're not running Google on these drives?

I do agree you should have an offsite backup as well, but that's beside the point.
 
simon48 said:
I don't mean something insecure like RAID 0, I mean a RAID with a parity like RAID 5. If a drive dies you won't lose data, what's the problem with that?

Why would you need the even more safety, we're not running Google on these drives?

I do agree you should have an offsite backup as well, but that's beside the point.
Click to expand...

Well, because it doesn't protect against data corruption, accidental deletion, controller failure, theft, fire, malware corruption etc.
RAID5 increases reliability and uptime, it doesn't provide a backup of data. If you value the data, it needs to be backed up.
Incidentally, offsite backups are not 'beside the point' - they are entirely the point. If you value the data, it needs to be backed up. If you really value it, it needs to be backed up off-site!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back