Guys, get 16 GB.

[Meister]

Say what? My Mavericks 2011 13" MBP 2.7ghz 8gb ram is lagging with photoshop (2 photos open), Adobe bridge, Chrome (5 tabs), Aperture (main library open), iTunes, and couple PDF files open.

$200 on a $2000+ laptop should not be considered an issue.

If all you do is watch movies, go on the internet and email, go for the 8gb. Hell if thats all you do, the 11" MBA is just as fine.

I remember back when 8gb was such a godsend. God damn it people, buy 16gb's if you need it. If you don't, feel free to make a thread in 5 years asking how to speed up your computer.

If thats all they do an iPad is fine.
I honestly don't know why your system lags.
I have three systems at home. two with 4gigs and one with 8gigs.
One of them only runs with an hdd + 4gigs.
I don't see any real difference in daily use between them.
the 4gigs+hdd has a bit of lag when multitasking + dealing with large text/image files. (>150mb) but nothing serious. maybe milliseconds when scrolling. hd video editing is no problem either. rendering took about 10 minutes but thats not due to ram.
The other two run on ssd and everything is more or less instant.

 

[akramer]

Kernel design is a very complicated field. Unless you went to school for it and work actively on an industry level OS for a living, you have no business rambling on about anything related to it. Computer Architecture (hardware) even moreso.... The truth that you quoted is covered in Comp Arch 101 and gets nowhere near towards the complexities of industry level Kernel design and the work put into it.

The condescension is unnecessary. There are people on these forums who will benefit from explanations and do not need to be belittled in the process. Pointing out that a single paragraph explanation does not come close to clarifying the complexity of VM management in a modern kernel is not adding anything to the conversation.

Most of what you've been saying is correct. Hell, I already bought a 16GB haswell MBP. I think the extra 8GB of RAM is well worth the $200.

But this is convincingly wrong and obnoxious at the same time:

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

As someone who claims to understand the nuance of memory management and won't deign to discuss the matter as clearly nobody else here could be as much of an expert as you, it's striking that you do not see the workloads that cause your buffer cache to be full of stuff you won't be accessing again for days, weeks, months, whatever.

Again, I'm not arguing with the general idea you're pushing: the more RAM the better. SSDs are ~3 orders of magnitude slower than RAM (I actually haven't seen numbers for the fancy PCIe disks yet) and even ignoring write wear issues, using it as swap is still not acceptable. The continual condescending attitude is uncool.

 

[toneLA]

And please. At over $2K the base price, what's another $200? People concerned about the upgrade price are people who should get a MacBook Air in the first place. If you buy a rMBP, it means you need what if has to offer — as a PRO tool. The question most people ask is in fact : 'should I spend $200 extra for RAM, it's already so expensive and my intention is just to look cool at Starbucks?' I don't know, all of that feels to me like buying a Mercedes with a Ford Fiesta engine.

 

[unimac]

The condescension is unnecessary. There are people on these forums who will benefit from explanations and do not need to be belittled in the process. Pointing out that a single paragraph explanation does not come close to clarifying the complexity of VM management in a modern kernel is not adding anything to the conversation.

Most of what you've been saying is correct. Hell, I already bought a 16GB haswell MBP. I think the extra 8GB of RAM is well worth the $200.

But this is convincingly wrong and obnoxious at the same time:


As someone who claims to understand the nuance of memory management and won't deign to discuss the matter as clearly nobody else here could be as much of an expert as you, it's striking that you do not see the workloads that cause your buffer cache to be full of stuff you won't be accessing again for days, weeks, months, whatever.

Again, I'm not arguing with the general idea you're pushing: the more RAM the better. SSDs are ~3 orders of magnitude slower than RAM (I actually haven't seen numbers for the fancy PCIe disks yet) and even ignoring write wear issues, using it as swap is still not acceptable. The continual condescending attitude is uncool.

When some clown rebuts a simple and clear point I made and claims the information provided by Activity Monitor is not sufficiently capturing the detailed level in which memory is being used in a system even though that is exactly what OS engineers use at apple for analyzing performance and crash dumps, I have the right to be as much as an condescending arse as I want. I am, in fact not being condescending, I am stating quite clearly and frankly that Activity monitor is just about all the data you can get to clearly understand memory usage and bringing into question just what in the world the person is talking about.

