My new MacBook Air m2 - 8gb is great

[Agincourt]

This is great to hear as I may need to upgrade my wife at some future point and move her from Windows (she is a professional photographer). Do you use Lightroom or Lightroom Classic?

In my experience Apple tends to be more user friendly but Windows tends to be more versatile and expansive. If she's accustomed to her software and OS don't do much more than offer her use of your Apple for a try. If she doesn't like it or is comfortable with her setup, just respect her choice.

 

[heretiq]

I think a lot of the folks that feel 16gb isn’t enough for an entry level machine have some form of Stockholm syndrome. Growing up we were just accustomed to essentially using hardware to brute force running software/games due to lack of efficiency. In this day and age Apple has worked hard on all their devices to create a level of efficiency where you can have “lower” specs and still have an optimal experience for all around tasks. More hardware is always better but I would argue Windows is more prone to needing the brute force approach because it’s user base needs support for so many things, from all types of decades seemingly.

That’s always been the trade off though. Windows has more support than macOS but macOS arguably has a better experience for shared software. Android has more customization/options but iOS is more refined and typically a more fluid experience. Personally, I use 99% of Apple’s stock apps with the rest being web apps like Google’s suite and couldn’t tell you that last time I noticed or had memory issues with 8gb ram Air vs my 16gb Pro. We need to stop talking about hardware and start asking why software, especially from big companies, isn’t optimized forcing the consumer to buy 64gb of ram to run MS Office…where does it end?

Nailed it. I’ve seen enough head-scratching issues and inconsistencies with Microsoft software on Apple devices that I’m increasingly motivated to start pruning MS apps from my workflow.

 

[Agincourt]

I think a lot of the folks that feel 16gb isn’t enough for an entry level machine have some form of Stockholm syndrome. Growing up we were just accustomed to essentially using hardware to brute force running software/games due to lack of efficiency. In this day and age Apple has worked hard on all their devices to create a level of efficiency where you can have “lower” specs and still have an optimal experience for all around tasks. More hardware is always better but I would argue Windows is more prone to needing the brute force approach because it’s user base needs support for so many things, from all types of decades seemingly.

That’s always been the trade off though. Windows has more support than macOS but macOS arguably has a better experience for shared software. Android has more customization/options but iOS is more refined and typically a more fluid experience. Personally, I use 99% of Apple’s stock apps with the rest being web apps like Google’s suite and couldn’t tell you that last time I noticed or had memory issues with 8gb ram Air vs my 16gb Pro. We need to stop talking about hardware and start asking why software, especially from big companies, isn’t optimized forcing the consumer to buy 64gb of ram to run MS Office…where does it end?

That's because RAM has become so cheap that software developers haven't needed to refine their programs. My sister works in IOS software for iPads and such and she finds it extremely difficult to write software code with tight restrictions on memory allocation. When Apple opts for 8 GB base configuration that puts significant pressure on developers to make programs with minimal overhead, resulting in fewer features or greater program costs due to more hours in development.

Also buying 64 GB of RAM isn't that much nowadays... unless it's Apple that you're buying it from. And having that much allows you many more options elsewhere. The real question is why is Apple still going with 8 GB when 16 GB only adds a fraction of a percent to their manufacturing costs? Or why not at least match their competitors?

Answer: greed.

 

[geta]

Okay someone made a decent post that I can somewhat agree with, and that's pertaining to SSD speeds being so rapid that it's almost fluid with normal RAM. As such I don't begrudge people that comment how capable a computer with only 8 GB really is, but that's not the point. The point is that RAM is so cheap nowadays that is simply doesn't make sense to equip any top-tier computer with only 8 GB. All the while SSD's only have a limited number of read/write cycles and it's mounted to the logic board... hence the computer's value on the secondhand market and lifespan is in question.

My primary gripe isn't about the RAM or SSD capacity, it's always been that Apple designed out upgradability and charge outrageous prices for comparatively cheap components. They have the right to do this and they selected these figures based on generating the maximum amount of profit. As such when I consider buying a new Apple it's no longer what gives me the most satisfaction but how much I'm willing to sacrifice for it.

I suggested I might switch over to Windows and that's because it's saturated the market and there are always better options. I own Apple stock and have motive to see them prosper, but as a customer I despise the practice. And as an environmentalist I abhor the practice of installing consumable parts on the logic board with no potential for external storage if those SSD's die. For laptops space and weight come at a premium but this is indefensible for their desktop lines.

