Guys, get 16 GB.

[mmichalak]

For people that just use computers to web browse, email, listen to music, watch Netflix, do word processing homework, maybe play some Facebook games, and other minimal tasks... they are unlikely to ever need 16 gigs much less within the next 4 years. 8 gigs is plenty for those type of people. Do not mislead them with your opinion.

With every iteration of OS, iLife, and iWork bundles, progressively more memory is required. I don't think anyone is misleading anyone here. The point of the OP is spot on. With every iteration these apps add more and more features and they require more and more memory.

I am indeed amazed with people that have paid quite a bit of money and then after a year they post questions like "MBP 2012, should I upgrade to 2013". I paid a small fortune for my late MBP 2008. At that time I maxed out the RAM and the HD. 4 years down the line, I added more RAM and doubled the HD, total cost £120; let me tell you Aperture with 4GB and Aperture with 8GB is a different thing I am not moaning about the cost, Apple manufactures very good laptops, but the inability to upgrade RAM and HD is a killer, and people don't realise it...yet.

The OP is spot on, a couple of years down the line, we will be getting posts about "stuck with 8GB, what can I do?". Well one thing you can do, is save a little bit more and get the 16GB -- I would argue the same about the SSD, but at least that one is not soldered on.

 

[mmichalak]

Anyone here still using 2008 machines and plan to for a while yet? Seems a lot of posters here don't need to worry much about future proofing as there is a limited future

Yep... I maxed out the RAM and the HD of a late 2008, back at the time, that was 4GB/320GB. Four years later the HD started failing, called up Apple, got a ridiculous quote for a 320GB HD replacement, went out and bought 8GB RAM and a hybrid HD of 750GB. I know my MBP is an old one, I wanted to upgrade to a newer one, but not if memory/SSD is not upgradable. So, my plan is to squeeze a year or two more. That for me makes sense: If you pay £2.3K for a laptop you probably don't replace it after a couple of years. In my mind, my laptop has paid its money back. Had I gone with a cheaper non-Apple one, I would have to had it replaced a couple of times by now -- this is in fact the only computer in "15 years of my computer life" that I have kept so long.

But since these new laptops are not user upgradable, my advice is max out the memory, and the SSD if you can, that should probably keep you good for 4-5years. Unless you plan to upgrade in a couple of years, in which case:
a) go minimal
b) I am jealous of you

 

[Orr]

Yes, 30 years from now computer will probably run terabytes of RAM. Why does it matter? We are talking about the fact that 16Gb, won't be useful for a 'normal' user on a current-gen machine. In 10 years, your MBP won't be able to run a simple internet browser with adequate performance, no matter how much RAM it has.

Disagree with your second sentence. The reason being that many users here have machines from before 2003 that are still more than capable of internet browsing and preforming other basic computational tasks.

 

[covertash]

This is just my opinion, but I feel like Apple is starting to turn all of their lines to become more like appliances. Look at the fact that Apple has actually reduced overall pricing. Look at the fact that the major parts are now soldered on and not upgradeable. Look at how performance has leveled off - the top of the line hardware (and the argument can be made for even base model hardware) is simply overkill for basic computing tasks, which is what the vast majority of buyers will be doing.

If you consider how long some users have kept their old hardware, without feeling much incentive to upgrade because, truthfully, they still run perfectly fine, how else can yearly releases/refreshes be released and sold? I get the feeling that because of the smartphone craze, the consumer market is getting hooked into the yearly update schedule, and that mentality is spilling over across various product lines. To make these releases more accessible, Apple lowered the cost of entry, but also lowered the option of longevity at the same time.

So while I do agree with the OP that there will be many people who will run into limitations in the next few years, having only 4GB of RAM now, I suspect that even many more will simply just move on and buy the next wave of base models. It's planned obsolescence, and it is pure strategic marketing genius.

 

[Wuiffi]

This is just my opinion, but I feel like Apple is starting to turn all of their lines to become more like appliances. Look at the fact that Apple has actually reduced overall pricing. Look at the fact that the major parts are now soldered on and not upgradeable. Look at how performance has leveled off - the top of the line hardware (and the argument can be made for even base model hardware) is simply overkill for basic computing tasks, which is what the vast majority of buyers will be doing.

