My wife has the mac air with 2gb. She surfs the web, writes essays and other school stuff. Checks fb. She doesnt need more than 2gb.
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
I'll take that bet.
I have a 10-year old Dell laptop (Inspiron 700m) with 512 MB (that's right, MegaBytes) of RAM, and guess what? It can still do basic web-browsing, You Tubing and MS Office. Even after 10 years.
The RAM isn't the problem with that computer. It takes 2 minutes to turn on, and the battery only lasts 45 minutes but it still works.
Another example: My other 4-year dv6 laptop came with 4 GB of RAM and it does everything extremely fast. Even 4 years later, it can easily keep up with all i can throw at it. Why did i replace? 'Cuz i wanted a better processor and better screen with better battery life. NOT because i needed more RAM.
Lastly, I'd argue that one should spend the $200 and get a bigger SSD than to increase RAM to 16 GB (8 GB is more than enough for 95% of customers now, and in 3-year's time).
So yeah, I will take that bet.
Understood...
Thank you!
I'll probably try out VM and if it drains a lot of the RAM, I'll go BootCamp. Even though that would mean I'll have to restart.
VM, though, would make things easier.
Thanks for the suggestions, Scott79975/Meister.
Last edited:
With common usage (email,safari,photoshop,word) there is no difference between 4gb and 8gb. Why would there be? These apps dont use 4gb even in multitasking. I dont own a 2gb machine, but 2gb should be fine. My mac retailer still has the 2gb ones as exposes and they are instantly running every application.
Do you know of some task i could run to show u there is no difference between 4gigs and 8gigs?
I could video it as prove.
You seem to know quit a bit about computers, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
With the load balancing that the SSDs have to do, wouldn't it be quite a bit faster if the drive has more empty space (or has higher capacity resulting in extra space)?
And no, I am not talking about SSD Degradation. It will take 10 years for the "degrade" to even rear its ugly head for me to even worry about it. But I have gone with 512 GB (over 256) simply 'cuz I: a) need the extra storage and b) the computer WILL significantly slow down if your 256 GB storage is 90%+ full.
Again, correct me if I'm mistaken.
----------
Due to load balancing.
Plus, I suspect that if a person's 256 GB harddrive is 90%+ full, they will see a significant performance decrease. I need clarification however.
You don't need 16GB if you use VM's. Not even 8GB.
On my work computer, 2012 rMBP 15" with 8GB of RAM - with PHPStorm, 3 VM's, Outlook, Chrome with 20+ tabs, Skype, Internet phone application, SourceTree, Calendar and Spotify I currently use up 2GB.
Of course, applications wants to have as much memory as possible assigned to them and OS X likes to give them as much as possible too in order to avoid having to assign more RAM to the application afterwards (since it takes time to assign it) - so it currently says "Memory used: 7.79GB" (of 8GB) but that doesn't mean it's actually using 7.79GB RAM at the moment.
I think people are confused of how RAM and OS X works. It will always try to assign as much memory as possible but that doesn't mean your memory is actually used up.
I'd say that even for working with programming, using VM's and every day use, 4GB would be plenty enough for today. With that said, I'd still recommend 8GB for those who work on their computer with programming and/or VM's to make it really future proof.
16GB is just not needed for regular people yet.
On my work computer, 2012 rMBP 15" with 8GB of RAM - with PHPStorm, 3 VM's, Outlook, Chrome with 20+ tabs, Skype, Internet phone application, SourceTree, Calendar and Spotify I currently use up 2GB.
Of course, applications wants to have as much memory as possible assigned to them and OS X likes to give them as much as possible too in order to avoid having to assign more RAM to the application afterwards (since it takes time to assign it) - so it currently says "Memory used: 7.79GB" (of 8GB) but that doesn't mean it's actually using 7.79GB RAM at the moment.
I think people are confused of how RAM and OS X works. It will always try to assign as much memory as possible but that doesn't mean your memory is actually used up.
I'd say that even for working with programming, using VM's and every day use, 4GB would be plenty enough for today. With that said, I'd still recommend 8GB for those who work on their computer with programming and/or VM's to make it really future proof.
16GB is just not needed for regular people yet.
