Guys, get 16 GB.

[Scott7975]

Then how do you explain the endless threads in here with people on 4 gig machines that have fairly basic needs that are looking to increase the speed of their machines and everyone suggests 8 gigs and an SSD?

I explain it because those users probably have machines that are ~4 years old already. Lots of wear and tear on them. Outdated processors. Outdated graphics chips. Bunch of garbage all over the hard drive and the processes that never get cleaned out.

Its not just RAM. People just look at that to be the answer. How about still using an outdated core 2 duo or worse? Programs get more process intensive before they become more resource hungry. You really think it takes 4 gigs to browse the web and watch Netflix? Lol. No one would be able to multitask or do anything with their computers if that was the case.

Same response as to the guy above, if you look around here there are any number of threads of people suffering with 4 gigs, I myself was with a mid-2010 i7 Arrandale machine, and my uses are about as basic as they get.

If you think 8 gigs is fine today, that's fine and dandy, but the point I'm trying to make is most people thought 4 gigs was fine a few years ago and a lot of machines are struggling today with that. 8 gigs is doubtful to be fine in another 4 years, and this time, you are stuck with what you bought. You can't upgrade it like I could on my 2010 machine, hence why you should just get it now. I would prioritize a RAM increase over a processor or SSD capacity increase.

And to those complaining about price, you're buying Apple, you don't really have any grounds to whine about price on a machine that costs $1200-$3000. Not to mention, $200 is pretty fair for 8 gigs considering the Apple tax; my 8 gigs of Crucial that I bought for my machine a couple months ago was $80. As has been mentioned, RAM doesn't constantly decrease in price - a year ago that same 8 gigs of crucial RAM was $40, so $200 for it from Apple in a non-upgradeable machine is plenty fair, that's the price Apple used to charge to go from 2 to 4.

I still don't see an answer as to why anyone advocating against 16 gigs also isn't advocating for 4 gigs instead of 8, since after all, basic tasks should be able to run smoothly on 4 gigs, right? So why even say people should get 8 gigs? Why waste the money on 8 when 4 gigs should get you through surfing and netflix? Right?

4 gigs was fine for the last 5 years. People with general use are not even coming close to using 8 gigs. Im not going to bother keep explaining it to you. You can read my comments in this and the last few posts of mine. RAM is not the problem in a 4 year old machine.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

i'd definitely get 16gb of ram if it can read the future

 

[MacModMachine]

SSD is no competition for RAM.
And you cannot have enough RAM
There is very good reason for some users to get 8gb and even 16gb of RAM. No doubt.
BUT: For the vast majority its just a money waste.
Even pro users are fine with 4gigs of ram if its with pcie like on the mba.

the difference in speed from SSD to ram is not noticeable , the task would be completed before the speed difference is noticed.

were talking tenths of a second difference.

 

[puma1552]

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.

But again, 4 gigs hasn't been enough for a LOT of people here, myself included and the constant threads here posting about people's sloth machines prove that. For anecdotal evidence, I had clean installs of snow lion and no garbage on my hard drive. In fact, right now, I have a mere 50 gigs of stuff on my hard drive which has a clean install of Mountain Lion, including 18 gigabytes of music. Very few photos, only a couple programs. I'm the definition of a "clean" user with the cleanest possible hard drive you could have, and even with clean installs I had page outs and beachballs all the time.

Again, by your logic, who the hell needs even 4 gigs to surf the internet?

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

Basically. I had a Macbook Air Rev. B., it was a pile of junk. IMO the air is completely irrelevant now, but that's another topic for discussion.

I explain it because those users probably have machines that are ~4 years old already. Lots of wear and tear on them. Outdated processors. Outdated graphics chips. Bunch of garbage all over the hard drive and the processes that never get cleaned out.

Its not just RAM. People just look at that to be the answer. How about still using an outdated core 2 duo or worse? Programs get more process intensive before they become more resource hungry. You really think it takes 4 gigs to browse the web and watch Netflix? Lol. No one would be able to multitask or do anything with their computers if that was the case.