When someone then decides to 'quote' this fool and go off on a comp. arch 101 or wired article summary about memory hierarchy and even try to further buff this nonsense, i have every right to shut it down completely. So, excuse me for catching an attitude when people who have no clue what they are talking about try to move a simple issue into complexities that they don't understand.

Simple :
When an app brings X into ram and it is not being used and you evict it from RAM because :
> you don't have enough ram and something more important needs it
only to need the very thing you evicted soon after, you have a performance issue. When your ram is packed 100% w/ data. It is packed 100% w/ data. If I were to be condescending, i would have approached it in a much more complex manner, but i didn't. In simple terms, i indicated that the original person had no clue what the hell they were talking about nor does anyone who quoted him and that's a fact. As to your commentary about the nuances of RAM operations and how Maverick uses it : Why don't we drop it down to 2GB of ram and play round-robin.. compress the bit...may the most important data bit win the last the last slot? There's a reason, you, who clearly understands the nuances of this process has 16GB of ram and there is a clear reason why I, knowing what I'm talking about, do as well.

 

[unimac]

We get it! You're really smart and know lots of stuff. Can I suggest you also try learning some humility?

Can i suggest people who don't know what they are talking about not try to take simple foundations and move them into complexities they don't understand? Else someone who understands those complexities might actually speak out and hand them a bottle of ******* .. K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid). Just because its common place now-a-days to read an article and pretend like you are a know-it-all who has a depth of understanding, doesn't make it ok. P.S - You're not going to get humility from someone who actually knows what they are talking about when you don't have a clue of what you are talking about yet are beating your chest the loudest. I'd fully expect a handful of -stf-u- to be smacked across that person's lips.

P.S.S - Specifically for you.... If you care to make personal critiques, go back and inform yourself on how this tangent of a dung show got started. It was started by some arse clown suggesting a tool used by engineers industry wide to asses run-time performance is in fact a 2 year old's way of understanding memory performance. So here you come pages later wondering why i told this clown and anyone who supported him to sit in a corner and shut their lips. *brilliant.

And w/ that, I'm out of here until my next upgrade 5years+ from now. Enjoy the debate.

/Thread

 

[akramer]

When some clown rebuts a simple and clear point I made and claims the information provided by Activity Monitor is not sufficiently capturing the detailed level in which memory is being used in a system even though that is exactly what OS engineers use at apple for analyzing performance and crash dumps, I have the right to be as much as an condescending arse as I want. I am, in fact not being condescending, I am stating quite clearly and frankly that Activity monitor is just about all the data you can get to clearly understand memory usage and bringing into question just what in the world the person is talking about.

Fair enough, I did laugh at that rebuttal. I am not defending people who say that "activity monitor is not the whole picture."

There's a reason, you, who clearly understands the nuances of this process has 16GB of ram and there is a clear reason why I, knowing what I'm talking about, do as well. and with that, I'm out of here until my next upgrade 5years+ from now. Enjoy the debate.

/Thread

I guarantee you there will be another one of these threads when you come back after your next upgrade. (upgrading is the reason I'm back too!)

Time for me to be inflammatory: my guess is that most people defending having 8GB didn't want to wait for a BTO base model with upgraded RAM and wanted to impulse buy at the apple store.

 

[illian]

Everyone who's saying if you only browse the web and watch Netflix to get 8 is wrong.

There is a noticeable smoothness in all that you do in 8 vs 16 in your day to day navigation of the OS.

The only reason you should get 8 over 16 is if you don't care if your computer behaves slightly more sluggishly lol.

Theres no question.You can tell the difference. Run a couple sticks at 16 after you had 8 for awhile and its quite obvious no matter what trivial thing you do or load up.

So its not a decision of need, usage, or future proofing, its a decision of luxury.

You can't argue that there isn't a difference because there is -- anecdotally and in benchmarks. Everything just runs smoother on 16.

Weather or not that luxury of OS behavior is worth the money is up to the wallet.

Sorry this is wrong. You only feel the difference if you really need more than 16GB. As long as you stay under 8GB of usage, you will not get any improvements!

 

[sparkie7]

There is a noticeable smoothness in all that you do in 8 vs 16 in your day to day navigation of the OS.

The only reason you should get 8 over 16 is if you don't care if your computer behaves slightly more sluggishly lol.

link to back up your claims? or are you just verbally gesticulating?

 

[illian]

Fair enough, I did laugh at that rebuttal. I am not defending people who say that "activity monitor is not the whole picture."



