Entire Mac Lineup Now Starts With at Least 16GB RAM, Ending 8GB Era

[IllegitimateValor]

Now what am I gonna be mad about??
Oh yeah. The storage.

My M1 iMac I “upgraded” to 512 GB SSD has a bug or something so system storage is now over 240 GB. The possible fix? Requires me to free up 40 GB to reinstall MacOS. I freed up some space, planning to get back to freeing the rest. Got back to it last night. Whatever’s wrong with it gobbled up what I’d sacrificed so I’m back to culling with less viable candidates left

 

[navaira]

Your ZX81 came with 2KB RAM? Ours only had 1KB. We would have dreamed of having 2KB.

(Yes, we did get the 16KB ram pack, too.)

The 1kB era is over, entire lineup now starts with 2kB!!!

Oh, the time when on ZX spectrum numbers were inputted as strings to save a single byte per number… it makes me whatever the opposite of nostalgic is. The scary thing is how little time has actually passed since a 16kB expansion pack the size of five iPhones to me wearing 64GB of storage on my wrist. I shouldn’t be old enough to even remember a computer with the same keyboard as the retina Macbook (roughly) and 1,048,576x less base memory.

Back to the topic, resellers must be rather unhappy – right now in the Netherlands Apple is actually the cheapest place to buy a Macbook Air, except for one German Amazon sale. The other stores either kept the old prices (probably hoping – correctly – that most ‘normal’ people have no clue there’s been an upgrade) or everything M2/M3 is suddenly out of stock.

Now what am I gonna be mad about??
Oh yeah. The storage.

My M1 iMac I “upgraded” to 512 GB SSD has a bug or something so system storage is now over 240 GB. The possible fix? Requires me to free up 40 GB to reinstall MacOS. I freed up some space, planning to get back to freeing the rest. Got back to it last night. Whatever’s wrong with it gobbled up what I’d sacrificed so I’m back to culling with less viable candidates left

I am seriously irritated by 256GB base storage. And this bug has been around for a long time, I have 220 GB ‘System Data’ on my 1TB Macbook Air, tried all the fixes except clean reinstall. macOS might utilise all available RAM, but it shouldn’t utilise available hard drive space the same way Very much looking forward to the 256 GB era being over – not soon, since the new iMac comes with 256 GB again. But luckily we store everything in the cloud, which is why 5 GB of free iCloud space is exactly as handy as it was in 2011. I wish Apple would announce The Eras Tour. I’ll probably win the lottery first, though.

 

[chmania]

As all I required was the inclusion of 16GB RAM, I’m opting for the 'base' M4 mini, which is perfectly adequate for my work. At the moment, I’m using a 15" 2018 Intel MacBook Pro, where I believe 16GB was essential for my tasks. I have enough external storage, so the 'base' 256GB is alright for my needs. Anything beyond the base model with a silicon chip would be unnecessary. I plan to purchase one next year, primarily for tax reasons. In preparation for that, I’ve just ordered a 4K 27" MSI Pro monitor at a rather attractive price, directly from MSI, which I will be using with the MacBook Pro until I get hold of the M4 mini. For the next two years, there won’t be much of a headache, as both will be guaranteed for that time.

I’m glad I waited this long until Apple decided to include the 'base' 16GB RAM in the base device at the same base price. 👌

 

[polaris20]

As all I required was the inclusion of 16GB RAM, I’m opting for the 'base' M4 mini, which is perfectly adequate for my work. At the moment, I’m using a 15" 2018 Intel MacBook Pro, where I believe 16GB was essential for my tasks. I have enough external storage, so the 'base' 256GB is alright for my needs. Anything beyond the base model with a silicon chip would be unnecessary. I plan to purchase one next year, primarily for tax reasons. In preparation for that, I’ve just ordered a 4K 27" MSI Pro monitor at a rather attractive price, directly from MSI, which I will be using with the MacBook Pro until I get hold of the M4 mini. For the next two years, there won’t be much of a headache, as both will be guaranteed for that time.

