RAM and Longevity

[Andy_2341]

Hey everyone.
This question is just came to mind. Everywhere I read about Macs vs Windows says that Macs last forever. Yet at the same time, people are always complaining about not enough RAM. So is the RAM really that big of a problem? Are these people just average joes that don’t do enough to generally push base spec ram? It’s usually 2012-2016 Macs that they talk about still running just fine and speedy after all this time.

 

[Boyd01]

I have a 2018 Mini with 64gb RAM, still very happy with it. But this a sort of a special case, I make heavy use of a Windows GIS app (for making maps) running in a 32gb Parallels VM - something I couldn't do with an Apple Silicon Mac. Will stick with this setup for at least another year since the integration with Windows/MacOS works so well for me.

Now, if my priority were video editing (for example) I'd probably have moved to a new Mac awhile ago because of the faster processors/gpu. But I would surely still want more than just the base RAM.

 

[Andy_2341]

Okay. Thank you for your reply. Why can’t you run Windows on a AS Mac? I was kinda hoping to do that.

 

[Boyd01]

Why can’t you run Windows on a AS Mac?

There are plenty of long threads on that topic. (Apparently) you can install the ARM version of Windows on Parallels which can run some Intel software with emulation (or on-the-fly translation?). People report varied results, but I wouldn't want to depend on that for my kind of demanding professional app written for Intel. If nothing else, it's expensive software and the company certainly won't support it running that way.

So, I suppose it depends on exactly what you want to do with Windows. Since I have no experience with the Apple Silicon Macs, somebody else can probably give you a better answer.

 

[leman]

I do not understand what RAM has to do with longevity. The chance of hardware failure is independent of how much RAM one has. I suppose one can even make an argument that more RAM increases the chance of failure, since there are more failure points

 

[Adora]

Okay. Thank you for your reply. Why can’t you run Windows on a AS Mac? I was kinda hoping to do that.

You can also install VM Ware Fusion for free now and install Windows 11 ARM directly out of it:

There is also an ARM Linux that should work in dual boot with macOS and can be installed with just a Terminal command, but it only supports M1 and M2 Macs yet without full functionality. Maybe Windows will work anytime too directly.

Asahi Linux

asahilinux.org

There are others too, but that is the most known.

 

[doogm]

Everywhere I read about Macs vs Windows says that Macs last forever. Yet at the same time, people are always complaining about not enough RAM.

Who's complaining about not enough RAM?

I can see people complaining that the default for a long time was 8 GB RAM, but mostly because Apple charges a lot for RAM upgrades compared with normal RAM prices, so if you wanted/needed more it added a lot to the cost - probably a lot more than it should have. Plus, of course, Apple Silicon is not able to add RAM upgrades - you get what you buy at first. But I know I have a 9 year old Mac that I use occasionally that has 8 GB RAM and it's absolutely fine for what I need. If I check memory pressure it's rarely anything but green.

Honestly I think most people are fine with 8 GB RAM (though of course going forward it seems that the default RAM is now 16 GB, finally), and probably will be for a few more years now.

 

[Andy_2341]

Who's complaining about not enough RAM?

I can see people complaining that the default for a long time was 8 GB RAM, but mostly because Apple charges a lot for RAM upgrades compared with normal RAM prices, so if you wanted/needed more it added a lot to the cost - probably a lot more than it should have. Plus, of course, Apple Silicon is not able to add RAM upgrades - you get what you buy at first. But I know I have a 9 year old Mac that I use occasionally that has 8 GB RAM and it's absolutely fine for what I need. If I check memory pressure it's rarely anything but green.

Honestly I think most people are fine with 8 GB RAM (though of course going forward it seems that the default RAM is now 16 GB, finally), and probably will be for a few more years now.

That’s what I meant. The base amount previously being 8gb seemed to upset people, and I didn’t know how that affected the machine long term.