In the end Apple has the right to set whatever prices they want for anything, and I happen to be one of those people that wouldn't buy an 8 GB computer even at significant discount. And I likewise refuse to pander to Apple's greed... I'll be holding onto my Intel MBP with 16 GB RAM and 512 GB storage for a while longer.

No one stop you from switching over to Windows if you’re not happy with their model selections and their prices.

 

[Tuck_]

As such when I consider buying a new Apple it's no longer what gives me the most satisfaction but how much I'm willing to sacrifice for it.

Very well said. Buying a mac these days is often frustrating instead of exciting.

 

[6749974]

macOS needs about 2 GB for RAM, so you really only have 6 GB of RAM for apps. Is that enough for you on a computer? 6 GB of RAM? Well if you're opening static applications that aren't performance based—and doing the same things you can do on an iPhone or iPad—sure.

But for example, in a 1,000 photo export test, the CPU speed is cut in half with 8 GB RAM models. So it shows, from a computer system's standpoint, that low amounts of RAM are bottlenecking the full capabilities of the M1/M2 chip. And that Apple is doing that to charge an extra $200 for what costs them $3.15 is why people are annoyed.

 

[geta]

macOS needs about 2 GB for RAM, so you really only have 6 GB of RAM for apps. Is that enough for you on a computer? 6 GB of RAM? Well if you're opening static applications that aren't performance based—and doing the same things you can do on an iPhone or iPad—sure.

But for example, in a 1,000 photo export test, the CPU speed is cut in half with 8 GB RAM models. So it shows, from a computer system's standpoint, that low amounts of RAM are bottlenecking the full capabilities of the M1/M2 chip. And that Apple is doing that to charge an extra $200 for what costs them $3.15 is why people are annoyed.

Sure it’s annoying when they charging so much for base models with 8GB RAM and small SSD, as well as for upgrading the RAM (and storage), but this is how it is… people that don’t like this can vote with their money, and can buy Windows laptop instead.

 

[Tuck_]

Sure it’s annoying when they charging so much for base models with 8GB RAM and small SSD, as well as for upgrading the RAM (and storage), but this is how it is… people that don’t like this can vote with their money, and can buy Windows laptop instead.

I've never understood this argument. One person voting with their money is the equivalent of a rounding error to apple. Voting with your voice is always going to be more effective.

And the skeptic in me thinks people know that, and just want to shut down any disent towards their favourite company.

 

[bousozoku]

I've never understood this argument. One person voting with their money is the equivalent of a rounding error to apple. Voting with your voice is always going to be more effective.

And the skeptic in me thinks people know that, and just want to shut down any disent towards their favourite company.

Considering that Apple rarely listens to anyone, unless they're on the news, voting with your voice works almost as well as voting with your money. At least, Apple attempts to keep track of active devices. Small downturns are still downturns.

 

[YoitsTmac]

I also don’t understand people defending the financials of Apple keeping 8GB. Yes, there are users that will be fine with 8GB. However, it’s a marginal cost for Apple for a potential improvement in user experience.

At the minimum, the entry level MacBook Pro should have 16GB of RAM when positioned as a pro device.

Or, if the upgrade prices were more reasonable, this likely wouldn’t even be a discussion. Even $150 (when it should be closer to $100). And charging $1,000 for 4TB is indeed price gouging. It’s obviously because Apple knows if you know what ram or storage is, you’ll spend the money on it because there’s no alternative on macOS. Yes, they’re for profit, but there was once a time when Apple was expensive, but provided a value for the hardware. I don’t think that’s the case anymore.

 

[geta]

I've never understood this argument. One person voting with their money is the equivalent of a rounding error to apple. Voting with your voice is always going to be more effective.

And the skeptic in me thinks people know that, and just want to shut down any disent towards their favourite company.

Also voting with your voice not really working, so many people complaining here and on other forums, and Apple still continuing milking low spec machines…

 

[geta]

I also don’t understand people defending the financials of Apple keeping 8GB. Yes, there are users that will be fine with 8GB. However, it’s a marginal cost for Apple for a potential improvement in user experience.

At the minimum, the entry level MacBook Pro should have 16GB of RAM when positioned as a pro device.

