16 GB of RAM for a Pro device is not okay

[Dirk Pieters]

I’m not saying skimp on ram or storage. But don’t try and anticipate and buy for 5 years out because it’s just spending more for worse experience over the long run.

At no point in time have I thought “my 7yr old mbp feels too slow”

In fact, that’s why I’m tempted to just keep using it until it dies.

Some people buy a new car every few years. Some people drive their car until it dies. There is no right or wrong, different strokes for different folks.

 

[throAU]

Every use case is different. For someone who edits and exports 8k movies you’re probably right.

So what is your use case?

 

[Phineasgage1848]

At no point in time have I thought “my 7yr old mbp feels too slow”

In fact, that’s why I’m tempted to just keep using it until it dies.

Some people buy a new car every few years. Some people drive their car until it dies. There is no right or wrong, different strokes for different folks.

Right. @throAU wants to just argue about why he’s right and you’re wrong to keep or not keep your machine that he thinks you “overspent” on.

 

[Phineasgage1848]

I don’t mean overspending as in over extending yourself.

I mean overspending because you’re clearly running the machine way beyond its intended life because you spent so much on it.

Unless you need max spec at all times - you’ll get a better experience (performance) over the long run from flipping machines that are specced for 3 year service life (ie basically what you need today) rather than trying to spec for 5-10 years and having non upgradable components like CPU /gpu/wifi/bt/port speeds go out of date anyway.


I’m not saying skimp on ram or storage. But don’t try and anticipate and buy for 5 years out because it’s just spending more for worse experience over the long run.

Thats what I mean by over spending.

If you actually need max spec today - buy it. But if that’s the case you’ll probably need or want max spec in a year or two as well and keeping that old machine is still stupid.

In no way does the term “overspending” mean “keeping a machine beyond its lifespan.” 🤣 If someone wants to buy high specs and keep it who cares? Move on man.

 

[Phineasgage1848]

This almost makes me want to get a 16GB MacBook to compare how “compromised” it is/isn’t compared to my 24GB MBP and 128GB Mac Studio. I bet I (wouldn’t) be surprised at just how capable it is.

Agree! I bet in most average user cases you wouldn’t notice!

 

[maflynn]

Agree! I bet in most average user cases you wouldn’t notice!

Head over to the Mini subforum here, and you'll see people saying how the base model Mini is a great buy and the ram/storage is completely adequate for the majority of consumers.

I also consider upsizing to a be a good move, it definitely will add years to your usage - provided you're the type of person who will hold on to a computer for years. For me, I seem to be getting 5 years out of any given computer. My PC before being replaced was close to 5 years. My M1 MBP was about 5 years when it was replaced by the Thinkpad T14s last year.

I opted for the base model M4 Max studio, in part because of the increased ram, some of tasks had pushed ram utilization in the yellow, so I have no regrets in selecting the Studio over the M4 Pro Mini. I got more CPU cores, more GPU cores, more ram and better cooling.

 

[capamac]

Well, again, none of those things would have made me more money.

Every use case is different. For someone who edits and exports 8k movies you’re probably right.

The use case for 8k is essentially nil: https://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

 

[Happy_John]

The use case for 8k is essentially nil: https://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

This came up recently.

The use case for 8K as Compton media is nil, but there’s lots of use cases where there’s good reason in record in 8L, do you have raw footage at a very high result ion, which can be edited an outputted as 4K.

The only display uses for 8K is essentially very big screens with a short viewing distance - eg. A Vision setup like Star Wars and other studios use instead of a green acreen.

 

[throAU]

In no way does the term “overspending” mean “keeping a machine beyond its lifespan.” 🤣 If someone wants to buy high specs and keep it who cares? Move on man.

You do you.

If you want to waste your money on a worse experience, be my guest.

🤷‍♂️

 

[Plutonius]

I really don’t understand how 16 GB of ram is default in the MacBook Pros! I should at least start from 32 GB of ram to be considered a Pro Device for that price.

The "Pro" in the name is just Apple marketing. It doesn't actually mean a pro device.

Apple is just using the name to indicate that it is a step up from the model below it.

Instead of pro, max, and ultra, they could have called it ok, good, better, and best .

 

[m1maverick]

If you want to waste your money on a worse experience, be my guest.

If an older system does everything the user needs it to do how is that a worse experience?

 

[WilliApple]

Aaaaand here we go again...