If you consider how long some users have kept their old hardware, without feeling much incentive to upgrade because, truthfully, they still run perfectly fine, how else can yearly releases/refreshes be released and sold? I get the feeling that because of the smartphone craze, the consumer market is getting hooked into the yearly update schedule, and that mentality is spilling over across various product lines. To make these releases more accessible, Apple lowered the cost of entry, but also lowered the option of longevity at the same time.

So while I do agree with the OP that there will be many people who will run into limitations in the next few years, having only 4GB of RAM now, I suspect that even many more will simply just move on and buy the next wave of base models. It's planned obsolescence, and it is pure strategic marketing genius.

This. Power is no longer a reason to update after ~2-3 years (look at the cpu power of the 2011 and 2013 macbook pros) so they have to find another way to get the users to update.

 

[PDFierro]

Completely agree. I initially ordered with 8GB, but ended up cancelling. 8GB RAM may or may not be enough a few years from now. I remember when people recommended 8 instead of 4.

It would suck to be forced into buying a whole new computer because of the limited RAM. Since it's soldered on, it's a good idea to max it out.

 

[Weaselboy]

So will a 16gb RAM machine run faster than an 8gb RAM machine or not?

Unless you are using a REAL memory hog like working with very large images in PhotoShop, you will notice no difference at all. See a good test with 4/8/16GB here.

 

[leman]

Disagree with your second sentence. The reason being that many users here have machines from before 2003 that are still more than capable of internet browsing and preforming other basic computational tasks.

Erm, PowerPC laptops from 2003 are around the speed of 2010 smartphones. Sure, they can do it. For example, we had a iMac G3 in my old dorm cellar, working as a laundry time registration terminal. It was perfectly usable, as long as you were willing to wait 15 seconds while it was refreshing a primitive website (no graphics, no anything). I just can't see how you can call it 'capable internet browsing'. Every modern complex website will be a horrible experience on those machines.

 

[koban4max]

+1 on the 16GB.

I purchased a 15" 2.3/16/512. On day 2 I installed Parallels and Win 8.1 (so I can run the Windows version of Word and a couple other Win-only programs - i.e., not a massively intense workload) and immediately was in the 12GB+ range.

Unless you are only keeping the machine for ~1-2 years before trading up, a lot of folks will regret choosing 8GB to save a few bucks up front.

i assume that you bought 16g ram for long term usage, yes?

 

[mactumors]

One other thing to consider is that Apple reduced the price of the rMBP by $200, so it's effectively a free upgrade to get 16 gigs compared to a week ago.

Good math.

 

[dastinger]

I got the 16GB on my 2012 model because I knew that, unless I was switching to a newer Macbook in 2 years time, I would feel that I needed more than the base 8GB. Totally agree with OP.. get the 16GB if you can.

 

[yokken]

I'm so glad I got 16GB of RAM. One thing that Mavericks does is gives apps the ability to cache certain data. For browsing, it allows the app to cache the next half of the webpage, so when you scroll it doesn't have to draw the page with your scrolling -- it's already there. Sort of a read-ahead feature. This memory is known as purgeable, which means if OS X decides it needs more RAM for something (maybe a VM or many images being loaded into Photoshop/Aperture) it can take that memory back and it won't harm the application that was using it before.

Because of this feature, I'm using nearly 12GB of RAM right now (counting Inactive as well). Chrome is only using 1.3GB with all of the 20 tabs I have open. Also running Tweetbot, iTunes, Textual, and a slew of menubar apps like Airmail, Flux, and Melo.

If I only had 8GB, I'm sure the usage would be lower, as it should be. I hit 8GB of usage on my old MBP so I'm glad to have breathing room now.

 

[StephenCampbell]

then why dont they just get 4 gigs? isnt four gigs enough for those tasks?

people said the exact same thing four years ago about 8 gigs, "nobody needs 8 gigs for surfing/netflix/etc" and here we are four years later and most users struggle with four gigs.

same logic, buying a $1000-$3000 computer going into 2014 with 8 gigs that cant be upgraded is foolish.

