Guys, get 16 GB.

[MacModMachine]

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.

SSD's are from from new, there 3+ years old now.


these guys can argue all they want over ram , the fact is i personally have tested this ram capacity myself.

i can run a macbook pro c2d 2.4 with 128gb ssd and 1gb ram with 10.8.5 just fine with no issues, RAM makes little difference in its speed.

 

[Scott7975]

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.

You want me to explain why your computer is running like crap. You haven't even told me what you were using it for, for one. For two, answers are never simple. Im not going to pin point your problem in 2 minutes of talking to you on a mac forum.

I need an engineering background to know how computers work? No, I don't have an engineering background. Your background also does not mean you know computers. Engineering is pretty broad. I have an electrical/electronics background. I have a background as an auto technician. I have programming background and I have been using computers since the Apple IIe and Commodore 64. Im 40 years old and have been building computers since I was 15. Is that a good enough background for you or should I go get my Masters in Computer Engineering first?

Just because RAM made a difference does not mean it was your bottleneck or your problem. Bandaids slow bleeding but if you need stitches it wont solve the problem.

You want to show proof that your 4 gigs of RAM was your problem... but there are plenty of people in this thread and others that have new Macs with 4 gigs and are flying with them. That should tell you something.

----------

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

Cant argue with that man.

 

[Meister]

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.

Dude, ur 2010 mbp should not have any problems surfing the web with "only" 4gb of ram. Even with hdd.
I cant tell you whats going wrong there, but y is my system with 4gb and hdd500 running without problems. I run like safari 10+tabs and video editing and photo editing, while writing a report (size 200mb!) with hd pictures in it.
With only minimal lag scrolling through that report. (Glitches a bit when photos come up, no real problem though)

 

[RngRngBananaRam]

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.

Because you have a spinning platter hard disk. Swap it out for an SSD and your machine will feel like new.

 

[jbg232]

Completely agree with the OP but for these reasons:

Let's take for example the 95% of NORMAL computer buyers who are using their computer to run 5 basic programs: the OS, internet, email, iTunes, and a word processor. These 5 programs have been the heart of compuer usage for 15 years (and before then it was still just the OS and word processor).

It is INCORRECT to assume that these processes take only a small amount of memory. Why might you ask? As the software becomes more complex even these basic programs require more memory (not even including complex programs like virtual machines, photoshop, etc).

1. Typically safari, chrome, and mail if left open and run for days at a time can easily start taking 2gb or more of memory.

2. The OS is easily the biggest offender, requiring a ton more RAM than it used to. It runs smoothly because the system specs of most machines goes up over time.

3. Lastly, each new version of word requires way more resources than its predecessor.

As an example I originally got my macbook aluminum 2008 with 2GB of memory then upgraded to 4GB then 6GB and now it's maxed out at 8GB. I use memory clean to monitor my usage requirements all day, everyday and can tell you that I routinely have to clear my memory usually once a week after working on a big project and doing heavy multitasking. To suggest that a computer 5 years from now will not have the same bottlenecks that I've been fighting for the last 5 years is just naive and not indicative of a knowledge of technological requirements.

I'm actually wishing that the rMBPs offered 32GB as a standard instead of 16, but like the OP says, get 16GB.

One final word, Bill Gates famously said (I paraphrase) "640K (~1/2MB) of RAM should be enough for anyone."

 

[Meister]

SSD's are from from new, there 3+ years old now.


these guys can argue all they want over ram , the fact is i personally have tested this ram capacity myself.

i can run a macbook pro c2d 2.4 with 128gb ssd and 1gb ram with 10.8.5 just fine with no issues, RAM makes little difference in its speed.

Three years is relativly new for me
PCIE is very new though!
And even ssd is just starting to become the standard.
128gb + 1gb ram is badass!!
Try 128gb with 8mb ram just for the hell of it

 

[FrozenDarkness]

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.

totally agree, if you're buying a computer that lasts for more than 4 years, get 16gb of ram....

and also a 15" so you can get quad core.

If you're buying a computer to lasts you until the next big jump in technology, get what you need now.

it's really like just thought processes, do you spend the least amount of money now so you can upgrade or do you spend the most and last for a while?

 

[puma1552]

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.

Exactly. Right now, since home computers really hit the market in the mid-1990s, the trend has shown that RAM needs have continuously doubled in time, even as software has gotten better. The software has gotten better, but it has had to get better as it has simultaneously gotten more powerful, but the net result for the past twenty years has clearly shown that more RAM has been needed and will continue to be needed. I have not seen one single data point from the last two decades suggesting that we no longer need to care about more RAM. Everything is to the contrary.

...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.

