Why is 16GB on Big Sur like 8GB on Windows 10 or 4GB on Linux?

[mi7chy]

How to debloat Big Sur so it uses less memory? Each OS clean booted and running the same five browser tabs (MR, Reddit, Spotify and two PDFs).

Update: Found a MacOS debloat guide.
https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/1217727ca57de2dd2a372afdd7a0fc21

Big Sur 11.3.1

Windows 10

Linux

 

[thedocbwarren]

Application cache is why. macOS will cache and manage memory aggressively.

 

[leman]

I don't understand what's the problem. Are you running out of memory? Are you experiencing performance issues? Are you trying to debug a particular application? RAM usage figures in isolation are completely meaningless. MacOS has long operated under the principle of "unused RAM is wasted RAM".

 

[bsamcash]

It’s using the RAM like it’s supposed to.

 

[JMacHack]

Hot take: RAM usage is no problem unless the machine is being slow.

 

[robco74]

This is why, on macOS, you see graph for Memory Pressure. In your screenshot, it's quite low. Nothing to worry about.

 

[deeddawg]

How to debloat Big Sur so it uses less memory? Each OS clean booted and running the same five browser tabs (MR, Reddit, Spotify and two PDFs).

What exactly is your concern?

macOS is aggressive in that it will use as much "free" memory as it can, since unused memory doesn't do anyone any good.

Unless you've loaded the systems (perhaps to the point to where you're starting to see performance impacts), I don't think you can do any meaningful numeric comparisons across different operating systems. In other words - given what you've got running the numbers are meaningless.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Application cache is why. macOS will cache and manage memory aggressively.

Amen to that. It's something we're teaching our CS students in the third semester, when for the first time they'll have to write their own small and very basic operating system.

You can repeat it to the gaming crowd as often as you want, it's like talking to a wall. If you have enough memory, then fill it up as much as possible.

 

[mi7chy]

Application cache is why. macOS will cache and manage memory aggressively.

6.93GB+4.70GB seems excessive though. Can understand the 4.70GB cache memory getting freed up for apps in theory although I've seen it use up nearly all 16GB RAM and not free up cache but go straight to using swap. Aside from cache, 6.93GB OS/app usage seems excessive when Windows 10 uses half and Linux less than a third.

 

[leman]

6.93GB+4.70GB seems excessive though. Can understand the 4.70GB cache memory getting freed up for apps in theory although I've seen it use up nearly all 16GB RAM and not free up cache but go straight to using swap. Aside from cache, 6.93GB OS/app usage seems excessive when Windows 10 uses half and Linux less than a third.

Look, it’s clear that you don’t have much of an opinion of macOS or Apple hardware. All you do on these forums is trying to find reasons - no matter how ridiculous or remote from reality - to argue why they suck. Why do you even bother? Just get rid of your Mac and use your Ryzen Linux system instead, it’s clear that it makes you so much happier.

 

[mi7chy]

Look, it’s clear that you don’t have much of an opinion of macOS or Apple hardware. All you do on these forums is trying to find reasons - no matter how ridiculous or remote from reality - to argue why they suck. Why do you even bother? Just get rid of your Mac and use your Ryzen Linux system instead, it’s clear that it makes you so much happier.

Feel free not to participate if it's above your level or you don't like the truth. Several people were claiming 8GB on M1 is equal to 16GB on other architectures. Were you one of them?

 

[robco74]

6.93GB+4.70GB seems excessive though. Can understand the 4.70GB cache memory getting freed up for apps in theory although I've seen it use up nearly all 16GB RAM and not free up cache but go straight to using swap. Aside from cache, 6.93GB OS/app usage seems excessive when Windows 10 uses half and Linux less than a third.

Does the system slow down? Is memory available when you need it? If so, stop obsessively watching Activity Monitor and use the system. I can guarantee you that the engineers at Apple know what they're doing, likely better than you or I do. There are several deep dives on the internets that will explain how Apple's OSes handle memory very efficiently.

I get it, the M1 has been receiving a ton of praise, even from people who typically don't like Macs. So there is an obsession by some to find some sort of weakness, no matter how small. If you are unhappy with M1, Apple still sells Intel Macs. If you are unhappy with macOS, you can likely use another OS with another platform. About the only lock-in on macOS is if you really need to use FCP or Logic, just about every other app is available elsewhere.

 

[DiCaprioAngel]

In all the years I’ve owned Mac I never had slow down issues with ram. Ask me about a damned windows computer and I could write a whole book how how that operating system sucks. Always slows down to barely usable where I want to just kick the hell out of my work computer. Which is why for my personal one I will never go for windows. It’s Apple all the way because they are reliable.

that aside, there’s nothing wrong with your ram usage. As long as you’re not experiencing slow down issues you shouldn’t obsess over it. I wish the windows computers I’ve used in my lifetime and at work were as fast as even my old late 2013 MacBook Pro because that computer never slowed down no matter what application I used. Especially gaming. Ram smooth like butter. Any windows computer - even with sufficient ram - would run like molasses. Horrible and unusable. This is why I made my choice for sticking with Mac. You seem to favor windows. So stay with them if they make you happy. No sense in buying a product you clearly don’t like

 

[JMacHack]

Also I’d like to point out that the Linux distro in this example is Mint. A distro known for its light footprint. It’s a great distro to be sure, but Linux may vary wildly on resource requirements by distro or packages installed. (I’d like to see gnome 3 on 4gigs of ram, ouch)

 

[leons]

Don't feed the trolls!

