Emphasis added. It's great that it gives YOU that utility, today. But there are many users for whom it does not offer utility, today. And that's what this thread started talking about.
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.
Guys, get 16 GB.
- Thread starter puma1552
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Emphasis added. It's great that it gives YOU that utility, today. But there are many users for whom it does not offer utility, today. And that's what this thread started talking about.
Time is money and luckily this is only serving as entertainment value for me.. But no, creating TCO models for a $2000 laptop and a $200 sensible update makes no sense to me. If you have the means to drop $2k on a laptop, you've already asserted yourself, if you are indeed intelligent, as being well off. I went to an Apple store and tried out the laptop under scenarios closer to what I'd do and hit 7.68/8GB usage. CPU was around 15% even for me at this point (no VMS) .. The obvious stood out to me. As the ram is not user upgradeable, in my scenario, i'd be an idiot to buy a machine w/ an obvious weakest link and not address it by spending $200 more. If you bought a MBP to browse the web, I have 0 advice for you... and you should not even have entered the thread
Guy walks into a hardware store ...
Need : Needs to tighten some bolt on his beer pong table. There are $10 socket kits for this
Snap-on tech wrench that retails for $450 catches his eye :
Guy buys $450 tech wrench that was intended for mechanics who will maximize its utility and have a need for its capability.. Comes on a thread where people (mechanics) are discussing the need to get such a tool calibrated for $45 and wonders why the hell someone would ever do waste that extra 10% ....
You bought a professional power user's tool, the assumed use case is that you are a professional. On utility, if you are not a professional power user, you are already a clown for having spent $450 for a wrench when a $10 could have sufficed. So, excuse me for not yielding to the crowd that is obviously off their reservation... However, as I have stated, as a shareholder, I thank you.
----------
And there you have it folks. *shakes John123's left hand and hands em a beer w/ his right..
I knew we could agree on something. *added to friend list .. LMFAO
I can't believe in this day and age that people are still debating this. RAM is light years faster than any kind of disk storage. As soon as you fire up a few apps and have a bunch of tabs open in Safari you will have used up a significant amount of RAM and the system will start swapping data to and from the disk. This significantly slows down your system. Sure, if all you ever do is check and email or 2 or surf the web once in a while, then maybe you can get away with 4GB of RAM. I would argue that if that's all you ever are going to do, just buy some old piece of crap, don't bother getting a new one.
You car engine analogy doesn't fit. It's more like getting a car with a gas tank that only holds enough to get you to the places you travel regularly thinking you will never need to drive any farther. Or maybe a car that won't let you drive over 45mph thinking you will never drive on the freeway.
I will repeat it again and it should be burned into the soul of every computer buyer out there in letters of fire, ALWAYS buy as much RAM as you can afford. Your system will run smoother, feel snappier, and be ready to handle anything you can throw at it. The ONLY reason to not get more RAM is that you cannot afford it.
Well, we did agree...you're assuming that every "professional power user" is doing RAM-bound tasks. Some other use cases are processor-bound, or IO-bound. For example, let's say a hypothetical user uses a stats package like R to write some recursive algorithms that take an awful long time to crunch. He might be just fine with 8GB, but that quad core processor makes a huge difference there.
For what I do, 16GB would occasionally be nice (mostly when I'm using VMs), but 8GB works fine for me most of the time. Every user is different.
I like that wrench though. It's pretty cool.
But it can be sold! Seriously, the second hand market people! It's the answer to non-upgradability!
What's this "struggling with four gigs" thing? Last year I was working off a 2011 MBA with 4 GB and it was a great machine. I coded and gamed with it. I wanted better graphics and CPU ahead of a RAM upgrade.
I currently have a rMBP with 8 GB, I use it with Parallels (so effectively running two computers). RAM is probably enough. I get a bit of swaps, but SSDs mean that occasional swaps are insignificant.
Sure, there's a good chance that I'll sell this and get an upgrade, but I want a better CPU even more than I want more RAM. So why should I spend money on RAM right now?
