Well they didn't have them for sale. And I'm not wondering why because it's perfectly understandable.
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.
Hands-On With the 2024 M3 MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m using Remote Desktop to remote control the mini. I really do like the lack of fan, just because my HP notebook fan sounds like a jet and I always worry about sitting it anywhere and blocking the vents. That said, I don’t really notice the fans on the 14” MacBook Pro M1 Pro that I use for Logic, but I still worry about blocking the vents. The M1 Air just seems like a little tank and it was much faster than I expected. I wasn’t intending to get anything above the cheapest base Mac since 2012 after I could no longer upgrade them, but the M1 Air impressed me so much more than my old Intel Air that I got the mini and Pro over the last couple of years and have yet to be disappointed (in the hardware, anyway, as I’m not a fan of some of the Mac OS changes towards looking like iOS, where I prefer the older version, but I guess that is just me getting old.)
macOS needs 2 GB; leaves 6 GB for apps. That’s not a lot, but if each web tab is 200 MB then one should be able to open 30 tabs before needing to swap; although browsers compress memory, and swapping memory on a browser tab is usually not noticeable; so one can open more than 30 and have a smooth experience. It really just depends on the kinds of websites visited, what browser is used, and so on. YouTube is going to take up more than 3x some static blog post.
Not disagreeing with your larger point, but looking for some accuracy in that regard.
I agree Apple sticks to 8 GB minimum because they don’t want to get rid of the basically free profits they make from pushing people into +$200 for 16 GB and +$200 for 512 GB. At least they made 16/512 a retail configuration, so many can buy on sale at Best Buy, etc. That slightly improves the situation.
If 10 tabs are using all the memory there's an issue with the websites and browser, not the machine; as you point out with your phone example.
Cost of components have nothing to do with price of the device; they decide profit margin once a price point is set. The notion that becasue a component set is cheap teh device is cheap makes no economic sense; rather it is a question of how high can you price an item and still hit revenue targets while maintaining margins.
Or becasue it offers an entry level price point with a machine more than powerful enough for most users.
As for storage, the problem is often not SSD space but how it is used. For example, keeping years worth of photos, many of which have not been viewed for ears on the device. Compound that with the ease of taking pictures on a phone so you have multiple shots of the same subject taken seconds apart. That space is better used offloading the photos to cloud storage and a backup that is saved externally to free up space as well as have them saved if the SSD dies.
There are valid reasons for needing more space; but often it is the result of poor file management.
Which is the right thing for a for profit company.
Last edited:
Your forgetting that graphics needs to share what's left of that memory after Mac OS gets its share. "unified memory" so long as all you do is email and browse the web your fine. I still find it a hard to swallow amount of memory for an Apple computer. For the its allows a cheaper price point notes, it's hogwash your already paying a handsome price for the base line laptop 16 GB is not outrageous to ask for.
What 8GB does do is clearly allows Apple to upsell and make a handsome profit from MOST people that's in addition to the great margin they are already making. This practice is only going to hurt apple in the long run.
Oh lets blame it on the websites. Great strategy.
Anyway, no it doesn't mean "there's an issue with the websites and browser", it simply shows that 8GB RAM is not enough in 2024, not to mention beyond.
Well RAM and Storage are cheap, you can't possibly claim that these 2 components set the final base price.
I only hear excuses now. Are you defending apple for asking outrageous price for RAM and Storage upgrades?
The power is just one element, the simple truth is the hardware is unbalanced in these machines and that affects overall performance and future usability, so this means the 16GB variant performs better in a lot of tasks while having the same SOC the only difference being Apple cheapened on RAM.
As users here like car analogies, it's like a car with a great engine/hose power but terrible wheels that limit that power and affect the overall experience.
Funny, you ask people that pay high prices for supposed premium computers, to ration the way they use the storage when we live in the age of cheap Nvme storage drives? 😂 And not just for the present but for the life duration of the device as you can't upgrade the storage on Apple's computers.
People generally use cloud storage as a backup not an extension of the storage because their new expensive laptop has as much storage as a decent phone.
🤣 Sure, sure, so people shouldn't need more than what Apple offers in the base configuration.
I guess Apple's outrageous storage upgrade prices are like a punishment for users that "don't know how to manage" their storage and want more than 256GB
Yeah ripping off users on RAM and Storage is the right thing to do 🤣
Anyway this clips shows how terrible Apple's 8GB perform and he didn't do anything overboard, he didn't even need to push the Macbook to reach the limit of those 8GB.
Last edited:
Actually is uses over 5GB in idle leaving less than 3GB for application, basically 1 simple app can make an 8GB Macbook use swap RAM like right away.
30 Tabs in any browser will make the system go well beyond the 8GB limit. Now imagine using other apps without closing the browser(something I do all the time).
I'm including graphics in "macOS needs 2 GB" because I believe "Wired Memory" is where its listed, but I could be wrong. Wired memory is usually hovering around 1.5-2.5 GB doing normal stuff.
