Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
People are acting like Macs with 8 gigs of RAM are gonna suddenly shrivel and die. Apple Intelligence needs about 4 gigs of RAM to run. That still leaves room for the OS and some open apps. Now does that mean some stuff might get offloaded to the SSD temporarily? Sure. But all Apple Silicon Macs have fast SSDs so that really shouldn’t be an issue.

We’ll see, I’ve got an 8 gigs M2 Air, an M1 Max Studio, and an M4 iPad Pro. I fully plan on testing out various intelligence features on all of them and I expect as with most things the Air will probably perform nearly as fast as the Studio if I don’t have tons of apps open.

8 gigs of RAM on Apple Silicon has been perfectly fine for the last several years for every day use. If ran creative/pro apps on the Air I’d have beefed it out but as of right now the money I saved seems to have been well saved as it never feels notably slower than my Mac Studio for tasks like web browsing, email, word processing etc.
Saying "8 gigs of RAM on Apple Silicon has been perfectly fine for the last several years for every day use" is a largely meaningless statement, since Mac RAM was at 128k 40 years ago and RAM demands have increased steadily ever since. That said, you are correct that the Mac OS will force reasonable single-simple-app operation under less than optimal RAM.

You are also probably correct that for "...most [simple] things the Air will probably perform nearly as fast as the Studio if I don’t have tons of apps open." [emphases mine] Many of us find having many apps open and instantly bouncing among them is essential to a modern workflow. Each of us decides how instantly things need to be based on our own creative workflow needs and constrained by finances.

We buy pricey Macs to compute with, and RAM is and always has been an essential part of how optimally any given Mac can compute. Personally I believe in investing in enough RAM when building any new box to ensure the expensive new computer can compute optimally for its life cycle without performing sub-optimally by routinely paging out to SSD.

That said, if one's usage is to sit on the couch and surf the web, an $800 8GB MBA will continue to suffice. Best probably w/o too many open tabs.
 
Got myself an M2 Ultra Studio with 128GB RAM and 8TB of storage last summer. The objective was to get something that wouldn't need upgrading for a very very long time. I cannot imagine ever needing more than this which has also been great in eliminating FOMO.
 
Last edited:
Apple could already give us OLED MBPs if they wanted to. Making us wait until at least 2026 for OLED is BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: delsoul
Apple could already give us OLED MBPs if they wanted to. Making us wait until at least 2026 for OLED is BS.

There are still concerns about color accuracy of OLED versus IPS. Also, how many high quality 14 and 16" OLED screens are there that reach 600 nits SDR brightness, 1000 nits full-screen XDR, and 1600 nits peak HDR? This is a serious question. Go look at laptops with OLEDs and see if any do all that (resolution, color accuracy, and brightness).

The iPad Pro with OLED screen hits that, but it's a maximum of 13". Until OLEDs can be mass produced to Apple’s standards at the sizes and resolutions required, it’s not possible to put them in laptops with larger screens without accepting compromises in quality.

OLED also has the potential for uneven wear over time (that can happen with all LED, but OLED appears to be more affected). This might happen outside the realistic lifespan of the computer, but OLED can age more quickly in direct sunlight or in the context of higher heat than LED will. Again, the effects might take longer than many people will use a device, but while it's simple to slap an OLED in a computer, it requires much more effort to put in something that matches the quality and durability of the LED screens Apple currently uses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tenthousandthings
All my Macs have M-series processors, so I have no need to upgrade at this time. What I really want is a surprise announcement of a micro-iPad/HomePod mini fusion device for my kitchen—so that I can ditch my Echo Show for good without tying up an iPad to do so.
 
While I don't plan on upgrading my MacBook Pro (M1 Pro), the AC+ coverage ends next Tuesday. Can't wait to see the new Mac mini if any design change.
You can always extend your AC+ for 30 days (I think) following its expiration. Mine is now on an annual auto-renewing AC+ plan.
 
since Mac RAM was at 128k 40 years ago
And even then, it was not enough.

Funny story, the Mac that our lord and savior Jobs used for the launch was indeed a “fake” Mac, since it had way more ram than the 128k they offered, because the software used in the demo, wouldn’t be able ti run on the 128k.

Meanwhile, its monday 11 am, wheres the first announcement??
 
Last edited:
And even then, it was not enough.

Funny story, the Mac that our lord and savior Jobs used for the launch was indeed a “fake” Mac, since it had way more ram than the 128k they offered, because the software used in the demo, wouldn’t be able ti run on the 128k.

Meanwhile, its monday 11 am, wheres the first announcement??
That's wild cause back in 1984 I was working for NCR Corp and our Dual Monolith computer systems running the backend of supermarket chains had a whopping 16K of RAM and they used four 4K memory boards and the 10MB disk drives, with a 5MB removable platter made by CDC (not the government health agency) where inside these 6 foot towers. How technology has advanced over the years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eldho
And even then, it was not enough.

Funny story, the Mac that our lord and savior Jobs used for the launch was indeed a “fake” Mac, since it had way more ram than the 128k they offered, because the software used in the demo, wouldn’t be able ti run on the 128k.

Meanwhile, its monday 11 am, wheres the first announcement??
Yeah, it was a 512k that was officially released in October..
 
  • Like
Reactions: neomorpheus
That's wild cause back in 1984 I was working for NCR Corp and our Dual Monolith computer systems running the backend of supermarket chains had a whopping 16K of RAM and they used four 4K memory boards and the 10MB disk drives, with a 5MB removable platter made by CDC (not the government health agency) where inside these 6 foot towers. How technology has advanced over the years.
Indeed!

Its crazy how far we have made it.

hqdefault.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allen_Wentz
That's wild cause back in 1984 I was working for NCR Corp and our Dual Monolith computer systems running the backend of supermarket chains had a whopping 16K of RAM and they used four 4K memory boards and the 10MB disk drives, with a 5MB removable platter made by CDC (not the government health agency) where inside these 6 foot towers. How technology has advanced over the years.
I remember back in 1984 a 20 MB Seagate ST-225 hard drive for US$500 was considered a great deal. Now, I can get a 4 terabyte hard drive for under US$100.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neomorpheus
I remember back in 1984 a 20 MB Seagate ST-225 hard drive for US$500 was considered a great deal. Now, I can get a 4 terabyte hard drive for under US$100.
If you buy used data center drives (great in RAID with backup), you can get 12 TB drives for about $75.

Also, $500 in 1984 is about $1500 today. That means we can buy 600,000 times the storage space for 1/20th the cost 40 years later.
 
If you buy used data center drives (great in RAID with backup), you can get 12 TB drives for about $75.

Also, $500 in 1984 is about $1500 today. That means we can buy 600,000 times the storage space for 1/20th the cost 40 years later.
Just make sure you are getting the proper connection. Data center drives can be SAS and not SATA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neuropsychguy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.