So now it's the processor and the NVIDIA 330M discreet GPU that can't surf the internet and watch netflix on low res screens? A 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo is having problems surfing the internet? Really? Read what you wrote, you are loling at the idea that it takes 4 gigs to surf the net, while simultaneously saying the reason old computers can't surf the net is because the C2D processors can't cut the mustard. Completely laughable.

Again, those advocating against 16 gigs have pretty weak arguments and aren't making a lot of sense; at the very least, they are clearly thinking only of now, and not to the future - just like those who said 4 gigs was fine a few years ago, for which there is plenty of evidence to suggest it wasn't.

 

[Scott7975]

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.

And none of them come close to using 8 gigs yet. I bet most of those run on 1 gig... so you would need 2 gigs to run the OS and a program. 2 more gigs and you can start to multi task. In other words... programs have now started catching on to 4 gigs of RAM. Which means 8 gigs is good enough for at least 4 or 5 more years. People are still buying 4 gig machines and everything still runs fine. Programs get more processor heavy before they get more resource heavy. That's why older machines with Core 2 Duos are struggling... not because of RAM.

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.

Some people just like the new shiney and have the disposable income to get it. If they have a 2012 they are fine for another 4 years. They just want the new stuff that's all.

As for Aperture... yes 4 and 8 gigs are a different beast. That's for more then just general photo editing. The users we are talking about probably wouldn't be using that program. They would stick with iPhoto which uses much less.

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.

OP is far from spot on. For a certain group of users he is... but he is talking about all users in his post. He couldn't be more wrong.

----------

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.

Exactly

 

[smakdown61]

FYI the integrated graphics (Iris and Iris Pro and probably earlier intel HD graphics) reserve up to 1 GB of your system memory.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

I mean this is basically the argument boiled down:

Yes 8gb is fine for this year, probably next year but guys what about 5 years down the road? WHO KNOWS what we will need then?

Very true. The key word is who knows though. I think this argument becomes more and more interesting depending on how long you want to keep your laptop. if you only plan to keep it for 3-4 years and flip it for a new model, it applies less.

Truly though, 5 years down the road, ram won't be the only thing you're crying about.

 

[Meister]

the difference in speed from SSD to ram is not noticeable , the task would be completed before the speed difference is noticed.

were talking tenths of a second difference.

For 99% that is absolutely true. Thats y more ram wont futureproof crap.
But if u r among the 1% and u deal with large workloads it adds up to mucn more than a faction of a second. Theres lots of processes happening and the tenth of seconds add up to seconds and even minutes.
Nevertheless, the obsession with ram comes from times passed.
SSDs are a rather new development and a game changer.
They are ten times as fast as hdds. More ram wont harm u, but it wont make much of a difference.

 

[nathairtras]

4GB will work for some users, Apple wouldn't offer a base model with that little RAM if the performance was awful. Same with a 128GB SSD. Going with that example, most users could survive with 128GB of disk space, but it won't be as comfortable as even 256GB, let alone 512 or 1TB. RAM is harder to judge than SSD, because the majority of users aren't aware of if / how they are using it.

I also have to wonder how the GPU comes into play. iGPUs have traditionally used some of the onboard RAM for themselves, right? If that is still the case, how much does OS X allocate? I am assuming this isn't user-configured. If it is using 1GB, then you have 3GB remaining. That alone would push me to pick 8GB, but not 16GB. (This is all just me thinking out loud, coming from Windowsland. Corrections welcome.)

I got 16GB because I plan on running a couple of VMs on my machine, and want to allocate at least 4GB to a Win8 VM. With as well as my work laptop runs on a dual-core Ivy Bridge CPU + 16GB RAM with VMs running, I'm happier with a 13" model than a 15" model, though I know that was a performance sacrifice. I'd be tempted to get a 11" MBA if I could get it with 16GB RAM. I know how I will be using a fair amount of RAM, and I want to make sure that in most cases, OS X has at least 8GB all to itself. This is without any firsthand experience with Mavericks, so even that may be more than enough, but, again, once you pick there is no going back. That's why I'd suggest avoiding the 4GB, but 16GB will be overkill for the majority of users.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

FYI the integrated graphics (Iris and Iris Pro and probably earlier intel HD graphics) reserve up to 1 GB of your system memory.

ya but it's ram that would've been used by your CPU to perform the same task.