Sigh, and here we are back again. "ALWAYS" is, well, always bad advice. Until you know who the users are, what they're doing, what their upgrade cycles are, etc., you really can't issue blanket advice. Well, I suppose you can, but it's downright silly to do so.
mavericks seems to utilize ram a lot more than previous OSes. I don't know if it's cacheing programs ahead of time or not but, that shouldn't deter you in thinking 8gb of ram is enough. remember, 8gb of ram needs to be fileld up with progreams you are actually using CONCURRENTLY. You literally need to run enough programs and multi-task enough to slow your system down. Only then can you tell me 8gb is enough. The activity monitor doens't tell the whole story.
Amen, brother. Amen.
----------
Wait, you didn't spit on your hand, did you? I gotta ask.
Exactly, and i would say you are 100% right and have thus presented a valid use case for an 8GB scenario. However, this is this the kind of scenario I would like to hear about.... This reflects a minded purchase in which a significant aspect of the MBP is going to be utilized. What seems crazy to me are people on here mentioning that their intention is to browse websites on a MBP.
P.S - At the level you are speaking, you should already know that recursive tasks require **** tons of memory as the 'memory stack' is preserved for every recursive branch. However, that is a whole other convo
I dont think you shoulf if you want a cpu upgrade. Hopefully you maxed out the cpu on your current machine at the time.
Well there you have it. RAM is a resource for the operating system to make use of. Having used 7.68GB or RAM by no means demonstrates that 7.68GB of RAM was required for the tasks, or that you would soon start paging out.
When you're a professional using a machine heavily every day.. The occasional 'insignificant' lag you hit when you have exhausted ram becomes quite significant and annoying and begins to impact the quality of your work. Work which originally necessitated and made a $2000 purchase of a machine whereby there are $400 alternatives quite logical for you. So, the extra $200 to have piece of mind that you will unlikely ever fall off of the available ram wagon seem quite reasonable.
Macs have long supported virtual desktops.. Running VMs now is common. No, 8GB of ram does not need to be filled w/ programs you are 'ACTIVELY' and 'Concurrently' using .. Ram is filled as you page memory in and out of your SSD .. Your OS is filling ram.. that program on your 4th virtual desktop that is out of sight is taking up ram.. That VM that is minimized compiling code is using RAM... those 20 browser tabs sitting idle are using RAM. Operating systems and programs are quite complex now-a-days, when you slap in 16GB of ram vs 8GB of RAM, your OS automatically takes up a bigger chunk of your RAM for its files. Activity monitor shows just about everything your average person needs to know wrt to RAM usage. Unless you have a degree in Comp Science/Computer engineering, I would avoid making commentary beyond what Activity monitor tells you. You couldn't be any more wrong than you are and simplistic Activity Monitor even demonstrates that you are. Operating systems aren't static programs.. They use up a big chunk of whatever amount of RAM you have physically avail.. the more you have... the more the OS uses and that is directly reflected in performance. Guess what: Activity monitor even shows you how much this is... So much for activity monitor not showing the 'whole picture'.
I agree. I have used photoshop with some other applications open with no problem.
It was a 'mild' scenario and nowhere near my typical usage (software was not available in-store). So, using simple logic, if 7.68/8GB is being utilized in a mild scenario don't you think >8GB will be in above mild?
----------
Originally Posted by Meister View Post
To clarify once again: The rmbp with 4gigs of ram can photoshop, aperture, iMovie, play some netflix and have 20 tabs in safari open, all at the same time, without any glitch whatsoever.
U can't be telling me apple sells u a machine for 1300,- that opens ****** emails!!
i got a brand-new mba at home with haswell and yes ! 4gigs of ram.
it runs and multitasks like greased lightning.
It actually fells faster than the 8gig haswell rmbp i am writing on at the moment. maybe cuz it doesn't hav to support the retina.
Apple sells a $1,300 rMBP? That's news to me
Yeah cuz, I am pretty sure that's a big factor.....
The 15"mbp i walked up into the store was already using more than 4GB of RAM idle.. So you obviously don't have a correct comparison
i didn't read your wall of text because i know you're spewing nonsense. if you're a professional using VMs, i think you already know how much RAM you need. Until then, the most important part of the activity monitor is the Memory Pressure graph and as long as it's green, which it is. I'm currently running at 12GB Virtual Memory and it's still green for miles. Most people that don't have computer science degrees are meant to read that graph. Knowing that i'm currently using 8gb out of 12gb of virtual memory, nothing is lagging at all.