 

[waw74]

I do not understand what RAM has to do with longevity. The chance of hardware failure is independent of how much RAM one has. I suppose one can even make an argument that more RAM increases the chance of failure, since there are more failure points

it's not that the memory will fail, it's about if it will be able to keep up with successive updates of operating systems and apps that require more memory

windows XP in 2001 suggested 128 MB of ram (minimum was 64mb). So 23 years later, you need 64 times the recommended, (128x minimum) to even reach the 8GB that's the minimum acceptable today.

windows 8 in 2012 (so about half way between 2001 and now) it had jumped to 1GB/2GB minimum for 32/64 bit, recommended 4GB. A 32 times jump in 11 years for the recommended.

going backwards windows 95 recommended 8MB.

so
1995 - 8mb
2001 - 128mb (6 years, 16x increase)
2012 - 4GB (11 years, 32x increase)

And for all of those, the GPU had it's own memory, now apple has it share the one bank with the CPU. So the 8 isn't even a full 8 dedicated for the CPU

 

[thebart]

I do not understand what RAM has to do with longevity. The chance of hardware failure is independent of how much RAM one has. I suppose one can even make an argument that more RAM increases the chance of failure, since there are more failure points

Having more RAM extends the usable lifetime of the machine. I had a PC I used for 13 yrs because I could upgrade RAM then SSD then GPU. Still running in the closet via remote desktop when I need to run some Windows stuff

I knew I couldn't get away with 8gb and got 16gb for M1. Already I'm getting memory pressure and swapping and have to shut down apps

Everything needs more RAM over time. Even if your workflow remains exactly the same. Now throw AI into the mix

Of course if you're just going to buy another machine in a couple years, then do whatever

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

OP, it's fairly simple:

1. Silicon Macs can't have any RAM upgrades. So,
2. Buyers have to try to anticipate how much RAM they will EVER need, not just how much they roughly know they need now.
3. No one really knows the answer to the "ever" question with 100% confidence, as Macs are usually good for upwards of 7 years and anything can happen in any 7-year span of time to anyone.
4. Meanwhile, Apple is the LONE "store" for Silicon RAM (and SSD) and they flex that "no competition" muscle in charging 3X-5X market rates over comparable RAM (and SSD).
5. Consumers are generally wanting to spend as little as they must, so not being able to anticipate hardware needs makes it difficult to choose. Wallet/budget wants "cheaper". Unknown future evolutionary needs want "more." There's no way to reconcile the two with complete confidence. So,
6. These variables create buying angst. We want to get it right because- if we don't- we can't fix it later with upgrades: it's essentially throw out the entire Mac and replace it with another entire Mac.
7. One more (fear) factor is called "SWAP", which is when a Mac runs out of free RAM and "borrows" a kind of virtual RAM by using the SSD like it is some extra RAM. This works... basically allowing too little RAM to be covered by SSD used as SWAP. HOWEVER, we all know that too many WRITES to an SSD is what wears them out. And when this internal SSD conks, the Mac is dead and has to be replaced. When one relies on SWAP to cover the RAM gap too often, we know that we are wearing out the SSD faster. This variable creates additional buyer angst.
8. Lastly, how much RAM is needed for core macOS use is not absolute either. Up until recently (up until Apple embraced 16GB as base), fans passionately argued that 8GB was enough for nearly everyone (and how convenient since that was exactly what Apple was pushing too by clinging to 8GB RAM). Of course, you see very little on that topic now, including any ripping into Apple for "forcing too much RAM" into every Mac sold today. Instead, now that Apple has shifted, so shifts fan opinion (as it always does). What's driving the shift? Most believe Apple embracing A.I. means that 8GB is NOT enough for 2025 and next few years as A.I. stuff in macOS keeps piling up and needs LOTS of RAM to function well.
9. Nobody outside of Apple knows how much RAM is needed by future versions of macOS, so we again must best guess, fueling more angst in trying to determine how much RAM we will need for macOS out in 2028-30 or later (however long we think we will want to use the Mac we purchase today).

Pull all this together and best plan is to try to anticipate your RAM needs for the LAST year you will own the Mac about to be purchased. And then configure to THAT need. For many, that means buying a Mac to use in about 2032 instead one that is "enough" in 2024-25... UNLESS, you are fine with regularly replacing "whole" Macs like we already regularly replace "whole" iPhones. Get this wrong now and that will be the fan advice: "just buy a new Mac."