 

[Scott7975]

But again, 4 gigs hasn't been enough for a LOT of people here, myself included and the constant threads here posting about people's sloth machines prove that. For anecdotal evidence, I had clean installs of snow lion and no garbage on my hard drive. In fact, right now, I have a mere 50 gigs of stuff on my hard drive which has a clean install of Mountain Lion, including 18 gigabytes of music. Very few photos, only a couple programs. I'm the definition of a "clean" user with the cleanest possible hard drive you could have, and even with clean installs I had page outs and beachballs all the time.

Again, by your logic, who the hell needs even 4 gigs to surf the internet?



Basically. I had a Macbook Air Rev. B., it was a pile of junk. IMO the air is completely irrelevant now, but that's another topic for discussion.



So now it's the processor and the NVIDIA 330M discreet GPU that can't surf the internet and watch netflix on low res screens? A 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo is having problems surfing the internet? Really? Read what you wrote, you are loling at the idea that it takes 4 gigs to surf the net, while simultaneously saying the reason old computers can't surf the net is because the C2D processors can't cut the mustard. Completely laughable.

Again, those advocating against 16 gigs have pretty weak arguments and aren't making a lot of sense; at the very least, they are clearly thinking only of now, and not to the future - just like those who said 4 gigs was fine a few years ago, for which there is plenty of evidence to suggest it wasn't.

You have no idea how a computer works do you?

----------

I mean this is basically the argument boiled down:

Yes 8gb is fine for this year, probably next year but guys what about 5 years down the road? WHO KNOWS what we will need then?

Very true. The key word is who knows though. I think this argument becomes more and more interesting depending on how long you want to keep your laptop. if you only plan to keep it for 3-4 years and flip it for a new model, it applies less.

Truly though, 5 years down the road, ram won't be the only thing you're crying about.

That's the point.... 5 years down the road your computer is out dated and its time to get another one. Paying for the RAM now and having an outdated processor/graphics card isn't going to help you 5 years from now.

 

[MacModMachine]

You have no idea how a computer works do you?


he really has no idea..dont bother arguing with him....

 

[meme1255]

Based on my experiences, I apply kind of stupid "law": Optimal RAM for Mac is CPU_Cores*4GB - If you do that, Mac will last you ~6 years (I've done that with my MacBook Pro 15" 2008 Late and if I exchanged ODD to SSD and audio was working (damn microswitch inside audio output ), except gaming I wouldn't have to replace maybe another 2 years - I hope I'll fix that stupid microswitch somehow..

 

[phpmaven]

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.

It's not misleading at all. You should ALWAYS get as much memory as you can afford, period.

 

[puma1552]

You have no idea how a computer works do you?

That's the best reply you can muster to getting called out for saying RAM doesn't matter but that Core 2 Duo processors and GPUs are the reason people can't surf the net?

Credibility meet window, I guess.

 

[Scott7975]

It's not misleading at all. You should ALWAYS get as much memory as you can afford, period.

I'm sure that computer companies are happy you believe that. You're belief is wrong though. You should get what you need and may need. For the typical user that would be 8gigs right now. If they ever, and I seriously doubt they will, need 16... the rest of the computer will have been well outdated by then.

Its like saying you should always buy an 8 cylinder engine even though you only take your car to the grocery store around the corner.

 

[RngRngBananaRam]

Again, those advocating against 16 gigs have pretty weak arguments and aren't making a lot of sense; at the very least, they are clearly thinking only of now, and not to the future - just like those who said 4 gigs was fine a few years ago, for which there is plenty of evidence to suggest it wasn't.

On non-mobile devices, RAM requirements have actually diminished over the past two years. And over the past five years, they've held about steady.