I’m glad I waited this long until Apple decided to include the 'base' 16GB RAM in the base device at the same base price. 👌

This still doesn't make any sense to me. You waited six years, to save $200, and dealt with a much slower machine than pretty much any Apple Silicon machine? That's.....weird.

 

[chmania]

This still doesn't make any sense to me. You waited six years, to save $200, and dealt with a much slower machine than pretty much any Apple Silicon machine? That's.....weird.

No, I’m just looking to get an M4, and it’s got nothing to do with a $200 'saving.' It’s now the fourth generation, so Apple has had time to perfect the M chip line. I mentioned that I’d wait for the fourth generation. Besides, why waste money when the 'old machine' still works perfectly well? And how many people would be eager to get rid of their 'base' M1s and M2s! And, I don't do that famous video editing...only for office work. 👌

 

[cocoua]

“They” tried to tell us that — and “they” were right for many, if not most, users! ✅ And, it's still true.

Hint: most Mac users have more modest needs than the typical MR professional user and poster.


Because that’s a common use pattern! 🙈


16GB for light word processing, browsing, and email is clearly not enough! 32GB is definitely needed — at a minimum… /s

It was never BS and many, if not most, users did just fine with 8GB — and still do!

What we're really glad to see come to an end are the sweeping, hyperbolic assertions that “8GB is NOT enough”! 🔥 👎🏽

Maybe with 16GB standard now, people will stop making patronizing cracks about users who do fine just with 8GB! 😁

What is a common pattern is Apple taking care the features they offer work good enough. They cant offer 3 4k support woth 8GB and they are offering that.

Let see if you can understand now😘

 

[Jayratch]

256GB SSD in some base models is a pretty easy target.

Yeah, it's only 4x the base storage of the first generation of their flash-based laptops from back in 2010. I had to pay extra to get 128 in my first MacBook Air that year, and it was a sacrifice to squeeze into that since my prior aluminum MacBook had a 500gb hard drive.

A few Macs were offered with 64gb at the very beginning in 2010 up until I think around 2013. I remember being shocked when someone I dated was out of storage on her brand new MBP only to discover that it came with 128. Still, let's say it was 64 in 2010 and now it's finally 256 in 2024, how did base storage only go up by 4x in 14 years?

What really surprises me is that this means we still aren't quite caught up to where we left off with spinning disks. In 2012, the last MacBook model sold with a magnetic drive came standard with 500gb. Today, the base MacBook Pro beats that by a stunning 2%. We are basically just now emerging from a 12 year setback of having storage growth abruptly restart and in that time the base storage of the Pro tier product has gone up by only 4x in that time, basically doubling only every 6 years or so.

 

[jakey rolling]

Who do you blame if you buy a shirt that is either too big or too small? Or a car that ends up not being big enough to transport your weekend camping gear? You do your research and plan for what you need.

I don’t see the need to drag Apple into this or share anyone either. You made the wrong call. We all have at one point or another of our lives. We learn from it, and we are wiser for it.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Also, PC users are not a homogeneous bunch and you can’t expect Apple to release a single model that meets the needs of both myself, a teacher, and MKBHD, who’s editing 8k video on a daily basis.

No, but I can expect Apple to set their baseline to at least enough for a premium priced computer to at least be a step above the absolute bare minimum needed to run most common modern software for at least 3-5 years.

 

[jakey rolling]

lolol idk dude Windows 11 seems to get a lot of hate, i use 10 and 11 daily for work and gaming and i hate them both. i have so many more problems with them vs macOS

Windows has had "a lot of hate" thrown at it since its inception. Yet despite there being ample time and opportunity for some other, better OS to displace it on the desktop, that has simply never happened.

what do you consider incredibly poor build quality? i cant remember ever getting something from apple with poor build quality. maybe a few flaws here and there but thats the case with every manufacturer at that scale.