Or, if the upgrade prices were more reasonable, this likely wouldn’t even be a discussion. Even $150 (when it should be closer to $100). And charging $1,000 for 4TB is indeed price gouging. It’s obviously because Apple knows if you know what ram or storage is, you’ll spend the money on it because there’s no alternative on macOS. Yes, they’re for profit, but there was once a time when Apple was expensive, but provided a value for the hardware. I don’t think that’s the case anymore.

Why stopping here, for the price they charging for entry level MBA it should come with 16GB RAM/512GB storage, base MBP with 32GB RAM/1TB storage, and MBP with Max chip 64GB RAM/2TB storage…

There is a lot of value in Apple’s hardware, sure it’s not cheap as Windows machine, but it will last much longer.

 

[YoitsTmac]

Why stopping here, for the price they charging for entry level MBA it should come with 16GB RAM/512GB storage, base MBP with 32GB RAM/1TB storage, and MBP with Max chip 64GB RAM/2TB storage…

From what I see from competitors, I think the entry M1 air and even M2 air are a reasonable value. I think they would make more sense with 512GB MSRP, but sales bring them to that price.

I’m not saying there’s no value in Apple’s products. The M3 Pro 14” at $2,400 with 1TB, in my opinion, is a good value. However, the same computer with 4TB at $3,400 can be an awful value. They can’t be both be a good value though because there’s no justification for 3TB being worth $1,000 anywhere else.

You can buy two, 4TB 990 Pros, arguably the best, fastest and most recognizable name for computer storage, for less than Apple’s 3TB of additional storage. And that’s retail. Additionally, those drives need to have the additional cost of an SSD controller, while Apple’s is in the SoC. So actually, Apple probably pays even LESS than to make the same drive than others in the market, but charges the most.

Is there another legitimate justification for this cost other than “it’s reasonable because it’s in my Mac”? I can understand an upsell to increase margin but come on.

There is a lot of value in Apple’s hardware, sure it’s not cheap as Windows machine, but it will last much longer.

Is this a proven fact or just a generalization? And the cost of Apple’s hardware is all in the base configuration…so the $1,100 MacBook Air and $1,600 MacBook Pro show that that’s all it takes to create that great hardware experience. Still doesn’t explain the roughly 200-300% highest cost on upgrades compared to other retail choices other than “it’s the only way to get it in my Mac.”

 

[bousozoku]

I was doing neither... and if you're going to call me arrogant, I prefer the proper form of address as Mr. Arrogant. I'm making fun of people who feel the need to rain on other people's parade.

The OP gave a well reasoned case for making a specific purchase and expressed being very happy and satisfied with it. It's a joy and enthusiasm thread. Let people who want to express their happiness have their moment. There are more than enough other threads on MR to hit up if you want to join the never-ending RAM brawl.

It's rare that anyone expressing delight over their new 128GB laptop has to face people who show up out of the blue to badger them that they wasted their money and made a terrible choice, but whenever someone says "I bought an 8GB MBA and I can't believe how good it is," it's only a matter of time before the RAM police shows up to shut down the party.

Let people have their moments, please.

Yes.

I've seen over 20 years' worth of criticism. Yet, people can use their devices and will be just fine. The numbers aren't everything.

 

[Agincourt]

Yes, they’re for profit, but there was once a time when Apple was expensive, but provided a value for the hardware. I don’t think that’s the case anymore.

In their defense Apple does offer arguably the best grade of computer hardware all across the board. All that except for RAM and storage. The fact they elected to bottleneck those is where they draw the line between casual customers and pro users. Regrettably the majority of Apple users are casual consumers that don't care enough about high-end software or games to notice being short-changed on something so basic as RAM.

One can only admire their ingenious strategy of cornering their share of the market.

 

[YoitsTmac]

In their defense Apple does offer arguably the best grade of computer hardware all across the board. All that except for RAM and storage. The fact they elected to bottleneck those is where they draw the line between casual customers and pro users. Regrettably the majority of Apple users are casual consumers that don't care enough about high-end software or games to notice being short-changed on something so basic as RAM.

One can only admire their ingenious strategy of cornering their share of the market.

I agree that Apple’s hardware is the best to many (keyboard, speakers, screen, chassis), but again, all that is experienced in the base models.