If you're not running virtual machines, and if you're not editing enormous files in Photoshop, 4gb of RAM is more than enough.

If you're not running 2+ simultaneous virtual machines, 8gb of RAM is more than enough.

Here are some illuminating benchmarks: http://www.macworld.com/article/203...ifications-of-additional-memory-on-a-mac.html

Those benchmarks don't test virtual machine performance, probably because 9/10 people don't even know what they are. But for what they do test, performance with 4gb of RAM matches performance with 8gb of RAM in almost all cases.

It might feel good to have 16gb of RAM, but as that link demonstrates, it doesn't give you better real-world performance. And the extra $200 you're spending doesn't translate to $200 better resale value, so it's a net loss. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, if you have extra money to throw away toward impractical performance gains, invest in a quad-core i7 rather than a dual-core i5.

 

[Meister]

And none of them come close to using 8 gigs yet. I bet most of those run on 1 gig... so you would need 2 gigs to run the OS and a program. 2 more gigs and you can start to multi task. In other words... programs have now started catching on to 4 gigs of RAM. Which means 8 gigs is good enough for at least 4 or 5 more years. People are still buying 4 gig machines and everything still runs fine. Programs get more processor heavy before they get more resource heavy. That's why older machines with Core 2 Duos are struggling... not because of RAM.



Some people just like the new shiney and have the disposable income to get it. If they have a 2012 they are fine for another 4 years. They just want the new stuff that's all.

As for Aperture... yes 4 and 8 gigs are a different beast. That's for more then just general photo editing. The users we are talking about probably wouldn't be using that program. They would stick with iPhoto which uses much less.



OP is far from spot on. For a certain group of users he is... but he is talking about all users in his post. He couldn't be more wrong.

----------




A haswell mba 4gb can effortlessly handle photo editing in aperture.
Thats y most basemodels in the lineup are 4gb. Ram is stagnating.

 

[Scott7975]

That's the best reply you can muster to getting called out for saying RAM doesn't matter but that Core 2 Duo processors and GPUs are the reason people can't surf the net?

Credibility meet window, I guess.

Im using 4gbs to surf the net on a core 2 duo HP laptop right now. Im not saying a core 2 duo cant surf the net. Im saying there are other reasons your computer is performing poorly then the fact that you only have 4 GBS of RAM. If all you are doing is surfing the NET and your computer runs like ass... RAM is NOT your problem.

Learn computers then come back to thread.

----------

A haswell mba 4gb can effortlessly handle photo editing in aperture.
Thats y most basemodels in the lineup are 4gb. Ram is stagnating.

Further proves my point with the other guy that RAM is not the problem in his old ass machine.

 

[puma1552]

Im using 4gbs to surf the net on a core 2 duo HP laptop right now. Im not saying a core 2 duo cant surf the net. Im saying there are other reasons your computer is performing poorly then the fact that you only have 4 GBS of RAM. If all you are doing is surfing the NET and your computer runs like ass... RAM is NOT your problem.

Learn computers then come back to thread.

So tell me why my 2.66 GHz i7 Arrandale with 4 gigs of RAM and a 500 gig 7200 RPM hard drive ran like crap with less than 50 gigs of stuff on a *clean* install of Mountain Lion?

Afterall, you seem to know so much about how computers work and need to constantly point it out like you are superior, so my question should be a breeze for you to answer. Hell, I at least have an engineering background, do you?

And before you say it was the HDD, I put 8 GB of RAM in several days prior to the SSD and the difference was immediately apparent that the RAM was helping.

 

[Meister]

4GB will work for some users, Apple wouldn't offer a base model with that little RAM if the performance was awful. Same with a 128GB SSD. Going with that example, most users could survive with 128GB of disk space, but it won't be as comfortable as even 256GB, let alone 512 or 1TB. RAM is harder to judge than SSD, because the majority of users aren't aware of if / how they are using it.