Well, just this week we've learned of Apple screwing up the most basic of peripherals, and this isn't exactly the first time it's happened. If you want to look into the not quite so distant past, you can see plenty of examples of poor thermal design in laptops, weird noises coming from a supposedly "silent" desktop machines, poor image quality on cameras integrated within their monitors..

i realize there are a handful of Windows machines among the pile of trash that are built pretty well, Razer makes some good hardware (although the Blade i had had issues with ghosting on the display), but you’re paying just as much as a Macbook at that point, and stuck with Windows/Linux…

Best laptop I've had to date was a Dell Precision which sported some incredible specs and build quality back in 2013. At the time it was priced about the same as the base-line Macbook Pro of the day, and blew it out of the water in pretty much every way. The Latitude model that I use for work now is absolutely solid save for the weak battery life that plagues all Intel laptops. The flip-side, however, is that it is fully reversible (nice for when I'm actually using it while travelling), includes much more storage and RAM than a similarly-priced Apple laptop would have, and I can actually run non-gimped versions of productivity software on it.

show me an all in one built as well as the iMac though,

The iMac is in a league of its own. That I will absolutely happily admit. The MS Studio is probably the only all-in-one that has come close to being a high-end all-in-one computer that can match it. That being said, the iMac is still an all-in-one computer, and many of the things that it is designed to excel at (like photo and video editing - thanks to its incredible screen and performance) are still hindred by the fact that it is an all-in-one, and some of that over-engineering makes it prohibitively expensive to buy for some of the more "pedestrian" use-cases for which all-in-ones are more suited. Most people who would buy an iMac are probably better off with a Macbook.

While perhaps not quite as pretty, thin, or metallic as an iMac, both HP and Lenovo make some very solid all-in-one machines. They perform well for their intended use, most have a touch screen (not a well-liked feature by the folks in these forums to be sure, but it was a hit with my kids when they were much younger and head-to-head Fruit-Ninja on a 24" monitor was a sight to behold), and they tend to cost a lot less than an iMac.

or a monitor built as well as the studio display...some people are willing to pay more for a device milled from a block of aluminum...

Again, "built as well as..." can be quite subjective. The ASD has a nice super high-resolution screen with a tremendous level of brightness and colour accuracy. For people doing video or photo editing, it is fantastic and is probably the best monitor for the job. For every other use-case, it is expensively over-engineered at best, and impractical at worst.

For the work I do (financial modelling, and ERP system development), the LG Dual-Up that I currently have to my right is a far more useful monitor. It is a much better aspect ratio for coding and its native resolution is perfect for any kind of text-based work. It also works as a built-in KVM, and can act as a single large portrait monitor or as two monitors (with two different video sources). For anyone doing software development of any kind, either the Dual-Up or the new BenQ coding monitors would outperform the ASD, and at a much lower cost.

Now, none of these monitors are encased in milled aluminum, so for people who spend more time admiring the back of their monitor than looking at the front of it, that might be a deal-breaker. As they say - you do you. Personally, I'll happily trade a pretty looking case for a lower price tag and specifications that actually, you know, benefit my workflow, any day.

...and an OS that is beautifully designed and well-integrated with the hardware

So well integrated that there are currently a few thousand users who currently can't use the function keys on their brand new Apple-branded keyboard or the scroll feature on their brand new Apple-branded mouse because that "well-integrated" OS doesn't properly support those features. So beautiful.

 

[leifp]

I love how rapidly these posts break away from their starting focus.

16GB RAM is the new base, 8GB era is now in the past. Fine. Personally irrelevant, except that it lowers the cost of my RAM requirements a bit. (Not really; I’ll be getting 48GB [by model, not desire] for the price of 32GB with my next purchase [most likely], saving approximately zero dollars)

Cue rants on storage being insufficient (three of the nine people I’m macTech™ for don’t require more than 256GB SSD, two of them don’t even require 128GB… and those same two would notice no difference if their Macs had only 4GB RAM), which aren’t new and then off we go down rabbit holes that have nothing to do with storage, let alone Apple Silicon RAM amounts.

Be kind(er)! Allow for use cases that don’t mirror your own.

 

[chmania]

When much of the work remains on office servers, even when you're working from home, why would you need additional storage on your compact Mac, especially when external storage is so affordable these days and most of us have some such storage lying around at home?