It's funny how nobody seems to notice what might be happening here.

What if there is no progress happening? What if it's just a brilliant marketing machine that turned the PC into a consumable product?

 

[leman]

It's funny how nobody seems to notice what might be happening here.

What if there is no progress happening? What if it's just a brilliant marketing machine that turned the PC into a consumable product?

Wasn't consumer PC always a consumable product?

 

[BlingBling]

I disagree

You guys aren't putting any facts or numbers behind your reasoning, it's pure conjecture

I stress tested my 2011 macbook pro dev machine before and after Mavericks, running everything I ever run at the same time:
Chrome, Sarfari, Firefox, with flash sites, Xcode, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, Itunes, iPhone, LUA Glider(Java based IDE), Versions(SVN client), and a game called Prison Architect

I was just on the cusp of using 7.9 GB, but I couldn't trigger the swap file. Same thing under Mavericks. I never run all those apps at the same time usually just 3-5. So for me 8GB is sufficient. Even with those apps getting more bloated down the road, with memory compression and an SSD, swap file hits are going to be a lot expensive. So honestly I think unless your running VMS or are a bigger power multi-tasker than me, you don't need 16 GB, it's just a waste of money.

That being said, when I was running at 4GB I had beachballs all the time and they were even more frustrating with standard HD, so I think 8GB is just the sweet spot.

 

[Scott7975]

then why dont they just get 4 gigs? isnt four gigs enough for those tasks?

people said the exact same thing four years ago about 8 gigs, "nobody needs 8 gigs for surfing/netflix/etc" and here we are four years later and most users struggle with four gigs.

same logic, buying a $1000-$3000 computer going into 2014 with 8 gigs that cant be upgraded is foolish.

Nobody needs 16 gigs for surfing/Netflix/etc. They wont even use 8. Yes they will probably use 4 now, but you still don't NEED 8. If you do then you are doing something wrong or there is a problem in the computer. It isn't because you only have 4 gigs of ram.

The last Ipad had 1 gig of ram. Guess what you can do? surf/Netflix/etc. Now you will say it doesn't need as much resources as a computer... That's why a computer has 4 gigs.

For people that are surfing/Netflix/etc... 8 gigs is more then enough for the next 4 to 5 years.... just like 4 gigs was enough for the last 5 years and is still good as long as your computer is in shape and isn't loaded down with garbage.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

so basicaly everybody who bought macbook airs will have a clunk of coal in 4 years.

i have engineers at my company get by with macbook airs over the past 3 years.

i read somewhere in this thread that you installed VM just to use microsoft office. ya, i mean that's the very definitely of luxury. if you want to spend that money for that luxury, you should totally do it. But for that process, your VM only needs like 3GB of Ram.

i went with a 13/8/512gb. i know where my priorities are. got to have storage more than i need memory.

i mean i think i'd be sad if i can't open 30 tabs at the same time in google chrome

in terms of resale value, you got to really think about who you'd resell it to in a couple of years. for me, i bought a semi-entry-level retina macbook pro. i'm not selling it to graphic professionals.

 

[ano0oj]

One other thing to consider is that Apple reduced the price of the rMBP by $200, so it's effectively a free upgrade to get 16 gigs compared to a week ago.

lol only some people would think this way...

 

[Scott7975]

So will a 16gb RAM machine run faster than an 8gb RAM machine or not?

It all depends on what you do with your computer. If you are just surfing/Netflix/ or other low end tasks like homework, email, etc... no it wont run any faster at all. It wont even come close to using 8 gigs.

 

[Meister]

I disagree

You guys aren't putting any facts or numbers behind your reasoning, it's pure conjecture

I stress tested my 2011 macbook pro dev machine before and after Mavericks, running everything I ever run at the same time:
Chrome, Sarfari, Firefox, with flash sites, Xcode, Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, Itunes, iPhone, LUA Glider(Java based IDE), Versions(SVN client), and a game called Prison Architect

I was just on the cusp of using 7.9 GB, but I couldn't trigger the swap file. Same thing under Mavericks. I never run all those apps at the same time usually just 3-5. So for me 8GB is sufficient. Even with those apps getting more bloated down the road, with memory compression and an SSD, swap file hits are going to be a lot expensive. So honestly I think unless your running VMS or are a bigger power multi-tasker than me, you don't need 16 GB, it's just a waste of money.