We’re more or less on the same wave length and yes, the only reason this works is because the majority of consumers don’t know. I had a ton of appointments when I did B2C help where people were having storage issues.

 

[ric22]

I agree that Apple’s hardware is the best to many (keyboard, speakers, screen, chassis), but again, all that is experienced in the base models.

MacBook Airs hardly have industry leading screens? Otherwise I agree.

 

[Thechillmaster]

Just snagged the last 15” M2 16gb/512gb from a local Bestbuy for $1399. Was considering waiting for the new M3 but this deal seems too good to pass up given the increased ram and storage. Thoughts? I’d want the same specs if waiting for the M3. Keep or return?

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Very well said. Buying a mac these days is often frustrating instead of exciting.

This is very true. I have basically converted my entire workflow to having a desktop mac (even though it is an M1 MBP) so that when the time comes I can just get a cheap mini. My iPad Pro 12.9" can remote back just fine with Jump Desktop. I just bring that everywhere now.

 

[6749974]

Sure it’s annoying when they charging so much for base models with 8GB RAM and small SSD, as well as for upgrading the RAM (and storage), but this is how it is… people that don’t like this can vote with their money, and can buy Windows laptop instead.

I’m expanding context OP may have missed. (I’m not attacking them). For instance, most people think they are getting the full 8 GB RAM and don’t even consider that macOS will wire 2 GB of it. Or think that Apple is making 8 GB the default for cost reasons. Not everybody knows everything.

Also, “you can buy Windows instead” is the “you can move to another country if you don’t like this country’s politics” of answers. Let’s not stoop so low.

 

[AlmightyKang]

Also, “you can buy Windows instead” is the “you can move to another country if you don’t like this country’s politics” of answers. Let’s not stoop so low.

Tripped over one here the other day which was interesting which shows that architectural differences might be relevant.

So I have a package I was running on windows, which I run in AWS EC2 because it requires a lot of RAM and I don't want to have a workstation lying around for it any more. When I say a lot of RAM, it needs 32Gb so not a huge amount but significant cost. The package does run on Mac but I never tried it. Well on Windows the memory allocator returns an allocation failure if you blow the RAM. I hit the 32Gb limit and I don't want to pay the hourly fee for the next increment of 64Gb RAM. So after doing some research the particular allocator implementation doesn't allow overcommitting of RAM and there isn't provision on this specific runtime on windows.

I ran the same package on my 8Gb M2 and it overcommitted to 34Gb and completed the job, ran mostly out of swap. The job failed on a 32Gb windows machine. Yeah the memory pressure went red and it took a couple of minutes longer than usual but meh, it actually worked.

So turns out if I occasionally need 32Gb of RAM I can have it from the next layer down on the storage hierarchy, if my tools have a decent allocator.

 

[colonelbutt]

Tripped over one here the other day which was interesting which shows that architectural differences might be relevant.

So I have a package I was running on windows, which I run in AWS EC2 because it requires a lot of RAM and I don't want to have a workstation lying around for it any more. When I say a lot of RAM, it needs 32Gb so not a huge amount but significant cost. The package does run on Mac but I never tried it. Well on Windows the memory allocator returns an allocation failure if you blow the RAM. I hit the 32Gb limit and I don't want to pay the hourly fee for the next increment of 64Gb RAM. So after doing some research the particular allocator implementation doesn't allow overcommitting of RAM and there isn't provision on this specific runtime on windows.

I ran the same package on my 8Gb M2 and it overcommitted to 34Gb and completed the job, ran mostly out of swap. The job failed on a 32Gb windows machine. Yeah the memory pressure went red and it took a couple of minutes longer than usual but meh, it actually worked.

So turns out if I occasionally need 32Gb of RAM I can have it from the next layer down on the storage hierarchy, if my tools have a decent allocator.

you nailed it

people are saying on here that 8gb is not enough. it is simply not true

there are some tasks that of course more is better, but with passmark M2 8gb macbook air at 16408, and macbook pro m3 max 32gb at 40080, you're talking just 2.4x better. if a task takes 4 seconds on the cheapest macbook air and 2 seconds on a 3.5x price top of the range macbook pro, which one is actually not worth it ?

the other argument, that an extra 8gb wouldn't cost apple much more, and why not add it is a better argument. but they why is Microsoft and Samsung doing the same thing ? perhaps another 8gb, after qc etc, is £100-200 more, and apple simply wants to hit an entry level costs.

