Why is everybody so obsessed with RAM?

[m1maverick]

What answer exactly do you need?

The answer needed is one which answers the question which was asked. That question was:

What bloatware are you referring to?​

The context being Windows bloatware. What I did not ask for is a list of other issues which people might want to attribute to Windows. Inconsistent UI is not an example of bloatware. Bad updates is not an example of Windows bloatware.

In their zeal to trash Windows people are coming up with all kinds of "examples" which have nothing to do with Windows bloatware. I'm not interested in a discussion about other potential Windows issues as that was not the discussion I was having.

Since no one has been able to provide any examples I have to assume they were speaking out of a position of ignorance. People have spent more time avoiding answering the question. Several have spent more time with snarky comments. How about we act like adults and engage in a civil discussion about the subject in question?

I assume anybody who has extended experience with windows has encountered in at least one point issues with updating going wrong, or bugs in file indexing and how being on low resources cripples the whole system. Notably what I end up doing in every windows computer I have is disabling file indexing to save myself from system.exe (or whatever that was) taking up half my CPU for hours at random times. You fix it and after a few days it starts again. Windows update backups end up taking huge lot of space, and if you are limited in space already you have to choose whether keeping your only failsafe if anything proves wrong, which is much more common that one would like (and also many people have no idea about it in the first place). Windows defender scanning every cloud interaction making working on the cloud really hard again if you are low on resources. One does not have to have a PhD in computer architecture to deduce things from year-long everyday experience with windows. Even before I got a mac, I preferred linux and only had to suffer using windows for work/games/software.

Irrelevant to the question asked.

 

[ArkSingularity]

The answer needed is one which answers the question which was asked. That question was:

What bloatware are you referring to?​

The context being Windows bloatware. What I did not ask for is a list of other issues which people might want to attribute to Windows. Inconsistent UI is not an example of bloatware. Bad updates is not an example of Windows bloatware.

In their zeal to trash Windows people are coming up with all kinds of "examples" which have nothing to do with Windows bloatware. I'm not interested in a discussion about other potential Windows issues as that was not the discussion I was having.

Since no one has been able to provide any examples I have to assume they were speaking out of a position of ignorance. People have spent more time avoiding answering the question. Several have spent more time with snarky comments. How about we act like adults and engage in a civil discussion about the subject in question?


Irrelevant to the question asked.

You're arguing over the definition of words and accusing people of being ignorant when those definitions don't match what you personally expect those definitions to be. You're deliberately misinterpreting people's arguments and then accusing them of being snarky when they respond to them.

This is an Apple fansite. We're here to discuss Apple products, not to argue about what definition of bloatware belongs to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. You are welcome to have your opinions and experiences, and we are welcome to do the same.

 

[m1maverick]

You're arguing over the definition of words and accusing people of being ignorant when those definitions don't match what you personally expect those definitions to be. You're deliberately misinterpreting people's arguments and then accusing them of being snarky when they respond to them.

I've asked for examples, not a definition. But maybe now would be a good time for you to provide your definition of what constitutes bloatware. With that we can then apply it to Windows so that perhaps I can get an answer.

I'll go first. I am using a definition along the lines of:

Definition of bloatware

What does bloatware actually mean? Find out inside PCMag's comprehensive tech and computer-related encyclopedia.

www.pcmag.com

Try as I might I cannot figure out a way to ascribe bad patches to any of those definitions. If you'd like to explain how it does I'm willing to listen.

This is an Apple fansite. We're here to discuss Apple products, not to argue about what definition of bloatware belongs to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. You are welcome to have your opinions and experiences, and we are welcome to do the same.

It is, which is why I am so puzzled at the number of people who trash Windows. Worse a lot of it is incorrect information. Why can't these people just be happy to be using their Macs and leave Windows out of the discussion?

 

[ArkSingularity]

I've asked for examples, not a definition. But maybe now would be a good time for you to provide your definition of what constitutes bloatware. With that we can then apply it to Windows so that perhaps I can get an answer.