And therein is the issue - thinking only of today, not tomorrow. As OS X develops we will see better RAM management, sure, but the demands are still going to increase. Anyone that thinks computers will still ship with 8 gigs in 20 years is crazy, but people are suggesting RAM needs are tapering off. Even if they are tapering off, we haven't yet seen enough concrete evidence of it for me to save $200 on a non-upgradeable machine. Maybe in ten years if we see the curve level off I would be inclined not to max out, but until I see that data I'm going to continue to max out, especially when the price isn't that much on a machine on which I can't upgrade.

Right now, the trend is still pointing upwards towards needing more RAM in the future; I haven't seen enough evidence otherwise to think even basic users no longer need to have more RAM.

 

[Scott7975]

Completely agree with the OP but for these reasons:

Let's take for example the 95% of NORMAL computer buyers who are using their computer to run 5 basic programs: the OS, internet, email, iTunes, and a word processor. These 5 programs have been the heart of compuer usage for 15 years (and before then it was still just the OS and word processor).

It is INCORRECT to assume that these processes take only a small amount of memory. Why might you ask? As the software becomes more complex even these basic programs require more memory (not even including complex programs like virtual machines, photoshop, etc).

1. Typically safari, chrome, and mail if left open and run for days at a time can easily start taking 2gb or more of memory.

2. The OS is easily the biggest offender, requiring a ton more RAM than it used to. It runs smoothly because the system specs of most machines goes up over time.

3. Lastly, each new version of word requires way more resources than its predecessor.

As an example I originally got my macbook aluminum 2008 with 2GB of memory then upgraded to 4GB then 6GB and now it's maxed out at 8GB. I use memory clean to monitor my usage requirements all day, everyday and can tell you that I routinely have to clear my memory usually once a week after working on a big project and doing heavy multitasking. To suggest that a computer 5 years from now will not have the same bottlenecks that I've been fighting for the last 5 years is just naive and not indicative of a knowledge of technological requirements.

I'm actually wishing that the rMBPs offered 32GB as a standard instead of 16, but like the OP says, get 16GB.

One final word, Bill Gates famously said (I paraphrase) "640K (~1/2MB) of RAM should be enough for anyone."

To some up your post... you feel the need to have 16 gigs of RAM because you don't want to shut off your computer more then once a week.

 

[pscl]

i ordered my rmbp 13" 2,8 with 16gb Ram... i always go for maxed cpu and maxed ram on my macbooks. was always the best decision.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Exactly. Right now, since home computers really hit the market in the mid-1990s, the trend has shown that RAM needs have continuously doubled in time, even as software has gotten better. The software has gotten better, but it has had to get better as it has simultaneously gotten more powerful, but the net result for the past twenty years has clearly shown that more RAM has been needed and will continue to be needed. I have not seen one single data point from the last two decades suggesting that we no longer need to care about more RAM. Everything is to the contrary.



And therein is the issue - thinking only of today, not tomorrow. As OS X develops we will see better RAM management, sure, but the demands are still going to increase. Anyone that thinks computers will still ship with 8 gigs in 20 years is crazy, but people are suggesting RAM needs are tapering off. Even if they are tapering off, we haven't yet seen enough concrete evidence of it for me to save $200 on a non-upgradeable machine. Maybe in ten years if we see the curve level off I would be inclined not to max out, but until I see that data I'm going to continue to max out, especially when the price isn't that much on a machine on which I can't upgrade.

Right now, the trend is still pointing upwards towards needing more RAM in the future; I haven't seen enough evidence otherwise to think even basic users no longer need to have more RAM.

you keep saying evidence and trend. what are you talking about? is there a graph somewhere? are we pinpointing this trend happening in the next 3? 4? 5? 6? years?

 

[Wuiffi]

Guys, get 16 GB.

If they have the money I tell everyone how is thinking about getting a mac to max out the ram. However there are people who use their macbook like an ipad - and 4gb are -and will be- enough for safari with 3 tabs and mail only

I think one problem with ram is, that many still don't know, how OS X handles ram. They view the system monitor and if it doesn't show 2gb free, everyone is going crazy (and never looked for page outs/ swap)

 

[Scott7975]

i ordered my rmbp 13" 2,8 with 16gb Ram... i always go for maxed cpu and maxed ram on my macbooks. was always the best decision.

You must do a lot with your book if you feel that a 2 to 5% increase in processor performance is always worth the money. Most people may shave a couple minutes off their day.

 

[MacModMachine]

Three years is relativly new for me
PCIE is very new though!
And even ssd is just starting to become the standard.
128gb + 1gb ram is badass!!
Try 128gb with 8mb ram just for the hell of it

i love testing SSD's with VM's especially.


i have ran some operating systems with next to no ram and they run great on 500mbs + ssd's.

osx especially does well in this regard, mavericks memory compression can take 1gb ram and make it into 1.5 sometimes 2gb depending on the applications running. Quite remarkable.

i love ram...ill always want it....not because i need it but because it makes me feel safe.