 

[polaris20]

And how many people would be eager to get rid of their 'base' M1s and M2s!

I don't know. I don't cycle through machines like some people do. Even when I get a new machine, the older one gets re-used by family members, because you can do that with Macs, easier than Windows machines.

 

[chmania]

I don't know. I don't cycle through machines like some people do. Even when I get a new machine, the older one gets re-used by family members, because you can do that with Macs, easier than Windows machines.

In our aftermarket websites, there has been an unusually large number of M1 and M2 Mac mini offers in the last week, and it’s likely that there will be even more following the 8th, particularly after the release of those YouTube review videos from those "experts."

 

[polaris20]

In our aftermarket websites, there has been an unusually large number of M1 and M2 Mac mini offers in the last week, and it’s likely that there will be even more following the 8th, particularly after the release of those YouTube review videos from those "experts."

Sure. Happens after every release. This isn't anything new.

 

[chmania]

Sure. Happens after every release. This isn't anything new.

However, this 16GB upgrade on the base Mac Mini would make that happen much faster. Most would feel as though they are using an obsolete device with just 8GB at the same base price.

 

[polaris20]

However, this 16GB upgrade on the base Mac Mini would make that happen much faster. Most would feel as though they are using an obsolete device with just 8GB at the same base price.

Conjecture.

 

[Sharky II]

This 16gb base stuff isn’t for charity, it’s because AI will be reading every text, document, scanning every photo and video and eating all your resources. 16gb will feel like 8gb did. Can't wait!

 

[polaris20]

This 16gb base stuff isn’t for charity, it’s because AI will be reading every text, document, scanning every photo and video and eating all your resources. 16gb will feel like 8gb did. Can't wait!

And gain all that back, when you turn that crap off!

 

[subjonas]

What is clear is that Apple's BTO upgrade prices have nothing to do with the cost of materials

They're using these prices purely to create price points.

I pretty much agree with these statements. Neither Apple nor Lenovo are RAM or storage resellers. RAM and storage are parts of their overall packages which they price however their strategies dictate. You point out the different tier packages that Apple chooses to sell and it's clear that they choose to make higher profits with higher tier packages. Since Lenovo charges less for upgrades, it stands to reason that more of their profits come from their base packages, in contrast to Apple. Apple could adopt the same strategy as Lenovo but then their base packages would cost considerably more. If people want Apple to simply reduce their profits all around, well of course we all want cheaper things, but as you alluded, that would only happen if the market decides that Apple's prices are not worth it. And that's why I never argue one way or another whether something is worth it in general, it's purely up to the market to decide. But I believe it is a mistake to make selective comparisons like upgrade costs as they can never be true one-to-one comparisons. I think the only way to judge or compare value is by looking at the overall packages and comparing those at their given prices.

 

[subjonas]

Well, OS choice is subjective. MacOS has not been objectively better than its Windows counterpart for over a decade now. Apple's SOC is impressive and may be about the only compelling reason to get a Mac nowadays. As for "build quality", only Apple fans think making something out of aluminum and sacrificing performance and cooling for something that is a half-millimeter thinner than its predecessor is a good measure of "build quality". Apple has had its share of incredibly poor build quality over the years, and there are plenty of PC manufacturers that have excellent build quality. All this put together, and I'd say you're not getting your money's worth.

Pretty much everything you mentioned is subjective, not just OS choice, because it's all trade offs. The set of trade offs may not be worth your money, but it may be worth it to other people (by the way, putting down what other people value isn't cool). The question for any company is just if it's worth it for enough people. In Apple's case, they seem to be doing pretty well.

Okay, there's spin doctoring, and then there's whatever that was you just typed. Yikes.

It could be spin, but it could also be true. Do you have a counter argument?