That being said, when I was running at 4GB I had beachballs all the time and they were even more frustrating with standard HD, so I think 8GB is just the sweet spot.

Again: I run 4gb/500hdd, 4gb/256gb and 8gb/256gb
None of these machines show any beachballs for more then a fraction of a second. Even with medium video editing, photoshop and definitly not with hd.
Wtf r u doing that would give you beachballs all the time?
I was thinking about updating from hdd to ssd and add some ram but i honestly wouldnt need it at all.

 

[Scott7975]

Not to point out the obvious, his first statement was made out of jest.

Also as services become more complex, it should follow that the underlying software use more resources, so it is never wrong to recommend more ram especially since the RMBP is non user upgradeable.

Additionally, I think you've agreed with the quoted poster by saying there are lazy programmers out there, we should always have headroom in our systems so we can compensate for ram guzzlers. Sometimes our workplaces or schools may not cater for other more efficient software and that's where having that extra bit of ram will count.

Lastly, nothing beats the convenience of a VM, bootcamp rearranges your partitions and requires a lengthy reboot. VMs are totally modular and can be transferred from computer to computer without hassle.

The typical user that I am referring to... the guy that surfs the internet, email, netflix, stores photos, plays on facebook, maybe does some word processing... wont even come close to using 8 gigs, much less need to waste money on 16. He wont 4 to 5 years from now either.

 

[Meister]

Nobody needs 16 gigs for surfing/Netflix/etc. They wont even use 8. Yes they will probably use 4 now, but you still don't NEED 8. If you do then you are doing something wrong or there is a problem in the computer. It isn't because you only have 4 gigs of ram.

The last Ipad had 1 gig of ram. Guess what you can do? surf/Netflix/etc. Now you will say it doesn't need as much resources as a computer... That's why a computer has 4 gigs.

For people that are surfing/Netflix/etc... 8 gigs is more then enough for the next 4 to 5 years.... just like 4 gigs was enough for the last 5 years and is still good as long as your computer is in shape and isn't loaded down with garbage.

And again: theoretically 1gb of ram is enough for surfing, word and netflix.
If ur system is slow doing these things, then theres something else wrong. Its not the ram.

 

[prestong]

Between the speed of the SSD and the ram compression, this is not entirely true. When your mac is using the SSD as swap, its so fast that having all that available memory is not necessarily true. Its always nice to have the extra memory, but I am definitely a power user, and even on my 4GB machines, I don't notice slow downs any more.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Let's be honest, even if you're not a typical computer user, has your computing habits changed that much over the past several years? Think about it, do you spend that $200 now, or put that as money down to buy another computer in 3 years where the graphics/processor/batterylife will make a significant jump and probably a redesign will be here by then?

i'd rather put $200 now for the future.

 

[illian]

I'm so glad I got 16GB of RAM. One thing that Mavericks does is gives apps the ability to cache certain data. For browsing, it allows the app to cache the next half of the webpage, so when you scroll it doesn't have to draw the page with your scrolling -- it's already there. Sort of a read-ahead feature. This memory is known as purgeable, which means if OS X decides it needs more RAM for something (maybe a VM or many images being loaded into Photoshop/Aperture) it can take that memory back and it won't harm the application that was using it before.

Because of this feature, I'm using nearly 12GB of RAM right now (counting Inactive as well). Chrome is only using 1.3GB with all of the 20 tabs I have open. Also running Tweetbot, iTunes, Textual, and a slew of menubar apps like Airmail, Flux, and Melo.

Image

If I only had 8GB, I'm sure the usage would be lower, as it should be. I hit 8GB of usage on my old MBP so I'm glad to have breathing room now.

Running more applications than you right now and I'm nowhere near hitting my 8GB limit.