 

[PeterJP]

In 2004, I built my previous Windows PC with 1gb of RAM. I upgraded it 5 years later to 3gb. When a stickmof 1gb failed, I continued with 2gb until less than a year ago. That's under Win7. The machine was getting slow, but an SSD would've taken care of most performance issues.

Instead of upgrading my old machine (which could take max 4gb anyway), I opted to build a new one. It's got 16gb because RAM was cheap in the beginning of this year. I really tried pushing it, still using Windows 7. A VM running a mac with ML, another one running FreeNAS, a Chrome browser with 20 or 30 tabs open... Still less than 4gb used. Just a few days ago, I opened 15 or 20 images of 24mp in the Gimp... Gimp is pretty heavy, but even while processing them, I wasn't using 4gb of my RAM.

Remember that I am using Windows on that machine. I think MacOSX was more RAM efficient? Particularly with the memory compression in Mavericks now. But do note that I usually close windows when I don't need them anymore. The VM+stuff was just to push it.

I think somebody editing 4k video while running a VM for his Outlook would definitely require more than 4gb now. Most others, not really. For futureproofing, most others will be fine with 8gb. Those few that really do huge videos could probably be better off futureproofing with 16gb. When I get a 13" rMBP, though, I would still consider getting 16gb. It's not upgradeable and in 5 years' time, it will have cost me €40/year.

 

[kartnite]

Quick question:
If I go 8GB (base 15" rMBP)... Now - I will need to use Windows (7/8/anything) for a couple of programmes. Would it then be better to use Windows on a virtual machine? Or am I better off installing it on a partition?

My other, general, use of the machine will involve internet-related work (in terms of profession), gaming (none of the new releases; only older titles) and the odd Photoshopping. All this, in addition to a couple of programme that will be run on Windows.

I understand 16GB could "aid in the future", but - frankly - will 8GB be "far too less" or "just about adequate" or "fine"? And either way, would you suggest running Windows virtually, or on a separate partition?

Please advise - this will be my first Mac. Thank you.

 

[puma1552]

You want me to explain why your computer is running like crap. You haven't even told me what you were using it for, for one. For two, answers are never simple. Im not going to pin point your problem in 2 minutes of talking to you on a mac forum.

Basic tasks, which I've said numerous times in this thread. But if that isn't clear enough it's basically Safari (usually no more than 4-5 windows, no tabs), iTunes, very light iPhoto, Word, or Excel. A little YouTube.

That's really all there is to it. Basic uses, lots of page outs after leaving the computer on for a few days. Lots of beach balls.

Doubled the RAM and no more page outs instantly, no more beach balls even with the computer on for several weeks. Added the SSD, boot times noticeably improved.

 

[Scott7975]

Quick question:
If I go 8GB (base 15" rMBP)... Now - I will need to use Windows (7/8/anything) for a couple of programmes. Would it then be better to use Windows on a virtual machine? Or am I better off installing it on a partition?

My other, general, use of the machine will involve internet-related work (in terms of profession), gaming (none of the new releases; only older titles) and the odd Photoshopping. All this, in addition to a couple of programme that will be run on Windows.

I understand 16GB could "aid in the future", but - frankly - will 8GB be "far too less" or "just about adequate" or "fine"? And either way, would you suggest running Windows virtually, or on a separate partition?

Please advise - this will be my first Mac. Thank you.

If you are going to use VMs then you might want 16 gigs. If you use bootcamp then 8 gigs is and will be fine.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Basic tasks, which I've said numerous times in this thread. But if that isn't clear enough it's basically Safari (usually no more than 4-5 windows, no tabs), iTunes, very light iPhoto, Word, or Excel. A little YouTube.

That's really all there is to it. Basic uses, lots of page outs after leaving the computer on for a few days. Lots of beach balls.

Doubled the RAM and no more page outs instantly, no more beach balls even with the computer on for several weeks. Added the SSD, boot times noticeably improved.

weird, i ran a computer with 4gb, and basically built the international space station with it with no lag. funny how stories like this works.

 

[puma1552]

you keep saying evidence and trend. what are you talking about? is there a graph somewhere? are we pinpointing this trend happening in the next 3? 4? 5? 6? years?

The trend is in what manufacturers have offered in terms of RAM for the last two decades.

128 MB --> 256 MB --> 512 MB --> 1 GB --> 2 GB --> 4 GB --> 8 GB -->16 GB --> 32 GB.

Even Apple offers 32 gigs on the iMac today, which suggests that even Apple realizes there is going to be a need for 32 gigs of RAM on a current 2013 computer; that doesn't sound like RAM usage tapering off to me, personally.

 

[jbg232]

To some up your post... you feel the need to have 16 gigs of RAM because you don't want to shut off your computer more then once a week.