But you're right that "Unified Memory" needs to also supply memory to the GPU—so 8 GB is a fairly low amount given that even Intel Iris Plus Graphics had to take 1.5 to 2 GB of RAM back in the 13-inch MacBook Pro 2020.
Sure it does, anyone can open a bunch of websites to show 8 or 16 GB is not enough; but that is not how most users of base machines use their machine. Thus, it isn't a valid reason why 8GB isn't enough.
I could runs some programs and show 16 GB isn't enough.
As I pointed out, they don't; all they do is impact margin.
Yes. The are a profit making company and need to set prices to make the highest profit margin possible.
But if 16GB makes no difference in normal day to day use you should not spend teh money on it. To force people to pay more would not be very consumer friendly, no?
And kept the price point down so it's a better value for many users.
As long as the wheels are good enough for teh use case then better ones are not needed.
Yes, people should manage their storage and not just keep buying more; that's wasting money.
Many don't, ad those that do can buy a higher spec'd machine.
Apple offers options rather than forcing people to buy more machine than they need; why do you want people to pay more?
Just because you don't like Apple's strategy does't mean it is a rip off; Apple's doing what is job 1 - making money for the stockholders.
So he cherry picked some ways to do that. You could just as easily make a video showing 8GBs is plenty for many users and that's who that model is aimed at; as well as make one showing 16GB is not enough.
I usually like Max Tech reviews, but that was the worst comparison I have ever seen from them. Comparing a Windows PC versus a Mac with different RAM really tells you almost nothing about the behaviour due to the amount of RAM. Since the OSes and computers are not identical, they really needed to have two units of each computer, with each OS having a unit with 8 GB and a second with 16 GB. That way you would see the actual difference that the RAM makes on each OS. The current test could simply be showing the benefits of each OS and have absolutely nothing to do with the RAM. Usually Max Tech are more comprehensive, and if they had been with that one, it could have been a useful video.
You are just making excuses for the sake of making excuses.
He just opened 10 normal sites, nothing out of the ordinary.
Also slowing down a 16GB laptop with 10 tabs is very very difficult. I bet you can't do it, better yet I challenge you to shown me how you can push a 16GB system to use swap with just 10 normal tabs opened.
Really? Do it, if you are so confident. It will be way more difficult than with the 8GB Macbook.
OK, by how much?
OK so you support the idea of Apple rippiong off users. I wounder what would you say if another company would do this.
16GB actually makes quite a big difference in general usage, it gives much better performance than the 8GB variant in a lot of scenarios. This is shown by testing, I'm not making up stories here.
8GB/256GB is not great value for most users.
Well that was the point, the wheels are not good enough to properly take advantage of the power the car provides. Luckily with a car you can change them.
Yeah shame on people for wanting more than 256GB, peasants, they want to keep photos on their computers, it should be illegal.
Taking in consideration how bad the 8GB/256GB model is they kind of force people to pay the outrageous markup for the higher spec version.
It's a rip off from the perspective of consumers, I'm referring to what matters to me and users here, I'm not an apple employee to brag about how great the strategy to ask outrageous prices for RAM and Storage is for our bank accounts.
I didn't cherry picked anything. It's quite obvious that the 8GB Macbook completely falls on it's face without much effort.
Basically the only time the Macbook wasn't using swap was in idle with nothing opened, every single program he opened pushed the Macbook beyond those 8GB and that shows beyond any doubt that 8GB is inadequate for such a machine.
He established the premise at the beginning of the clip. I remember quite a lot of apple fans here defended that Apple employee that claimed that 8GB on MacOS is equivalent to 16GB on Windows. Well it doesn't look like it is, better yet, it's nowhere near a 12GB Windows laptop either.
My point was to show how bad the Macbook was doing by itself(even if the Windows laptop wasn't there), in quite a few instances it lost a lot of performance because it had multiple things opened. This is not what you expect from a premium 2024 computer. Also the Windows laptop was using single channel RAM(so it wasn't even performing at it's best).
I thought the whole advantage of Unified Memory was that the GPU just accesses the RAM in situ, as it is unified. There is no reserved memory area for the GPU like that 1.5 to 2 GB you mention, and there are no duplicate buffers with large chunks of RAM to copy data to a discrete GPU. I was under the impression this was why it was more efficient with RAM, as it didn't duplicate a lot of GPU RAM content.
Cool, but that doesn't make it any more accurate in testing what he says he is testing. I'm not saying the Mac is better, I'm saying the test is terrible, as you never change multiple vectors at once. That test is no better than Apple's fluff charts when they intro new models. Disappointing.
I'm not sure if that is a shot at the Surfaces, but they are actually quite nice hardware. I haven't owned their laptops, but the Surface Pro and Go are solid. Not sure I'm a fan of the kickstand, but they are well put together (too well, really, since they are almost impossible to take apart.)