I guarantee you there will be another one of these threads when you come back after your next upgrade. (upgrading is the reason I'm back too!)

Time for me to be inflammatory: my guess is that most people defending having 8GB didn't want to wait for a BTO base model with upgraded RAM and wanted to impulse buy at the apple store.

Or maybe we just know what we need? Why would I throw away 200$, even though I have no use for it? Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Meister]

Everyone who's saying if you only browse the web and watch Netflix to get 8 is wrong.

There is a noticeable smoothness in all that you do in 8 vs 16 in your day to day navigation of the OS.

The only reason you should get 8 over 16 is if you don't care if your computer behaves slightly more sluggishly lol.

Theres no question.You can tell the difference. Run a couple sticks at 16 after you had 8 for awhile and its quite obvious no matter what trivial thing you do or load up.

So its not a decision of need, usage, or future proofing, its a decision of luxury.

You can't argue that there isn't a difference because there is -- anecdotally and in benchmarks. Everything just runs smoother on 16.

Weather or not that luxury of OS behavior is worth the money is up to the wallet.

i have a 8gb and a 4gb model here.
no difference so far whatsoever.

 

[Atomic Walrus]

Let me start by saying that my position on how much RAM you need is, well, I'd call it a passion. Honestly it borders on a calling.

You need to listen to me and make the choice I tell you to, otherwise I'll be seriously upset and probably call you names or question your basic intelligence and value as a person. I may even cry.

This really is the major debate of our times. In the future, the winners of the great How Much RAM Do I Need wars will rule over those who made the wrong choice and laugh at their poor judgement which doomed them to a life of slavery in the DIMM mines.

...Assess your needs. Make the choice based on your usage and budget. More RAM only has an impact on performance if it's in use, so find out how much RAM you use doing what you need to do and go from there.

 

[illmatic41]

Let me start by saying that my position on how much RAM you need is, well, I'd call it a passion. Honestly it borders on a calling.

You need to listen to me and make the choice I tell you to, otherwise I'll be seriously upset and probably call you names or question your basic intelligence and value as a person. I may even cry.

This really is the major debate of our times. In the future, the winners of the great How Much RAM Do I Need wars will rule over those who made the wrong choice and laugh at their poor judgement which doomed them to a life of slavery in the DIMM mines.

...Assess your needs. Make the choice based on your usage and budget. More RAM only has an impact on performance if it's in use, so find out how much RAM you use doing what you need to do and go from there.

As an Apple stock holder, I only listen to other Apple stock holders and thank you to all the future slaves of the DIMM mines for purchasing a Macbook when you don't utilize 100% of the RAM, SSD, or Processor! Heavens praise you peons for wanting nice hi-res screens, solid build quality, and OSX when all your needs could have been satisfied by a plastic flimsy Chromebook according to my fellow stock holders!

By the way, did I mention I was an Apple Stock holder? Mmwwhahahahaha!

 

[PeterJP]

And please. At over $2K the base price, what's another $200?

If you don't think 10% is a lot, then I propose you give me 10% of your belongings. But I'll be mild. If you don't think $200 is a lot, then please give it to me. Even if the machine would be $100K, $200 stays $200. I can take my wife out for dinner a few times with $200, so I need a good reason to spend so much.

 

[Benk3350]

I'm currently using a 13" macbook pro with 4 gigs and I've had it for almost 5 years and it still is fine. Only now am I starting to think that the 4 is starting to slow me down.

Now, I did just order the new 15" with 16gb RAM, but I think for many people 8 will still be more than enough for a few years.

The only reason I agree that 16gb would be the way to go for even casual users is because you can't upgrade it. ever. but if the macbook were like any normal laptop, you would be fine with 8gb and have the option to upgrade later down the road if you felt like you needed it.

But I think for a basic user 8gb is totally fine. Hell, I'm on 4gb and its not really an issue yet.

 

[leman]

Simple :
When an app brings X into ram and it is not being used and you evict it from RAM because :
> you don't have enough ram and something more important needs it
only to need the very thing you evicted soon after, you have a performance issue. When your ram is packed 100% w/ data. It is packed 100% w/ data.

Ermm... I am afraid I don't necessarily agree. I mean, the whole storage in computers is in a tiered way to combat the slow performance of mass storage. Essentially, RAM is a large, resonably fast cache which can be used to cache either stuff from the slower storage or some intermediate computation results. So of course, the more cache you have, the more potential performance benefit. But at some point the benefit of extra cache becomes negligible.