I'll go first. I am using a definition along the lines of:

Definition of bloatware

What does bloatware actually mean? Find out inside PCMag's comprehensive tech and computer-related encyclopedia.

www.pcmag.com

Try as I might I cannot figure out a way to ascribe bad patches to any of those definitions. If you'd like to explain how it does I'm willing to listen.



It is, which is why I am so puzzled at the number of people who trash Windows. Worse a lot of it is incorrect information. Why can't these people just be happy to be using their Macs and leave Windows out of the discussion?

We've actually given plenty of examples. Plenty that aren't merely "bad patches" (there are pages of them, and I don't need to re-iterate them here). You've deliberately ignored a large number of posts from actual professionals in the industry, called them unqualified to answer, and have responded yet again with another post disagreeing about the definitions of words (when the point of this discussion was never about the definitions to begin with, people have explained in clear terms exactly what they mean).

At this point, it's devolving into an internet flame war rather than any kind of real discussion. It's pointless in this thread.

 

[m1maverick]

We've actually given plenty of examples.

Where?

Plenty that aren't merely "bad patches" (there are pages of them, and I don't need to re-iterate them here).

Again: Where? The only one that was even remotely close was Candy Crush.

You've deliberately ignored a large number of posts from actual professionals in the industry, called them unqualified to answer, and have responded yet again with another post disagreeing about the definitions of words (when the point of this discussion was never about the definitions to begin with, people have explained in clear terms exactly what they mean).

I am a professional in the industry. Which is why I am qualified to make the statements I have and recognize the BS from others. I call them unqualified because they're making statements which are clearly wrong. I've provided them the opportunity to clarify yet they never do. So, they remain, in this professionals eyes, unqualified.

I've heard this same, tired arguments for decades. Some were true decades ago, some were not. Many are no longer true yet we have people continuing to make the same, tired, worn out, erroneous statements.

As for the definition of words I posted a third party definition which aligns with mine. Yet I see no definition from anyone else (where's yours?)

Why is it so hard for people to answer such a simple question? The answer: They're wrong. People who cannot answer a question and refuse to admit their error tend to avoid it and post snarky response.

At this point, it's devolving into an internet flame war rather than any kind of real discussion. It's pointless in this thread.

So was the trashing of Windows which led us down this path.

 

[ArkSingularity]

So was the trashing of Windows which led us down this path.

If us defending the advantages of Macs (on an Apple fansite) and describing the reasons we left the Windows ecosystem is considered "trashing Windows" - then I'm afraid we are not likely to see eye to eye in this discussion. And that's completely fine. You have a right to your opinion, and we have a right to ours.

I won't engage in this any further, it's not really productive towards the purpose of this thread.

 

[m1maverick]

If us defending the advantages of Macs (on an Apple fansite) and describing the reasons we left the Windows ecosystem is considered "trashing Windows" - then I'm afraid we are not likely to see eye to eye in this discussion. And that's completely fine. You have a right to your opinion, and we have a right to ours.

I won't engage in this any further, it's not really productive towards the purpose of this thread.

In the post I responded to the poster raised Windows up out of the blue. The post the poster responded to made no mention of Windows or was questioning why people aren't using Windows:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/why-is-everybody-so-obsessed-with-ram.2348420/page-19?post=31249940#post-31249940

It was an out of the blue, unnecessary (and, I might add incorrect) criticism of Windows. I'm not here to advocate Windows or convince anyone to switch from their Mac. I am here to discuss Apple products. Yet when I see an incorrect statement I am also going to correct it.

 

[camotwen]

The answer needed is one which answers the question which was asked. That question was:

What bloatware are you referring to?​

The context being Windows bloatware. What I did not ask for is a list of other issues which people might want to attribute to Windows. Inconsistent UI is not an example of bloatware. Bad updates is not an example of Windows bloatware.