I'd suggest you guys work on a laptop for a while before spewing stuff out.
I dont think you shoulf if you want a cpu upgrade. Hopefully you maxed out the cpu on your current machine at the time.
Unfortunately didn't get the very best CPU, but at 2.6 GHz, it's very close (maybe within 5%) to the best prior to Haswell. Current Haswell improvements look good, but aren't that exiting. May just wait till next chip.
BUT I paid around half or less of RRP, so I'm more than ok with that. It's the same attitude I have about all upgrades - I don't want to pay substantially more for a marginal improvement. Always aim for the sweet spot between cost and benefit, and that sweet spot will really depend on what your usages are.
Wonder if there are others like me. A 8/256 Mac Air would be just fine. BUT for $150 more I can get a 8/256 retina Mac Pro.
A no-brainer, no?
A no-brainer, no?
How big were the files in Photoshop? i've had Photoshop and Illustrator open with 11x17 spreads at 250PPI as well as some other apps open and notice slow downs going between apps. This is on a Mac Pro running Snow Leopard btw. Unless the processors and/or newer OS make that much of difference.
Bottom line is, if you're going to be doing intense work with a lot of apps, just get the 16GB. It's more future proof. Just because current OSes are better at memory management, doesn't mean that'll continue in future versions. Things can change. Besides if you're spending so much money on a MBP, what's a couple hundred more just to be safe? Yes I realize it's overkill for email/web, but IMO I rather be safe than sorry. Your needs might change and you'll wish
This reminds me of those who'll buy a $2,000 dSLR and want to know the best 3rd party brands to buy extra batteries to save $50 or whatever. You just spent thousands on a new camera and maybe more with lenses, yet you want to skimp on the cheapest thing? Yea you're paying for the Canon/Nikon logo, but in the end who cares?
To each his/her own.
* Claims Activity monitor is to simple minded and doesn't give enough of a detailed picture as to the memory usage
* Goes to the most uninformative summarized portion of memory analysis in Activity monitor and uses that as a counter argument against the more detailed analysis in Activity monitor
Most people w/o computer science degrees misinterpret colorful graphs that were made for consumers .. Misinterpret it and interpret it as science much to the contrary of the more detailed info already being provided by you.
An example of the memory hierarchy and the different (access times associated with them)
To make it simple for you : If something is in RAM, it takes a shorter amount of time to access.. If something isn't, it takes longer. This principal applies from left to right. If your ram is packed full of *****, it is packed full of *****. The velocity or pressure graph shows, to what level things are having to be evicted and replaced in your already maxed out ram... 0 on the graph equals no eviction... 100% = you're ****ed.. So, the pressure graph is more or less telling you, once you have exhausted your ram, how much of a performance hit you are taking on. This varies from none to a huge impact.
Don't come rambling about :
#1 - Saying Activity monitor is too simple of a picture
#2 - Using the most uninformative piece of info Activity monitor shows you to back your case w/o even understanding what the hell the graph is telling you.
#3 - KISS (Keep it simple stupid) : If your ram is being used 100% .. As indicated by Activity Monitor.. something useful is in your ram and it is being fully utilized. Period. Don't speak beyond that common understanding, as you have no clue what the heck you're talking about
Last edited by a moderator:
I help in creating the architecture that your laptop runs on. So, thanks for the advice.
I'd suggest you read more so you know what you're talking about. However, you obviously don't, so that'd be pointless. It's nice that you can look at a colorful graph and misinterpret its meaning, it seems you are much like the large majority of the population and thus why spiffy graphs are created.. just... for you... 'Look babe, the graph is green...awwww chit cuz'
Last edited by a moderator:
Issue with this comparison is that 8 GB isn't "dodgy" like third party batteries.
To me, 16 GB MIGHT BE the guy who buys a super-sized battery for his camera when he's just going to be doing shots in his studio.
- Status