For me it's very easy to run out of active memory after 1 day of usage from a clean start and I consider myself to be a normal computer user most days. That's from using "normal" programs. If you use aperture, photoshop, or a vm forget about it, those programs seem to have no limit.

----------

The trend is in what manufacturers have offered in terms of RAM for the last two decades.

128 MB --> 256 MB --> 512 MB --> 1 GB --> 2 GB --> 4 GB --> 8 GB -->16 GB --> 32 GB.

Even Apple offers 32 gigs on the iMac today, which suggests that even Apple realizes there is going to be a need for 32 gigs of RAM on a current 2013 computer; that doesn't sound like RAM usage tapering off to me, personally.

You forgot 64GB for the new mac pro

 

[Meister]

Basic tasks, which I've said numerous times in this thread. But if that isn't clear enough it's basically Safari (usually no more than 4-5 windows, no tabs), iTunes, very light iPhoto, Word, or Excel. A little YouTube.

That's really all there is to it. Basic uses, lots of page outs after leaving the computer on for a few days. Lots of beach balls.

Doubled the RAM and no more page outs instantly, no more beach balls even with the computer on for several weeks. Added the SSD, boot times noticeably improved.

Downgrade the ram now. Leave the ssd in. See what happens.

 

[Scott7975]

Basic tasks, which I've said numerous times in this thread. But if that isn't clear enough it's basically Safari (usually no more than 4-5 windows, no tabs), iTunes, very light iPhoto, Word, or Excel. A little YouTube.

That's really all there is to it. Basic uses, lots of page outs after leaving the computer on for a few days. Lots of beach balls.

Doubled the RAM and no more page outs instantly, no more beach balls even with the computer on for several weeks. Added the SSD, boot times noticeably improved.

Of course 8 gigs will work better then 4 if you never clear your ram. You ignore all the evidence in this thread that people are doing more then you with 4 gigs. So its obvious that there are further issues.

Sure, if you never want to turn your computer off ever in your life... get more RAM. I find it hard to believe that people are so lazy that they cant do general maintenance on their computers, and then want to blame not having enough hardware.

I can do all the tasks you listed with my HP laptop that has a core 2 duo, 4 gigs of ram, and a crappy 5400 rpm hard drive with no problems. The worst thing I get is over heating because the fans are taking a ****. I solved that with a cooling pad.

 

[nathairtras]

And therein is the issue - thinking only of today, not tomorrow. As OS X develops we will see better RAM management, sure, but the demands are still going to increase. Anyone that thinks computers will still ship with 8 gigs in 20 years is crazy, but people are suggesting RAM needs are tapering off. Even if they are tapering off, we haven't yet seen enough concrete evidence of it for me to save $200 on a non-upgradeable machine. Maybe in ten years if we see the curve level off I would be inclined not to max out, but until I see that data I'm going to continue to max out, especially when the price isn't that much on a machine on which I can't upgrade.

Right now, the trend is still pointing upwards towards needing more RAM in the future; I haven't seen enough evidence otherwise to think even basic users no longer need to have more RAM.

Nobody is suggesting that machines will ship with the same amounts of RAM in 20 years. They likely also will not ship with dual-core CPUs, current resolutions, etc. They may not even be the same form factor by that point. Maybe we will just have a jack in our heads. That isn't the point. If your machine works well for five years, you have gotten your money's worth. You may not be able to use the latest version of OS X, but it will work with the software as-shipped. Probably even with some upgrades. That certainly held true with my Powerbook G4, even after the whole shift to Intel CPUs.

"when the price isn't that much"

This is subjective. Your basic argument seems to be:

1. Computers will need more RAM in the future.
2. The computer I buy now should be maxed out for RAM, because of point 1.

CPUs are improving. SSDs are far better now than they used to be, let alone spinning disc drives, which themselves have shown improvements. Screen resolutions increase, weights drop, every aspect of your laptop has evolved over the years. "Future-proofing" feels great, but it is simply a gamble that every other part of your computer will be "good enough" to keep up. Or that you don't spill your breakfast cereal on your machine in the next two years.

Soldered-in RAM means you can't change your mind, but it also means you can't take it with you if something else fails.

What else can you do with $200? I can think of a lot of good ideas, and if I didn't need the extra RAM right now, some of them would have been more worthwhile.

 

[Scott7975]

The trend is in what manufacturers have offered in terms of RAM for the last two decades.

128 MB --> 256 MB --> 512 MB --> 1 GB --> 2 GB --> 4 GB --> 8 GB -->16 GB --> 32 GB.

Even Apple offers 32 gigs on the iMac today, which suggests that even Apple realizes there is going to be a need for 32 gigs of RAM on a current 2013 computer; that doesn't sound like RAM usage tapering off to me, personally.

Yeah because there are professionals out there that actually need that much RAM. The average person does not.