For many, when they configure their new Mac with their best guess at covering all of the above, the fat Apple premium on RAM & SSD is very frustrating... especially if you have experience with past Macs offering the ability to buy "base specs" and then upgrading with third party RAM & storage at highly competitive prices instead of the fat Apple premium that helps drive "another record quarter" every quarter. So again, #5 steps in and we start trying to rationalize LESS RAM & SSD because we don't want to pay too much (when we can't even be sure about our computing needs out in those last years we'll use this Mac). Fru$$$$$$$tration!

To the Windows question
Boyd01 summarized it pretty well. ARM Windows emulation is not full Windows. If you need complete reliability, don't assume emulation will do the trick. If you barely need Windows and all you need of it is well known to work fine on ARM Windows PCs, you would probably be fine with emulation. However- and again during life of device, not just immediate needs- if you don't know about Windows app needs well into the future, the better plan is either to keep an old Intel Mac on which you can do your "full" Windows stuff via Bootcamp OR- do as I did- and buy yourself a PC too for "old fashioned bootcamp." There are Mac Mini-like PCs that are pretty loaded and the incredible competition in that world means you can buy a whole lot of PC for a Mac budget... and/or quite a good one for less than Mac budgets.

So, if you need "full" Windows and/or can't anticipate all Windows apps you'll want/need to run in the next 5+ years (and who really can?), you might serve your needs better to put some money towards buying a little PC too.

In my case, I chose a monitor with more than 1 input (so not ASD) and have both my Silicon Mac and a little PC sharing it. No problems (and no worry about) running ANY Windows app on the PC... AND it brings all of the benefits of a mountain of apps that run on Windows but are not available on Mac. For example, the PC world is actually serious about gaming, as evidenced by the abundance of desirable games available there.

IMO (summary advice)
For a Silicon Mac purchase, it is better to overbuy your best guess at RAM & SSD needs- even at Apple "exploitive" prices- than get out there in 2028 or 2030 and discover you "should've" and probably be replacing the entire Mac. Yes, it IS frustrating to compare what "more" RAM/SSD costs in a PC vs. Apple RAM/SSD but that's THE wallet-emptying burden if one wants enough Mac to probably cover all of their needs for life of device. No competition for anything ever benefits buyers: seller always charges much more with zero competitive pressure.

If your best guess at RAM and SSD needs out in the distant future implies you'll be using NORTH of maybe 80% of either or both, buy the next tier up above your best guess. #5 is quick to motivate us to underestimate (and rationalize it) but up to 20% or less "fudge factor" is NOT enough. Else, start saving for your next whole Mac... to likely be purchased sooner than you plan.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[splifingate]

people are always complaining about not enough RAM

The main concern is that--with current AAPL Silicon options--the amount of RAM in any one System is fixed.

If things change (or a Person comes to realize that the RAM choice they chose inhibits their use-case Evolution), there is no option to increase the RAM.

Monitor (and hold) the History of the necessities of your previous environments, and bring this assessment to the table when you choose your options.

 

[TechnoMonk]

I use a M1 Max MBP with 64 GB and I have a base M2 Air with 8GB RAM which is shared as family computer. M2 Air will last long time, I may have to upgrade my M1 Max, coz I could use 256 GB RAM. It just depends on the use. For generic use, it’s mostly FOMO that makes people upgrade often.

 

[teknikal90]

I upgraded from a MacBook Pro with 16gb ram to one with 24gb ram and it makes no practical difference to me.
I suspect 8gb would be fine for 99% of people even today. lots of fomo driven nonsense.
It wasn't long ago that the solution for computers crashing was to close open apps...not throw out your perfectly good computer and replace it with another $2000 machine with more RAM, as if that's going to change your life for the better by any measure.

of course, im talking about consumers. pros obviously need pro tools and have real pro requirements.