In their zeal to trash Windows people are coming up with all kinds of "examples" which have nothing to do with Windows bloatware. I'm not interested in a discussion about other potential Windows issues as that was not the discussion I was having.

Since no one has been able to provide any examples I have to assume they were speaking out of a position of ignorance. People have spent more time avoiding answering the question. Several have spent more time with snarky comments. How about we act like adults and engage in a civil discussion about the subject in question?


Irrelevant to the question asked.

I answered to the comment that lower spec windows have no issues, not about bloatware. Lower spec windows definitely have issues when certain system applications go crazy and this is not uncommon sadly. Also the phenomenon that the other person described, that an older windows computer gets slower, I have also noticed. Could be a lot of things why, purely software or purely hardware ones, I don't know.

In any case, I do not know if these are "bloatware" as they are not things one can or wants to deactivate (though I always end up deactivating the search indexing) but they are definitely built in things that make working on windows much harder and can cripple, short or long term, a lower end windows computer, while one with a higher end one may not even notice.

 

[m1maverick]

I answered to the comment that lower spec windows have no issues, not about bloatware. Lower spec windows definitely have issues when certain system applications go crazy and this is not uncommon sadly. Also the phenomenon that the other person described, that an older windows computer gets slower, I have also noticed. Could be a lot of things why, purely software or purely hardware ones, I don't know.

In any case, I do not know if these are "bloatware" as they are not things one can or wants to deactivate (though I always end up deactivating the search indexing) but they are definitely built in things that make working on windows much harder and can cripple, short or long term, a lower end windows computer, while one with a higher end one may not even notice.

Please see the definitions I provided in this post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/why-is-everybody-so-obsessed-with-ram.2348420/page-22?post=31258817#post-31258817

and compare those definitions with what you provided in your response (or let me know you disagree with those definitions and provide one which aligns with yours). If, after doing so, you feel one or more of the items in the response you gave fit the definition then we can discuss the specifics of those items. I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about things which are outside the scope of my question.

 

[camotwen]

Please see the definitions I provided in this post:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/why-is-everybody-so-obsessed-with-ram.2348420/page-22?post=31258817#post-31258817

and compare those definitions with what you provided in your response (or let me know you disagree with those definitions and provide one which aligns with yours). If, after doing so, you feel one or more of the items in the response you gave fit the definition then we can discuss the specifics of those items. I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about things which are outside the scope of my question.

The question I am interested in is what slows low-end windows computers down, whether these are defined as bloatware or core part of windows or whatever I do not consider an interesting discussion.

 

[fakestrawberryflavor]

With unified memory, you need even more memory. A portion of this ram is used for the frame buffer, UI rendering, if you have multiple monitors, 4 or 5k displays it’s even worse, and I’m not even sure it’s reported in Activity Monitor.

I haven’t had 8 GB of main memory in a system since 2012, so it’s pretty ridiculous to still have it as a baseline in 2022 when you’re expecting to want to keep your machine years. 16gb should be the minimum anyone picks up for any reason. All that being said, 16gb should cost what 8gb does without the very large apple tax markup. I understand nothing is free and every $ counts also.

Some of you guys slam Max Tech a lot but you know he’s right about how people use computers. No one I know, and I mean no one, uses only one program or thing open at a time. We all have dozens of things going on at once, we keep **** open for weeks, in the background, in the foreground, on multiple monitors, and having memory breathing room gives users a far better experience. I’m not saying you need 64GB of ram, but you definitely need more than 8.

 

[m1maverick]

The question I am interested in is what slows low-end windows computers down, whether these are defined as bloatware or core part of windows or whatever I do not consider an interesting discussion.

Thank you for clarifying what you are interested in discussing because that is not what I was discussing.