 

[subjonas]

I always love the implication in comments like these that all laptop purchasers know or at least aught to know the specifications that they will need for their use case, today and in the near future. There is just a very subtle kind of victim-blaming aimed at those who perhaps relied upon the recommendation of an "expert" (or "Genius") that the base model will be fine (even if that recommendation is based on nothing more than some salesman's bad assumption of their use-case), or maybe because the purchaser simply assumed (perhaps a bit naïvely) that whatever Apple says is fine will be fine. Those that didn't buy the 16GB version, they should have known what they needed. And so they deserve to now get fleeced by Apple because they are too stupid and/or cheap to get off their wallets and buy what they need.

It's actually a pretty "Genius" (pun only sort of intended) way to defend the slimy consumer-adverse actions of your favorite trillion-dollar corporation without actually having to sound like a complete corporatist ghoul. Bravo.

1) It shouldn't be subtle, the blame is definitely on the so-called "victim". Whether it's computers, cars, homes, a guitar--anything anyone buys they are ultimately responsible for understanding to a reasonable degree what it is they are buying. The only legitimate time to blame someone else for a bad purchase is when they are actively deceived, which is not the case here.
2) People should get the specs for their current needs or their foreseeable needs, not for unforeseeable unexpected needs. Buying for unexpected needs doesn't even make sense, unless one likes to throw money away.

 

[Tago]

No, I’m just looking to get an M4, and it’s got nothing to do with a $200 'saving.' It’s now the fourth generation, so Apple has had time to perfect the M chip line. I mentioned that I’d wait for the fourth generation. Besides, why waste money when the 'old machine' still works perfectly well? And how many people would be eager to get rid of their 'base' M1s and M2s! And, I don't do that famous video editing...only for office work. 👌

Second that.

The M4 Mini base seems to be on par with M2 Mini Pro and M1 Studio Max for many parameters, thus unless there are specific parameters where one of those two are beneficial to YOUR workflow, a new M4 Mini would be the better AND most economical option to the other 2. People tries to get more for the oldies than you`ll pay for a new M4 in this market, and even if people paid the same, they will have a shorter remaining lifespan to distribute the costs.

Haven`t studied the performances down to the deepest details, but that`s how I picture them performance wise. A couple of graphics parameters plus hw encoders/decoders where the Max still "got it", but for general usage? I`d go with the Mini.

 

[Tago]

Windows has had "a lot of hate" thrown at it since its inception. Yet despite there being ample time and opportunity for some other, better OS to displace it on the desktop, that has simply never happened.

I would rank Windows as # 4 of desktop operative system and that`s me being generous. Microsoft had to work seriously hard to stop Linux taking over their position there too.

There are a lot of other reasons than the quality of OSX/KDE/Gnome/Linux allowing Microsoft to remain dominant. (Novell, Ignacio, Munich, document formats, "coup de etats" in standardization committees, and extremely dubious business practices a.o. in African countries to mention a few). Here, they got exclusive contracts with public sector, and people were forced to use Windows when relating to that sector. For instance one of my siblings who had to drop the Mac for Windows doing PhD (now a Professor), and I had to drop Linux when i attended studies. Got nothing whatsoever to do with any form of Windows technical or UX design superiority. I`m familiar with both Windows, Osx, Linux and various *nix, and as I said: 4th.

I resent the word hate applied to things like these, but whatever the emotions were, Microsoft earned it by 1: the quality of their OS and 2: their business practices.

Linux distributions did their own mistakes too. For instance hardly any stuck to either KDE or Gnome leaving the other out. That was and still is a stupid mess easily avoided.

I`m only running a Thinkpad with clean Arch these days (my spare), but MacOS is the better OS of the lot. Come M-series, generation 4 these days, and the gap only widens.

As far as Thinkpads/Lenovo goes, Apple achieved the better build quality with Unibody (gen II in my opinion), and whilst I`d still prefer Thinkpads to everything else for Windowa, they a.o. have a history of sub par screens compared to Macs. I got the high spec ones, but way beneath Macs for screens. I still write better and with less errors on a Thinkpad keyboard, but that is probably habits these days. And the combo Intel/MS: You could purchase the biggest batteries and got crap battery time. It was crap on the low spec CPUs too.