 

[noblesoul117]

Hey everyone.
This question is just came to mind. Everywhere I read about Macs vs Windows says that Macs last forever. Yet at the same time, people are always complaining about not enough RAM. So is the RAM really that big of a problem? Are these people just average joes that don’t do enough to generally push base spec ram? It’s usually 2012-2016 Macs that they talk about still running just fine and speedy after all this time.

I've used Apple computers since 2005. I always aim to have a higher amount of RAM, rather than lower. My first PowerBook G4 maxed out at 2GB and that's what I had in it.

I got the M1 iMac in 2021 and maxed it out with 16GB when buying it.

Then I got the 2023 M3 MacBook Air for mobile usage and maxed it out at 24GB, the most RAM I've ever had in a Mac.

For my personal usage (tons of browser tabs, writing, sometimes video editing and photo editing) 24GB is just at the level of 'comfortable'. On my iMac, 16GB is sometimes too little for me, and it can get a bit annoying. A few browser tabs with heavy web applications + other research browser tabs can hog most of the RAM. Just running Safari and 1-3 other things.

Apple ditching 8GB was LONG overdue. Yeah, they had their typical Apple excuse about how optimized the OS is etc etc, and for very light average users 8GB was fine, but I certainly couldn't survive on 8GB.

As the OS grows over time, the amount of RAM it uses increases. OS X 10.4 apparently ran comfortably inside a minimum 1GB of RAM, yet (ignoring processor differences etc) macOS 10.14 wouldn't function at all on 1GB.

Same for applications, which become more advanced and use more RAM as they evolve over time.

I never consciously viewed RAM in terms of longevity, but that's certainly a useful angle. Even if both my iMac and MBA can get the new macOS in 2030, I expect to feel more pain on the iMac. Within the next five years I'd probably hunt down a green M3 iMac with 24GB RAM. (I don't like the new M4 green.)

Going with higher RAM is more important for me than SSD size. I got my MBA with 24GB RAM but only 256GB SSD. Probably should've gotten 512GB. But as someone pointed out in their post with bullet points, the RAM can't be upgraded or remedied later. So if you truly want to use a current Mac in 5-8 years, maxing out the RAM is the way to go.

Just writing this much about my RAM experiences makes me wish I could get 32-64GB in my iMac or MBA. I still push up against 24GB regularly. I'd love to live a life where I've got tons of extra RAM leftover and my computer never bogs down, instead of living on the edge. (Yes, the MacBook Pro exists, but I prefer the slimmer MBA.)

Another way to look at Mac RAM options, especially amongst the iMac, MBA, and Mini with lower capacities: the max RAM it comes with is the "longevity tier" of RAM. To use those computers comfortably for up to ten years from purchase requires their max RAM option.

 

[theorist9]

Hey everyone.
This question is just came to mind. Everywhere I read about Macs vs Windows says that Macs last forever. Yet at the same time, people are always complaining about not enough RAM. So is the RAM really that big of a problem? Are these people just average joes that don’t do enough to generally push base spec ram? It’s usually 2012-2016 Macs that they talk about still running just fine and speedy after all this time.

I don't see a Mac among your extensive list of Apple gear. But if you did own a Mac, you could determine if Apple thinks you are under-spec'd in RAM by identifying your most RAM-demanding usage(s), replicating those, and seeing whether your memory pressure in Activity Monitor remains green.

The wrinkle in this is that you can be swapping to disk and still be in the green zone. Disk swapping by itself is fine and routine, unless it gets to the point of reducing your device's responsiveness. What I don't know is how Apple's memory pressure algorithm works.

For instance, it's possible Apple allows some reduction in responsiveness before it changes from green to whatever the next color is (yellow?). However, I don't know whether that's that case and, if it is, how much reduction in responsiveness Apple's algorithm allows before you move out of green. It would be nice if someone tested that!

 

[TechnoMonk]

I don't see a Mac among your extensive list of Apple gear. But if you did own a Mac, you could determine if Apple thinks you are under-spec'd in RAM by identifying your most RAM-demanding usage(s), replicating those, and seeing whether your memory pressure in Activity Monitor remains green.