What uses 5 GB in idle— The GPU or "Wired memory"?
I'm attaching a screenshot of Activity Monitor. Its my M2 Air connected to a 4K display and I'm only using 2 GB of Wired Memory. That includes GPU usage for normal windowing.
I'm attaching a GPU chart from the app iStatistica Pro. It shows me using the GPU by using Mission Control and switching Spaces. So normally the GPU is using about 300 MB but you'll see in the second screenshot it spikes up to about 1.3 GB. So thats about as much GPU memory people will use until they play games or something.
During the GPU spike, the "Wired memory" went up to almost 3 GB so I'm confident Wired Memory includes GPU memory. Anytime I used GPU more, wired memory went up the same as iStatistica Pro was showing.
So lets say 2 GB for macOS and GPU normally—which goes up to 3 GB total—leaves 5-6 GB of available memory. If each tab is 200 MB average, thats 25-30 tabs. The thing is, reddit posts will take like 60 MB, but a YouTube video can take 300 MB, so milage will vary. Plus there is compression and swap to buffer, so its not like someone can't pull up 50 tabs on their 8 GB Mac.
All I want to do is illustrate that the truth is in the middle—8 GB RAM isn't a lot but its also not "10 tabs" bad. I'm pretty sure 8 GB Macs can open 50 tabs no problem. Now, do they open 50 tabs + a bunch of other apps simultaneously? That can be a problem. Thats why Apple needs to increase default RAM. Nobody should be paying more than $600 for a Mac with only 8 GB RAM. Its too low in year 2024. Raspberry Pi 5 comes with 8 GB LPDDR5 and that only costs $80 for the entire kit which includes 8 GB RAM.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thats correct.
- Dedicated GPUs had their separate RAM (eg. 2018 MBP has Radeon Pro 555X which used 4 GB RAM)
- But when that 2018 MBP was not using the dedicated GPU—because macOS is trying to save battery—the Intel CPU's integrated GPU (called Intel Iris or Intel Iris Pro) was doing the work; and that would borrow up to 2 GB from the main memory because it didn't have its own dedicated vRAM.
- Apple's "unified memory" works similarly as Intel Iris, in that it will share memory with the integrated GPU cores.
I did just use iStatica Pro to see that my M2 Air GPU was using about 300 MB normally, but when doing things like using Mission Control and scrolling left to right in Spaces, it was using about 1.3 GB of memory. But its a spike and goes back down to 300 MB as soon as the animation is done and screen is static again.
What’s usually been said is 8GB M# Macs are equivalent to 12GB or 16GB on Intel Macs.
Im not saying they are or aren't, just clarifying that people were comparing Mac to Mac RAM, not Mac to Windows RAM. I suppose some people might have been comparing to Windows, but those were far less common.
Now that I think about it, they used to have dedicated booths for Surface laptops and now they barely have 1 model for sale. I would say the costumers have spoken. Too bad MacOS doesn't have this kind of competition.
Look the premise of the video is explained at the binging. You can watch it, research if you want. That Apple employee basically claimed 8GB on MacOS is equal to 16GB on Windows laptops. This is what that video addressed.
I regularly run 10 sites on a M1 Air with 8GB and near leave the green.
Never claimed 16GB would be pushed, just that you could easily show 16GB isn't enough.
Easy, Open 2 Parallels VMs; and a few tabs on browsers. Pushed my 16GB M1Pro into red. Would that bring an M1 Air with 8GB to its knees? Sure, but most users down run 1, let alone 2, VMS.
Irrelevant. The point is cos of components are not what ultimately drives selling price.
You claim it is a ripoff, but that's BS. I'd say the same thing - they are doing what for profit companies do and if you don't like the value buy something else.
You keep claiming that yet the examples you show do not support that for many users.
Says you, but many users no doubt disagree. If it wasn't Apple would not be able to sell as many as the do nor would people keep them as long as they do.
No, the point is if the wheels get you where you need to go without issues then the extra HP is wasted. If you need better wheels, buy them when you buy the car.
You assume simple because the power potential is tehre it is needed by every user; which is not the case.
Nice strawman. If they want it they can buy it, but they have options to avoid paying for storage the may not need.
My experience helping people is while they think they have a storage issue, a little looking around reveals they have a storage management issue. I'm guilty of that at times as well.
Again, I call BS. If that were the case, the 8/256 would not sell but they appear to be doing just fine.
Tech folks agonize over specs that have no relevance to most normal users.
It's simple economics - if you don't like a price, vote with your wallet. That the base Air sells fine says many users do not share your opinion.
Windows vs Mac is hardly a valid comparison, and the real question is does swap impact the average user? The answer to that is no, so extra memory adds cost and raises prices with no tangible benefit.
You may need 16/512 (I actually have 36/1TB) but most users don't, despite click bait web site comparisons.