Your statement about 'when its packed with data, then its packed with data' is thus not entirely correct. OS X is full of frameworks which allows you to cache intermediate results - be it the currently invisible parts of your view, data from the database you are connected to or just some random stuff (see the NSCache class). If you have tons of RAM, the system starts caching stuff the application uses only rarely; basically just by using NSCache your application could end up using seemingly astronomical amounts of memory (if available), but purging that will have only very minor impact on the performance.

 

[adnbek]

I worked in a Performance management group at a company that produces an enterprise grade OS. I know exactly how memory hierarchies work. I already defined this process and you just re-described it.. thanks... Now, when you purge something from RAM because its not being 'actively' used .. Where do you get it when you need it? You access the SSD and how much of a hit is that? I showed the access times in a graphic some threads back, please go read it.



I know exactly what the latency is. If there was no latency issue, you would use a 256 GB SSD drive for RAM. There obviously is latency and thus why you don't. I looked at nothing but stats for years in my personal job. You can KISS.. There's no reason to describe what is going on. I know exactly what Mavericks does and exactly how the memory Hierarchy works and I know exactly how much RAM i need and its greater than 8GB.




"Solid-state drives may be fast, but your Mac’s RAM is much faster. That’s why applications try to load all their necessary data to the Mac’s memory for quick and easy access to the bits and bytes they need most."

OS Kernels have been played w/ since the beginning of time... Sometimes fancy tricks like this are made and then reversed later on in a Kernel revision. Beyond the tricks that are played at the kernel level is real world physical hardware and electrons flowing across wires. There is no trick to that.
> If you compress bits you have to decompress bits
> If you kick things out of ram, you will have to bring them back when you need them

Do you understand how interrupts and Kernel level routines work? What exactly do you think compresses/decompresses memory? Do you think this is a new concept apple just happened to think about.. It's been around forever and has pros/cons.

There is no con to 16GB of ram to me when I know I will need it. No, I don't want interrupts and kernel routines playing optimize the cheapo who didn't buy enough RAM for his needs. I want my cores crunching data sets and performing tasks. I dont want my SSD hit because I decided to not get sufficient ram. That's not the purpose of it and technology has advanced and price points to ensure I don't have to.

I'd love to get in a kernel design and memory management discussion but this is hardly the platform to do so. I do this for a living everyday, have Masters degree in comp. engineering with a focus in embedded systems (where the real OS optimizations occur) and don't need a lecture on OS design and memory hierarchies. That's a comp. arch (sophomore year) lecture.

In the industry, we like to keep things simple as the real implementation is complicated enough...
When ram is a bottle neck in your system (a $2000) one and it only costs $200 to address. You address it. It's great that apple discovered kernel level memory compression. Welcome to decades ago when ram costs $1000 for a 256MB stick and it really mattered to play such tricks. It doesn't today. It costs $200 for an 8GB upgrade. An upgrade that is well worth it to me...

Running VMs kills everything you said b.t.w. But thanks for the comp arch. flashback.

I must have skipped the post where you showed you knew this stuff, haha. Honestly, I just skipped to the last page of the thread and started reading from there. Would've saved me a lot of typing had I done so.

I know that if some RAM is flushed, the OS will have to re-access the hard drive later if it needs that data again, but the file cache is a bunch of random (recently accessed) files it keeps in memory. Not all will need to be accessed again at once so the performance hit will be minimal if it just needs to access a few files here and there. Like I said earlier, I have a 5400rpm drive and the performance hit from the file cache being purged is minimal, since it gets rebuilt when needed, not all at once like at boot.

But considering your uses, I'd say 16gb would be a minimum if you're running VMs (goes back to what I said about memory-intesive) and such.

 

[MacModMachine]

Ermm... I am afraid I don't necessarily agree. I mean, the whole storage in computers is in a tiered way to combat the slow performance of mass storage. Essentially, RAM is a large, resonably fast cache which can be used to cache either stuff from the slower storage or some intermediate computation results. So of course, the more cache you have, the more potential performance benefit. But at some point the benefit of extra cache becomes negligible.