The wrinkle in this is that you can be swapping to disk and still be in the green zone. Disk swapping by itself is fine and routine, unless it gets to the point of reducing your device's responsiveness. What I don't know is how Apple's memory pressure algorithm works.

For instance, it's possible Apple allows some reduction in responsiveness before it changes from green to whatever the next color is (yellow?). However, I don't know whether that's that case and, if it is, how much reduction in responsiveness Apple's algorithm allows before you move out of green. It would be nice if someone tested that!

I have an M1 Max 64 GB, for some of my runs, it goes up to 170 GB RAM/Swap. What I usually see is it empties cache if higher wired memory is needed, and starts actively swapping. Assuming there is enough space is on SSD, it can swap around 10 GB before going to yellow. I had snapshots some where I took last year.

 

[theorist9]

I have an M1 Max 64 GB, for some of my runs, it goes up to 170 GB RAM/Swap.

It sounds like your M1 has the same 100 GB max swap as my 2019 Intel iMac (64 + 100 = 164 ≈ 170). Here's a screenshot when it's right at the limit (128 GB DRAM + 100 GB swap = 228 GB total). There's probably a way to increase max swap if needed.

Assuming there is enough space is on SSD, it can swap around 10 GB before going to yellow.

Have you noticed a reduction in responsiveness prior to going yellow? I suppose I could check that myself....

I think it's more a matter of what it's swapping than how much. A lot of swap is just moving inactive files from the DRAM to the SSD, and that's not going to affect performance (unless there's a delay while it makes the room). So I think one wants to look at cases where it's swapping files in active use. I'm curious whether the memory pressure algorithm distinguishes between the former and the latter. If it's properly designed, it should.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

I do not understand what RAM has to do with longevity. The chance of hardware failure is independent of how much RAM one has. I suppose one can even make an argument that more RAM increases the chance of failure, since there are more failure points

I think people mainly are talking about their own needs when it comes to RAM. Low amounts may cause them to upgrade sooner.
But you do make a good point, Apple so far has never differentiated software update longevity by the amount of RAM a computer has.
When it comes to how long a computer will be supported, RAM doesn’t really matter.
It’s pretty much certain that the M3 MacBook Air with 8 GB of RAM will lose support on the exact same day as the M3 NacBook Air with 24 GB of RAM.

 

[Andy_2341]

OP, it's fairly simple:

1. Silicon Macs can't have any RAM upgrades. So,
2. Buyers have to try to anticipate how much RAM they will EVER need, not just how much they roughly know they need now.
3. No one really knows the answer to the "ever" question with 100% confidence, as Macs are usually good for upwards of 7 years and anything can happen in any 7-year span of time to anyone.
4. Meanwhile, Apple is the LONE "store" for Silicon RAM (and SSD) and they flex that "no competition" muscle in charging 3X-5X market rates over comparable RAM (and SSD).
5. Consumers are generally always wanting to spend as little as they must, so not being able to anticipate hardware needs makes it difficult to choose. Wallet/budget wants "cheaper". Unknown future evolutionary needs wants "more." There's no way to reconcile the two with complete confidence. So,
6. These variables create buying angst. We want to get it right because- if we don't- we can't fix it later with upgrades: it's essentially throw out the entire Mac and replace it with another entire Mac.
7. One more (fear) factor is called "SWAP", which is when a Mac runs out of free RAM and "borrows" a kind of virtual RAM by using the SSD like it is some extra RAM. This works... basically allowing too little RAM to be covered by SSD used as SWAP. HOWEVER, we all know that too many WRITES to an SSD is what wears them out. And when this internal SSD conks, the Mac is dead and has to be replaced. When one relies on SWAP to cover the RAM gap too often, we know that we are potentially wearing out the SSD faster. This variable creates additional buyer angst.
8. Lastly, how much RAM is needed for core macOS use is not absolute either. Up until recently (up until Apple embraced 16GB as base), fans passionately argued that 8GB was enough for nearly everyone (and how convenient since that was exactly what Apple was pushing too by clinging to 8GB RAM). Of course, you see very little on that topic now, including any ripping into Apple for "forcing too much RAM" into every Mac sold today. Instead, now that Apple has shifted, so shifts fan opinion (as it always does). What's driving the shift? Most believe Apple embracing A.I. means that 8GB is NOT enough for 2025 and next few years as A.I. stuff in macOS keeps piling up and needs LOTS of RAM to function well.
9. Nobody outside of Apple knows how much RAM is needed by future versions of macOS, so we again must best guess, fueling more angst in trying to determine how much RAM we will need for macOS out in 2028-30 or later (however long we think we will want to use the Mac we purchase today).