Sorry, but that is *********. And not possible. Chrome alone with 20+ tabs will use close to 2gb. And 3 VM's?... no, sorry, but no.
Please show us a screenshot of your Activity Monitor Memory page with all of those programs running as you would typically use them.
Sorry, just now saw this. Didn't get the notification. Yes.
Actually, people seem to use degradation to refer to both phenomena. Anand Shimpi uses "degradation" to refer to the performance problem associated with full drives that you were talking about. See http://www.anandtech.com/show/2738/8
On the other issue, which is the lifespan of the drive, I agree. That's an overblown concern that really isn't a problem in today's day and age.
----------
This is blatantly not true. It depends on the types of VMs being run, the operations within them, and how they are configured. Some people over-allocate RAM to their VMs, and that creates a problem. Parallels and VMWare both do an OK job of giving you some recommended parameters. That said, on my 8GB rMBP, I've jammed my memory pressure graph into yellow and even red territory with just one instance of a Win7 machine. I'm running SQL Server and similar enterprise level stuff, and if I don't allocate enough memory, well, the impact is obvious.
This is the problem with blanket statements. Nevertheless, I'd say that for many people who do intense virtualization work, it's perhaps one of the best use cases for more memory out there.
----------
Please see my comment above. I would not put much stock into the comment you read that elicited your "whooo."
Wow, thanks for the anandtech link!
This just validates my research that an SSD drive WILL get slower as it gets more and more data written on it.
You and I know that. But do most people here know this?
People are commenting on how they should upgrade to 16GB of RAM whilst at the same time running 256GB SSD which is 90% full.
Full SSD will be more of a bottleneck than having the extra RAM.
You and I know that. But do most people here know this?
People are commenting on how they should upgrade to 16GB of RAM whilst at the same time running 256GB SSD which is 90% full.
Full SSD will be more of a bottleneck than having the extra RAM.
... so, an ssd that would normally run at 700mbs read/write, down at 500mbs read/write (I made this # up, but it can't affect read/writes that much, can it?) = bottleneck?
You and I know that. But do most people here know this?
People are commenting on how they should upgrade to 16GB of RAM whilst at the same time running 256GB SSD which is 90% full.
Full SSD will be more of a bottleneck than having the extra RAM.
Haha I'd never run a 256GB SSD at 90% full. I have been thinking about going with 256, but that's even accounting for the amount of space I'd need to leave free.
It would be kind of ridiculous to get 16GB RAM but then fill your SSD up to the max.
Depends on what you're doing. It certainly can be. Ever done database stuff? Disk I/O is generally the bottleneck, and yes, even at those speeds.
Has anyone looked at this study, yet, on the relationship between SSD usage/lifespan and RAM? This is the only reason I might order the 16GB model:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-ram-endurance,3475.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-ram-endurance,3475.html
Try working on a 20 MB excel spreadsheet (or any document for that matter) and then saving it periodically with a 90% full SSD, then report back.
2GB??? Show me Activity Monitor. This just doesn't add up, the kernel sometimes uses 1GB by it self.
Don't mislead people. 4GB of RAM makes for a really slow experience. Have you ever used 16GB with a VM (giving 6-8GB to the VM)? It's a huge boost.
They're comparing 4GB to 16GB. So 4x the RAM and 69% increase in performance.
I wish they had done an 8GB to 16GB comparison, which would be more relevant.
My current use indicate that I'm using only 2GB of RAM. This is with MS Office, Chrome with a dozen or so tabs, IE Explorer, and a few other apps.
No reason to go to 16 GB for at least the next 3 years assuming my needs do not change.
On Mavericks? Can you show us a screenshot of your Activity Monitor Memory tab with all this running?
Right, I agree that they should have done an 8GB test. But isn't a lot of their point that more RAM = (potentially) less writing of data to the SSD = (potentially) longer SSD life, regardless of the performance increase in terms of the speed of your applications completing tasks?
In my other HP Dv6. I'll post the RAM usage once i get my Haswell.
----------
Even if you max your SSD read/write cycles (for whatever reason, not necessarily the lack of RAM), the drive will STILL last over 10 years.
- Status