Your statement about 'when its packed with data, then its packed with data' is thus not entirely correct. OS X is full of frameworks which allows you to cache intermediate results - be it the currently invisible parts of your view, data from the database you are connected to or just some random stuff (see the NSCache class). If you have tons of RAM, the system starts caching stuff the application uses only rarely; basically just by using NSCache your application could end up using seemingly astronomical amounts of memory (if available), but purging that will have only very minor impact on the performance.

indeed, not to mention the operating system constantly evaluates whats in memory and swaps to the disk back and forth if you need more memory.

OSX is pretty smart when it comes to memory management.

 

[leman]

indeed, not to mention the operating system constantly evaluates whats in memory and swaps to the disk back and forth if you need more memory.

OSX is pretty smart when it comes to memory management.

I believe you might have missed the point As unimac already said, swapping is ALWAYS a performance hit. I was not talking about swapping either, I was talking about volatile caching.

 

[spt]

My impression is that developments in hardware have been going much faster during the last decade than trends in what is required by software. My Mid 2009 MBP (I immediately bought a 80GB Intel SSD for it) was certainly a little bit slower than my new Haswell rMBP (with 8GB of RAM), but the old system still needs only 1s to start Safari when doing some regular multitasking. In contrast, about 10 years ago a lot of patience was needed when using a computer and you better not tried to run too many programs at the same time.

So things are definitely changing, and the fact that the 640kb statement from the early 1980s looks silly now doesn't mean that it's going to be like that in the future. Just think about it: when I bought my Mid 2009 MBP 4.5 years ago the entry level was 2GB. The 1976 Apple came with 4kb of ram, so between 1976 and 2009 there was an average increase by a factor of (2000000kb/4kb)^1/(2009-1976)=1.55 per year. Therefore, if things would still be going so fast the entry level MBP should now have 2*1.55^4.5=14.5GB of RAM. Is that the case? No, it has only doubled to 4GB.

Also, I find the "if you can afford it" statement somewhat weird. Not only RAM develops over time, all the components do. So if you can really afford it, buy something nice that's good now and just replace it when worthwhile improvements have hit the market.

 

[walkie]

I haven't tested out memory management on Windows 8 lately (since I gave up using Windows several years ago), but for me OSX's memory managment is far better than in Windows, even Linux's memory management is far better too, Windows seems to swap always no matter how much RAM you have installed turning your laptop a piece of junk.

 

[Bobby Corwen]

Sorry this is wrong. You only feel the difference if you really need more than 16GB. As long as you stay under 8GB of usage, you will not get any improvements!

Its not wrong. I have noticed improvements like I said. Show me evidence that there is no improvement.

And are we talking a machine with an SSD or a HDD? -Because those elements make a difference in behavior in relationship to that too.

link to back up your claims? or are you just verbally gesticulating?

Do you have evidence that there is no difference between 8 and 16 in day to day behavior using normal apps?

All it would take is a slight delay here and there that might be completely undetectable to tests. Maybe you have a handful of apps you're trying to open and close and organize all at the same time and all of a sudden you're on 8 and get a little delay that wouldn't have been there if you had 16.

Thats about as scientific as you can get with this.

There is no measure for such behavior because its the totality of many different interplaying elements that come together to deliver a certain level of efficiency that is more complex than just simply getting a readout of your memory usage.

The computer will still slow down whether it shouldn't in theory or not. And it wouldn't have done that on 16 for a number interplaying reasons that have already been stated in detail ITT.

i have a 8gb and a 4gb model here.
no difference so far whatsoever.

Now thats a lie for sure. 8 to 16 is definitely noticeable. 4 to 8??? Thats like night and day.

In the end I guess some people are more perceptive than others.

If you don't notice it thats fine but don't act like you have evidence.

 

[illian]

Its not wrong. I have noticed improvements like I said. Show me evidence that there is no improvement.

And are we talking a machine with an SSD or a HDD? -Because those elements make a difference in behavior in relationship to that too.



Do you have evidence that there is no difference between 8 and 16 in day to day behavior using normal apps?

All it would take is a slight delay here and there that might be completely undetectable to tests. Maybe you have a handful of apps you're trying to open and close and organize all at the same time and all of a sudden you're on 8 and get a little delay that wouldn't have been there if you had 16.

Thats about as scientific as you can get with this.

There is no measure for such behavior because its the totality of many different interplaying elements that come together to deliver a certain level of efficiency that is more complex than just simply getting a readout of your memory usage.