 

[dogslobber]

Also I’d like to point out that the Linux distro in this example is Mint. A distro known for its light footprint. It’s a great distro to be sure, but Linux may vary wildly on resource requirements by distro or packages installed. (I’d like to see gnome 3 on 4gigs of ram, ouch)

But that's not the point. The point is Mint is extremely memory efficient.

 

[dogslobber]

The wider issue is that macOS is one big bloat fest. Gone are the days you could run OS X on 4GB with a spinner (Mavericks) and nowadays the last 4GB release was Mojave. The Big in Big Sur means more than just a name.

 

[JMacHack]

But that's not the point. The point is Mint is extremely memory efficient.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. Mint is super efficient.

 

[Runs For Fun]

Several people were claiming 8GB on M1 is equal to 16GB on other architectures.

Anyone claiming this has been severely mislead. While some people are still spreading this misinformation they are absolutely wrong and anyone who actually knows the technical stuff will say the same.

 

[robco74]

The wider issue is that macOS is one big bloat fest. Gone are the days you could run OS X on 4GB with a spinner (Mavericks) and nowadays the last 4GB release was Mojave. The Big in Big Sur means more than just a name.

It runs on the MBA and MBP from 2013, which came with 4GB of RAM standard. The compatibility list is here, scroll to the bottom of the page. Do some research ffs.

Linux is going to vary widely depending on the distro. There are also several apps that aren't available on Linux. It's not a viable option for many desktop users.

Windows 10 will also run with 4GB, but it won't be an optimal experience.

In any case, leaving RAM unused serves no useful purpose. If memory is available, why not use it? As long as the system performs well, it's not really an issue.

 

[mi7chy]

Also I’d like to point out that the Linux distro in this example is Mint. A distro known for its light footprint.

Linux Mint is average. It depends on the desktop environment and in this case it's Cinnamon which is average while Xfce flavor of Linux Mint is lighter. Linux Mint ran fine on 4GB but there are even lighter distros that run on 2GB RAM.

Anyhow, found a debloating guide for Big Sur.

https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/1217727ca57de2dd2a372afdd7a0fc21

 

[JMacHack]

Linux Mint is average. It depends on the desktop environment and in this case it's Cinnamon which is average while Xfce flavor of Linux Mint is lighter. Linux Mint ran fine on 4GB but there are even lighter distros that run on 2GB RAM.

Anyhow, found a debloating guide for Big Sur.

https://gist.github.com/pwnsdx/1217727ca57de2dd2a372afdd7a0fc21

I was under the impression that Mint was one of the lightest, but it’s been awhile since I’ve talked about different distros with my buddies.

 

[mi7chy]

There are also several apps that aren't available on Linux. It's not a viable option for many desktop users.

You might want to update your info. Linux is now a strong alternative to running Windows software. For example, nearly any Windows AAA game can be run on Linux with equivalent frame rate so much further ahead than MacOS+Rosetta2.

https://www.protondb.com/

For example, Cyberpunk can't be played with Rosetta 2 but can on Linux.

https://applesilicongames.com/games/Pw3rM1T5usvD54uUYPCtWk/cyberpunk-2077

 

[bousozoku]

Feel free not to participate if it's above your level or you don't like the truth. Several people were claiming 8GB on M1 is equal to 16GB on other architectures. Were you one of them?

Is your Mac performing poorly?

 

[robco74]

You might want to update your info. Linux is now a strong alternative to running Windows software. For example, nearly any Windows AAA game can be run on Linux with equivalent frame rate so much further ahead than MacOS+Rosetta2.

https://www.protondb.com/

For example, Cyberpunk can't be played with Rosetta 2 but can on Linux.

https://applesilicongames.com/games/Pw3rM1T5usvD54uUYPCtWk/cyberpunk-2077

I wasn't talking about gaming. If that's your primary use case, a PC is a far better choice. Unless you need Linux to run other apps, or use it for ideological reasons, gaming on Windows has much less friction. Back when I played more games, I had a separate Windows box. Now, I have an Xbox that gets occasional use and the strategy games I do play run fine on the Mac so I'm good.

A lot of users want to run software from Adobe, Serif Labs, Microsoft, etc. that aren't available on Linux. Many of these titles also run under Windows, so in many cases it comes down to personal preference. Among developers, it usually depends on the type of application and where it's deployed.

In any case, I have nothing against Windows or Linux. I've been using Macs for decades now. It's what I'm used to and what I prefer. Even back when Macs really were less powerful than comparable PCs, I stuck with them anyway. For me it's about the whole widget rather than specs.