With that said what slows down a low-end computer? Exceeding its capabilities. I have a PowerMac G5 which, IMO, is painfully slow to browse the Internet. However, in its day it was fast. What changed? Did the hardware? Did the operating system (it's running Leopard, the last version of MacOS it can run)? No, what changed it the Internet. Today's Internet is not like that of 2004 when it was current. It requires a lot more resources.

IME low end computers pretty much start off slow. When people ask me what computer they should buy I steer them away from low end configurations. If they're tight on money then I steer them towards a mid / high tier used system which tend to have better specs.

Apple doesn't make a low-end system. At least not in the same ballpark as low-end PC systems. If you attempt to use older Macintosh systems which have similar specs to a low-end PC you'll tend to find they don't run as fast as they used to.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

I can tell you that I own a macbook air M1 with 8GB of ram and I use it for coding (vscode, remote vnc, pycharm, anaconda..etc), I used it for python data crunching and I also use it for standard basic office stuff and the 8GB while it has been hitting the high side, didn't stop me at all. I especially did not notice any issues opening many browser tabs.

It was only when running large datasets where I bogged up a lot of ram where I felt the memory pressure increase. It wasn't anything that made me go back and return the computer. This also includes being connected to a 4K monitor (as that will take up more of the unified ram).

RAM is like a office desk, you need to be aware of how much office desk size you need so you can put your papers. Too much and you just have a lot of wasted desk space, too little and you will be working cramped. Each user needs to understand their own needs required. I'm fully aware that sometimes but not all the time i have to work very large datasets but that's rare maybe 2% so while I like to have 16Gb, it wasn't urgent and I was just thinking of getting an upgrade on my next M1.

 

[dieselm]

I can tell you that I own a macbook air M1 with 8GB of ram and I use it for coding (vscode, remote vnc, pycharm, anaconda..etc), I used it for python data crunching and I also use it for standard basic office stuff and the 8GB while it has been hitting the high side, didn't stop me at all. I especially did not notice any issues opening many browser tabs.

FWIW, I had the 8GB model for a few weeks and swapped it for the 16GB. The difference is very noticable.
Much smoother overall.

It's just coming from an Intel Mac, the M1 MBA (8GB) will seem so capable and so much faster, it's easy not to realize it can still get quite a bit better.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

FWIW, I had the 8GB model for a few weeks and swapped it for the 16GB. The difference is very noticable.
Much smoother overall.

It's just coming from an Intel Mac, the M1 MBA (8GB) will seem so capable and so much faster, it's easy not to realize it can still get quite a bit better.

I agree completely. Swapped an 8/256 M1 MBA for a 16/512 M1 MBA and it isn't that it is screaming faster. It is just so much, as you said, smoother.

 

[dieselm]

For those worried about the "slow" SSD in the 256GB M2 Macbook Airs and its effect on performance...

You'll see more performance gains across the board by upgrading to 16GB of RAM than going to 512GB of storage.

 

[Dick Whitman]

For those worried about the "slow" SSD in the 256GB M2 Macbook Airs and its effect on performance...

You'll see more performance gains across the board by upgrading to 16GB of RAM than going to 512GB of storage.

This makes me feel better about my 8/8/16/256 build. I thought about canceling and reordering the same build but with 512 but that would mean waiting another week and of course spending more money. The only reason I even considered upgrading to 512 was to avoid any performance impacts vs having more storage space. My previous machine had 256, which was fine for my purposes. Plus, I have no issue with using external storage.

 

[1BadManVan]

This makes me feel better about my 8/8/16/256 build. I thought about canceling and reordering the same build but with 512 but that would mean waiting another week and of course spending more money. The only reason I even considered upgrading to 512 was to avoid any performance impacts vs having more storage space. My previous machine had 256, which was fine for my purposes. Plus, I have no issue with using external storage.

Here is a great video supporting the upgrade of 16 vs the 512 storage. If you had to choose one, this guys shows you why the ram upgrade is the better of the two

 

[Doomtomb]

The type of people that read Macrumors are the type of people that need 16GB+