Pull all this together and best plan is to try to anticipate your RAM needs for the LAST year you will own the Mac about to be purchased. And then configure to THAT need. For many, that means buying a Mac to use in about 2032 instead one that is "enough" in 2024-25... UNLESS, you are fine with regularly replacing "whole" Macs like we already regularly replace "whole" iPhones. Get this wrong now and that will be the fan advice: "just buy a new Mac."

For many, when they configure their new Mac with their best guess at covering all of the above, the fat Apple premium on RAM & SSD is very frustrating... especially if you have experience with past Macs offering the ability to buy "base specs" and then upgrading with third party RAM & storage at highly competitive prices instead of the fat Apple premium that helps drive "another record quarter" every quarter. So again, #5 steps in and we start trying to rationalize LESS RAM & SSD because we don't want to pay too much (when we can't even be sure about our computing needs out in those last years we'll use this Mac). Fru$$$$$$$tration!

To the Windows question
Boyd01 summarized it pretty well. ARM Windows emulation is not full Windows. If you need complete reliability, don't assume emulation will do the trick. If you barely need Windows and all you need of it is well known to work fine on ARM Windows PCs, you would probably be fine with emulation. However- and again during life of device, not just immediate needs- if you don't know about Windows app needs well into the future, the better plan is either to keep an old Intel Mac on which you can do your "full" Windows stuff via Bootcamp OR- do as I did- and buy yourself a PC too for "old fashioned bootcamp." There are Mac Mini-like PCs that are pretty loaded and the incredible competition in that world means you can buy a whole lot of PC for a Mac budget... and/or quite a good one for less than Mac budgets.

So, if you need "full" Windows and/or can't anticipate all Windows apps you'll want/need to run in the next 5+ years (and who really can?), you might serve your needs better to put some money towards buying a little PC too.

In my case, I chose a monitor with more than 1 input (so not ASD) and have both my Silicon Mac and a little PC sharing it. No problems (and no worry about) running ANY Windows app on the PC... AND it brings all of the benefits of a mountain of apps that run on Windows but are not available on Mac. For example, the PC world is actually serious about gaming, as evidenced by the abundance of desirable games available there.

IMO (summary advice)
For a Silicon Mac purchase, it is better to overbuy your best guess at RAM & SSD needs- even at Apple "exploitive" prices- than get out there in 2028 or 2030 and discover you "should have" and probably be replacing the entire Mac. Yes, it IS frustrating to compare what "more" RAM/SSD costs in a PC vs. Apple RAM/SSD but that's the burden if one wants enough Mac to probably cover all of their needs for life of device. No competition for RAM/SSD never benefits buyers. Seller always charges much more with no competitive pressure.

If your best guess at RAM and SSD needs out in the distant future implies you'll be using NORTH of maybe 80% of either or both, buy the next tier up from your best guess. #5 is quick to motivate us to underestimate but up to 20% or less "fudge factor" is not enough. Else, start saving for your next whole Mac to be purchased sooner than you plan.

I hope this is helpful.

That was helpful, thank you for the very informative reply.

 

[Andy_2341]

Thank you everyone for sharing your experiences. I'm left with two options it seems. Drop the extra 200 and go for 24GB of RAM in the Mini which should be fine for me till it isn't supported considering what I'm doing. Or take the base spec and trade it in should I run into problems. I'm leaning towards the second one since this will be my 1st Mac and I'm learning if I even like the OS.

 

[heretiq]

Okay. Thank you for your reply. Why can’t you run Windows on a AS Mac? I was kinda hoping to do that.