 

[Allen_Wentz]

even 128gb is not enough if developers are lazy. and as the hardware specs getting better, they become lazier. so believe me, nothing will change. you will complain 64gb as starting package within next 3 years as well. perhaps, eu should be dealing with app developers and software engineers instead of dealing with apple full time.

• EU or any other govt entity specifying tech is terribly limiting to tech innovation. E.g. imagine if some big entity like EU or USA had decided that forced standardizing to 5.25" floppy disks had been a good idea.

• RAM is a good thing, a very good way to compute which is the entire point of buying a computer. Suggesting that the EU should force devs to avoid using one of the best computing tools available is wrong on every level. Again, imagine if the EU or USA had forced devs and hardware designers to stay at 128k or at 512 MB?

Tech evolves. RAM usage increases. It is a good thing, get used to it.

 

[navaira]

EU or any other govt entity specifying tech is terribly limiting to tech innovation.

And yet it is the EU that forced Apple to finally drop Lightning (and Apple complained a lot about how that would stifle innovation) and move to USB-C across the line-up. I like this limit to tech innovation.

 

[throAU]

If an older system does everything the user needs it to do how is that a worse experience?

You can instantly tell the new m series machines are way more responsive than even the older M machines as soon as you log into the desktop. Better screens, better speakers, faster wifi, better bluetooth. Newer battery, better battery life.

So yes.

 

[m1maverick]

You can instantly tell the new m series machines are way more responsive than even the older M machines as soon as you log into the desktop. Better screens, better speakers, faster wifi, better bluetooth. Newer battery, better battery life.

None of this is in dispute. However if a users tasks can't take advantage of these improvements how is the older system providing an inferior experience? Is it your opinion everyone should upgrade to the latest technology upon its release?

 

[Happy_John]

None of this is in dispute. However if a users tasks can't take advantage of these improvements how is the older system providing an inferior experience? Is it your opinion everyone should upgrade to the latest technology upon its release?

That's a ridiculously entitled and wasteful perspective, both in terms of money and the hardware itself.

There is almost no other type of product that people would even think of doing this about. Refrigerators, beds, bicycles, etc.

People can spend their money on whatever they want, that's their business, but I am extremely bothered when people, either "influencers", the company themselves or the supposed "community" pressure people to make unnecessary upgrades in this way.

And don't we already have enough once-expensive ewaste poured into landfills (no, it doesn't all get recycled).

 

[m1maverick]

That's a ridiculously entitled and wasteful perspective, both in terms of money and the hardware itself.

There is almost no other type of product that people would even think of doing this about. Refrigerators, beds, bicycles, etc.

People can spend their money on whatever they want, that's their business, but I am extremely bothered when people, either "influencers", the company themselves or the supposed "community" pressure people to make unnecessary upgrades in this way.

And don't we already have enough once-expensive ewaste poured into landfills (no, it doesn't all get recycled).

I agree with you and I think your response is better suited for @throAU (take note of the question mark at the end of the sentence you highlighted)

 

[Happy_John]

I agree with you and I think your response is better suited for @throAU (take note of the question mark at the end of the sentence you highlighted)

Yes, I know, I wasn't disagreeing with your post, it was a "train of thought" reply to your post.

I also think that, after a point, there's no point in replying to comments if there's a high chance it will end up being a "food fight" for hours. Forums end up entrenching opposing opinions more often than reaching any compromise in those opinions.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

And yet it is the EU that forced Apple to finally drop Lightning (and Apple complained a lot about how that would stifle innovation) and move to USB-C across the line-up. I like this limit to tech innovation.

The fact that you "like this limit to tech innovation" proves my point. Some (many, actually) IT managers circa 1984 would have loved to limit tech innovation to 5.25" floppy disks. Stifling tech innovation is wrong even when you happen to like the stifling.

Of course "Apple complained a lot about how that would stifle innovation," because it does! With some connection tech mandated by governmental fiat, creative thinking relative to connection tech is forever stifled. That is a terrible consequence, and I am appalled that many folks do not care enough to see far enough ahead to realize it.

 

[navaira]

The fact that you "like this limit to tech innovation" proves my point. Some (many, actually) IT managers circa 1984 would have loved to limit tech innovation to 5.25" floppy disks. Stifling tech innovation is wrong even when you happen to like the stifling.