I also have to wonder how the GPU comes into play. iGPUs have traditionally used some of the onboard RAM for themselves, right? If that is still the case, how much does OS X allocate? I am assuming this isn't user-configured. If it is using 1GB, then you have 3GB remaining. That alone would push me to pick 8GB, but not 16GB. (This is all just me thinking out loud, coming from Windowsland. Corrections welcome.)

I got 16GB because I plan on running a couple of VMs on my machine, and want to allocate at least 4GB to a Win8 VM. With as well as my work laptop runs on a dual-core Ivy Bridge CPU + 16GB RAM with VMs running, I'm happier with a 13" model than a 15" model, though I know that was a performance sacrifice. I'd be tempted to get a 11" MBA if I could get it with 16GB RAM. I know how I will be using a fair amount of RAM, and I want to make sure that in most cases, OS X has at least 8GB all to itself. This is without any firsthand experience with Mavericks, so even that may be more than enough, but, again, once you pick there is no going back. That's why I'd suggest avoiding the 4GB, but 16GB will be overkill for the majority of users.

I totally agree.
Running several VMs --> u need ram
I dont think the 4gig rmbp should be avoided.
MBA all come with 4gb in the baselineup.
The retina might make a difference, but Apple wouldnt sell it if it wouldnt run great.

 

[smakdown61]

I'm sure that computer companies are happy you believe that. You're belief is wrong though. You should get what you need and may need. For the typical user that would be 8gigs right now. If they ever, and I seriously doubt they will, need 16... the rest of the computer will have been well outdated by then.

Its like saying you should always buy an 8 cylinder engine even though you only take your car to the grocery store around the corner.

That V8 is gonna be way more fun to get around that corner....just sayin.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

So tell me why my 2.66 GHz i7 Arrandale with 4 gigs of RAM and a 500 gig 7200 RPM hard drive ran like crap with less than 50 gigs of stuff on a *clean* install of Mountain Lion?

Afterall, you seem to know so much about how computers work and need to constantly point it out like you are superior, so my question should be a breeze for you to answer. Hell, I at least have an engineering background, do you?

And before you say it was the HDD, I put 8 GB of RAM in several days prior to the SSD and the difference was immediately apparent that the RAM was helping.

Uh who knows. Its your computer

 

[Breedlove]

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.

I'm inclined to agree with OP's assessment.

5 years ago 4GB was more than any average person would ever need and now just those minimal tasks can push 5GB RAM usage; 8 years ago 2GB was more than enough.

And although I was a teenager back then, I remember how excited I was when I built my first desktop with 512MB RAM. I can't imagine doing anything with this little RAM today let alone anything under 6GB.

We don't know now how much RAM we will need in 4 years but if you're looking to keep your computer for 4+ years, I'd cast my $200 dollar bet to upgrade to 16GB.

 

[nathairtras]

It's not misleading at all. You should ALWAYS get as much memory as you can afford, period.

...as you can afford

This needs to be better defined to be a reasonable argument. I could afford 16GB, in part because I could justify it. (I afforded 1TB SSD, but the justification was that I had waffled too long between it and the 512, I wouldn't be unhappy with it, and it wouldn't be the end of the world to be lighter the upgrade price in the wallet.)

If you are buying with 100% disposable income, sure, get the highest specs you can get in the form factor you like. RAM > SSD > CPU, in general, but not for all use cases. Because why not. Especially if you have remaining disposable income after that point, because even if your choices are a mistake, you won't really feel it that much.

If you are not buying your laptop with 100% disposable income, then what you can afford is largely based upon what you need. What most people need is currently satisfied by 4GB to 8GB of RAM. The majority of laptops, Ultrabooks, convertibles, etc, come with 8GB RAM at the most. This is why I went with the lapotop option I went with at work - everything came stock with 8GB, but not everything could have the RAM swapped, and I need more than 8GB for some of the development scenarios I am in. (Well, maybe I could get by with 8GB, but it would be painful, and as it is work-related, time is money.)

People can better afford what they need, and the real issue here is that most people will not need 16GB for the life of their machines.