I’ll tackle your original question as well as the Windows question: RAM is the key to both — the more RAM (and storage) your Mac has the less day to day issues and the greater longevity you will experience. In my case I bought a 32 GB RAM, 1 TB storage, 10 core CPU/32 core GPI M1 Max MacBook Pro on launch day and have been thrilled with it. I use it to run a fairly demanding Windows based discrete Event Simulation app using Parallels.

The windows app includes CAD plus high fidelity animation and data visualization functionality .. and even running through Parallels the app can simulate 3 years of a complex six team call center (50,000+ transactions per year, 60+ team members, three shifts, 12 different multi-step/multi-resource processes, accelerated time dynamic process statistics) in 30 minutes.

This machine has been a joy and only after 3 generations am I tempted to consider a new Mac — not because the M1 Max MacBook Pro is slowing down, but only because I would prefer something lighter and thinner with comparable power.

I chalk this experience up to (1) 32 GB RAM, then (2) 10 CPU / 32 core GPU SOC in that order because Parallels cannot fully utilize the M1 Max GPU with this Windows app. So, get as much RAM as you can afford and you’ll not only enjoy your Mac for years, while also avoiding a lot of perplexing and sometimes inexplicable issues that crop up due to resources constraints.

 

[hobowankenobi]

Having more RAM extends the usable lifetime of the machine. I had a PC I used for 13 yrs because I could upgrade RAM then SSD then GPU. Still running in the closet via remote desktop when I need to run some Windows stuff

I knew I couldn't get away with 8gb and got 16gb for M1. Already I'm getting memory pressure and swapping and have to shut down apps

Everything needs more RAM over time. Even if your workflow remains exactly the same. Now throw AI into the mix

Of course if you're just going to buy another machine in a couple years, then do whatever

This was true nearly all of the time, for decades. Since Apple has changed to AS, I don't see this constant resoruce creep like we did 10 years ago for general computing needs. The one thing that might change that is integrated AI.

I support thousands of Macs at work, and I can honestly say that the M1 Imacs (first gen models) with 16GB of RAM are still doing great, with zero complaints about RAM issues. Nobody knows what the future holds, and RAM requirements may take off and climb again in the future...but we have been in a bit of a resource plateau for a few years now.

 

[ForkHandles]

Hey everyone.
This question is just came to mind. Everywhere I read about Macs vs Windows says that Macs last forever. Yet at the same time, people are always complaining about not enough RAM. So is the RAM really that big of a problem? Are these people just average joes that don’t do enough to generally push base spec ram? It’s usually 2012-2016 Macs that they talk about still running just fine and speedy after all this time.

The only thing you can configure in a Mac these days is Ram, hence it divides opinion. Some saying you must have more, others not so much.

I’ve had a Mac last ten years and only upgraded cause I fancied a change, home computing only. So it can happen.

My 8gb M1 eats up everything I give it and asks for more. Renders 4K quickly, compiles code snappily, edits images smoothly. However plenty on this forum will looks at the computer processing stats and scream…. MORE.

 

[throAU]

Hey everyone.
This question is just came to mind. Everywhere I read about Macs vs Windows says that Macs last forever. Yet at the same time, people are always complaining about not enough RAM. So is the RAM really that big of a problem? Are these people just average joes that don’t do enough to generally push base spec ram? It’s usually 2012-2016 Macs that they talk about still running just fine and speedy after all this time.

MacOS is pretty good on RAM, but it isn't a silver bullet. If you went baseline spec on a Mac in 2012, it will HURT today.

If you went for something more sensible like 16 GB on a 2012-2016 machine, you're probably still OK.

Don't confuse general machine longevity with longevity of baseline spec. A machine from 2012 with 4GB of RAM is going to be crap today. It will still work, but it will be crap.

One thing to consider with apple silicon Macs:

Whilst unified memory helps performance due to the reduction on copying things around to different pools of memory - you only have one pool of memory. You GPU needs to work out of the same memory as the CPU. Whereas a 16 GB machine may have had 2-4 GB of dedicated GPU memory before, this is no longer the case. So you may need a little more RAM than you would if you had a dedicated GPU.