Of course "Apple complained a lot about how that would stifle innovation," because it does! With some connection tech mandated by governmental fiat, creative thinking relative to connection tech is forever stifled. That is a terrible consequence, and I am appalled that many folks do not care enough to see far enough ahead to realize it.

If anything is a 5.25” floppy disk in your analogy, it is not USB-C, but Lightning.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

If anything is a 5.25” floppy disk in your analogy, it is not USB-C, but Lightning.

Wow. You still do not get it. It is not about 5.25 floppy bad, USB-C good or about whether Apple should move from Lightning. It is about governments stifling tech innovation by forcing some technology by government fiat, which is always bad.

You like USB-C today apparently because it is convenient for you to have one connector. But to suit your 2025 convenience you lobby for government to prevent there ever being an improvement to USB-C. That is wrong-headed short sighted thinking.

I could in about five minutes conceptualize a better connector than USB-C. But it takes scores of engineers smarter than I am spending thousands of hours in thankless trade group meetings to create such a standard. Thanks to folks who ignorantly applaud the EU forcing USB-C, those smart engineers will not be investing those hours in improving our tech.

 

[Technerd108]

It is true that the free market fosters innovation. However, capitalism without guard rails is not a good thing. That is why in the USA we have social services like Medicare, Medicaid, social security, EPA, FDA, etc. We can argue that some of these agencies like DHS or others may have gone beyond their original intent. That is why pruning the Federal government from time to time and auditing social and military programs to reduce fraud and waste.

You can argue that too much governmental intervention in citizens lives is counter to the founding principles of the constitution of the United States. This back and forth is by design in order to find equilibrium that works best for the people. Constant debate over policy and use of these institutions is needed in order to progress.

Is the EU overstepping the best interests of it's people in the name of protecting the people by using government interference in free markets? I would say yes. The EU should let it's market forces decide not the government. This is why the US never implemented such a similar rule.

The problem isn't the issue of lighting cable vs. USB c. The problem is who makes the decision of when the government intervenes in free market forces. They could over time create ever more draconian rules that hurt innovation and business in general in the name of protecting people from the corporations.

This takes away free agency from the people. The people tell business directly by their buying habits. If lighting was so terrible compared to USB-C and all other phones and devices use USB c it would either force Apple to make a better lighting cable or adopt USB-C as they were forced by the EU to do. So the EU didn't really accomplish anything that wouldn't have happened naturally over time through market forces or buying decisions. The EU did use authority to force Apple to change which enhances the power of the state. This elevation of power by changing the direction of one of the most profitable companies in the world. This gives legitimacy to the power of the EU state and should lead to future similar rulings in order to continue to concentrate power in the state.

This is opposite to the US where our rights are not given to us by the state. Right or wrong capitalism is the best of the worst. Capitalism has to be the worst form of government yet it is the best of the choices available by a wide margin. This was said better by Winston Churchill.

While I preferred usbc at the time over lighting I never felt the government needed to step in and force Apple to change. I would just not buy an iPhone or deal with a lighting cable which in terms of the physical connection I preferred. I just wanted Apple to match lighting cable specs with USB-C or better not force USB-C.

So I fundamentally disagree on principle with the EU decision. I would have much rather seen Apple change to whatever it wanted based on it's sales.

The only exception is when you have either only one company providing the only service or in a monopoly situation. This is when government intervention is needed not forcing Apple to adopt usb c.

Just my opinion on the matter.

 

[m1maverick]

You like USB-C today apparently because it is convenient for you to have one connector. But to suit your 2025 convenience you lobby for government to prevent there ever being an improvement to USB-C. That is wrong-headed short sighted thinking.

Is that really the case? Did the government mandate that there could be no improvement to USB-C? Or did the mandate all phone use one common connector to use with mobile devices regardless of which connector that was.

I understand what you're trying to say but I think this is a poor example to support it.

 

[m1maverick]

This takes away free agency from the people. The people tell business directly by their buying habits. If lighting was so terrible compared to USB-C and all other phones and devices use USB c it would either force Apple to make a better lighting cable or adopt USB-C as they were forced by the EU to do. So the EU didn't really accomplish anything that wouldn't have happened naturally over time through market forces or buying decisions. The EU did use authority to force Apple to change which enhances the power of the state. This elevation of power by changing the direction of one of the most profitable companies in the world. This gives legitimacy to the power of the EU state and should lead to future similar rulings in order to continue to concentrate power in the state.

Is there anything that Lightning is better at than USB-C?