The computer will still slow down whether it shouldn't in theory or not. And it wouldn't have done that on 16 for a number interplaying reasons that have already been stated in detail ITT.



Now thats a lie for sure. 8 to 16 is definitely noticeable. 4 to 8??? Thats like night and day.

In the end I guess some people are more perceptive than others.

If you don't notice it thats fine but don't act like you have evidence.

Here you go: http://www.macworld.com/article/2034655/lab-tested-the-ramifications-of-additional-memory-on-a-mac.html
Someone posted this already earlier.

If I do not use more than 8GB of RAM, there will be no difference when you have 16GB of RAM. If all my apps are in RAM why do I need more?? Why would it be faster...

Buy it when you really need it! If you want to waste money, go ahead.

 

[gentleman00]

STOP!!! Why are we here trying to convince each other whether 4GB, 8GB or 16GB is better? This thread is outright silly. It's a circus here.

Order what you think you will need. If you think 4GB is all you need, then order 4GB. If you need more, order more! Simple! Obviously, we will not reach a condenses on this issue because there are too many experts, and a few others with overinflated egos who feel they need to prolong this discussion as long as they can.

 

[bob24]

Here are some hard facts about RAM usage, hopefully it can help people make their own mind

I plotted the memory available on the base 15" MPB configuration sold by Apple since 2006 (assuming they want to keep the user experience the same on the same model, this should give an idea of usage trends for a given type of user). The bold blue line is the actual value light black line gives the trend.

Source: http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/index-macbookpro.html

What I get from this is that if you look at the past years, while the increase in memory requirements has slowed down; it has still been present until now and the base 15 will likely be on 16GB 1 or 2 years from now. Historically the 13 has been 1 year behind so it will probably be 3 years before the base configuration is 16GB. For the Air, it would likely be even longer.

Now this is just looking at the past and not taking in account the facts that new software might appear which is either more memory efficient or more demanding.

 

[john123]

And please. At over $2K the base price, what's another $200? People concerned about the upgrade price are people who should get a MacBook Air in the first place. If you buy a rMBP, it means you need what if has to offer — as a PRO tool. The question most people ask is in fact : 'should I spend $200 extra for RAM, it's already so expensive and my intention is just to look cool at Starbucks?' I don't know, all of that feels to me like buying a Mercedes with a Ford Fiesta engine.

I continue to be bothered by the suggestions and implications.
• An extra $200 is an extra $200. (Actually, it's more than $200, due to the fact that you can get base models from resellers without tax, whereas you'll pay tax for a BTO'd model from Apple.)
• Sorry, who are you to tell people they should get a MacBook Air? Yeah. Just because someone chooses to care about value doesn't mean they can't afford it.

----------

If you don't think 10% is a lot, then I propose you give me 10% of your belongings. But I'll be mild. If you don't think $200 is a lot, then please give it to me. Even if the machine would be $100K, $200 stays $200. I can take my wife out for dinner a few times with $200, so I need a good reason to spend so much.

I love this. It proves the folly of the, "What's $200 if you're already spending $2000" foolish line of argumentation.

----------

Yeah man, its funny because its the same w/ any luxury item... Down the line, during resale, when 'X' is now a standard, it's not a matter of how much you will get w/ or w/o it.. you might not even get a sale because you don't have it.

You see this all the time... Take BMW for example.... Guy goes in and buys a $60k M3 that is a luxury high performance sports car and doesn't opt for electronically adjustable suspension option that costs $1-2k more.. Doesn't opt for navi... An option you can't just throw in the car later... People literally pass that person over. Not saying 16GB has the same relation but if people think, with the direction of things that 16GB isn't going to be the standard 5 years from now, they are delusional.. and when someone goes to buy your used MBP, they are going to look at the weakest link which will be non-upgrade-able ram.. and i'm sorry but 8GB isn't going to cut it.

I know we were being friends and all, but your logic on this one is flawed on two counts. First off, this isn't perceived by consumers as a luxury item. It's higher end, sure, and way more expensive, and with tons more profit built in, but perception is reality on this stuff.

Second, the empirical evidence suggests your analogy doesn't hold up. People sell used computers all the time on eBay, Craigslist, etc. Sure, a few buyers may be deterred by the lack of RAM, but there are plenty of others lining up. In the last year, I've sold a MacBook with 2GB of RAM and a MacBook Pro with 4GB. There is a vibrant market for used computers, even with specs that don't hold up to today's standards.