Who knows, but most of what I read here is just speculation

 

[ThailandToo]

Tripped over one here the other day which was interesting which shows that architectural differences might be relevant.

So I have a package I was running on windows, which I run in AWS EC2 because it requires a lot of RAM and I don't want to have a workstation lying around for it any more. When I say a lot of RAM, it needs 32Gb so not a huge amount but significant cost. The package does run on Mac but I never tried it. Well on Windows the memory allocator returns an allocation failure if you blow the RAM. I hit the 32Gb limit and I don't want to pay the hourly fee for the next increment of 64Gb RAM. So after doing some research the particular allocator implementation doesn't allow overcommitting of RAM and there isn't provision on this specific runtime on windows.

I ran the same package on my 8Gb M2 and it overcommitted to 34Gb and completed the job, ran mostly out of swap. The job failed on a 32Gb windows machine. Yeah the memory pressure went red and it took a couple of minutes longer than usual but meh, it actually worked.

So turns out if I occasionally need 32Gb of RAM I can have it from the next layer down on the storage hierarchy, if my tools have a decent allocator.

Actually, SSDs being overwritten many times in swap is a very negative thing that leads to the premature failure of SSDs. The SSD is not magically fast enough to deal with not enough RAM, it just means failure sooner rather than later at those pressures for 34GB of swap with a Mac with 8GB of RAM. Anyone can say that the SSDs are faster now and meant for this, but that doesn’t make it true. And the SSD is not just a lot slower, it’s like tortoise slow versus a fighter jet in the RAM.

 

[geta]

Tripped over one here the other day which was interesting which shows that architectural differences might be relevant.

So I have a package I was running on windows, which I run in AWS EC2 because it requires a lot of RAM and I don't want to have a workstation lying around for it any more. When I say a lot of RAM, it needs 32Gb so not a huge amount but significant cost. The package does run on Mac but I never tried it. Well on Windows the memory allocator returns an allocation failure if you blow the RAM. I hit the 32Gb limit and I don't want to pay the hourly fee for the next increment of 64Gb RAM. So after doing some research the particular allocator implementation doesn't allow overcommitting of RAM and there isn't provision on this specific runtime on windows.

I ran the same package on my 8Gb M2 and it overcommitted to 34Gb and completed the job, ran mostly out of swap. The job failed on a 32Gb windows machine. Yeah the memory pressure went red and it took a couple of minutes longer than usual but meh, it actually worked.

So turns out if I occasionally need 32Gb of RAM I can have it from the next layer down on the storage hierarchy, if my tools have a decent allocator.

The usage you described here is a classic example of why 8GB RAM is not enough even though you managed to get your work done using swap.

Read post #97.

 

[raythompsontn]

The usage you described here is a classic example of why 8GB RAM is not enough even though you managed to get your work done using swap.

I would counter that if they got the task accomplished with 8GB of RAM, then 8GB of RAM was enough. Is not occasionally using swap worth an additional $400? The Air maxes out at 24GB anyway so swap would have needed to be used regardless to satisfy 32GB requirement.

Actually, SSDs being overwritten many times in swap is a very negative thing that leads to the premature failure of SSDs.

While it is true that SSDs will wear out over time, the simple truth is that the lifespan of a typical SSD with today's technology is measured in years in a heavy use environment. Most probably heavier use than even a power user will subject an SSD. Your assertion is based on early SSDs and is really not valid today.

How Long do SSDs Last

BackBlaze does extensive studies on drive statistics and failures. I suspect their knowledge and data is much more relevant than your opinion. The key takeaway is:

The good news is that SSDs have proven to be extremely reliable and certainly at least as good as hard drives in terms of data retention and failure rates. The bad news is that SSDs tend to fail more often with age---and not with extended data reading and writing, as formerly predicted.

If 8GB works, it works. Using swap is not going to shorten the life of the machine. The fact the MacOS was able to take an app that requires 32GB on Windows (and failed), and runs that app in 8GB indicates that memory management, including the use of swap, is managed quite well.

Apple starting a base configuration of 8GB indicates that Apple probably knows more about their systems, their OS, than others that are preaching "get more memory".

Just use the machine as needed. Don't worry about the technical underpinnings. If you want more memory, get it. If you feel that extra money is better spent elsewhere, then do it.