Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bye, Bye for now Apple, it has been fun!
- Thread starter Technerd108
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My point was only to respond to your point that MS work closely with OEMs. They don't. They provide the abstraction layer which underpins Windows, and their programming and interface guidelines are there for hardware manufacturers to have consistent and broadly reliable details on how to make hardware connect and function within the Windows environment. The abstraction layer is where device drivers 'plug' into.
The point only being that Microsoft don't really work with hardware manufacturers or vendors at all - excepting (as you pointed out) those producing the Surface devices, though even they have to work via the same abstraction layer.
This is actually a strength of the Windows platform, because unless MS break something in that layer (which, yes, sometimes they do) absolutely anyone can build hardware which works reliably well. simply by observing the guidelines.
This is an actual user, with actual computers, doing actual work, not a ill informed 'expert' clattering at a keyboard with a rather confused opinion.
It makes interesting watching.
They –of course– collaborate with their key accounts and the chip manufacturers, who provide the drivers.
The high hardware requirements for Windows 11 come imho from there: the big manufacturers wanting to sell more hardware.
This, yes. By the nature of the business, even though strictly speaking not in 'supply chain' relationships, there are symbiotic relationships between Microsoft and core product and engineering collaborators (even Apple). They each have to have some sense of the roadmaps of the others, and in some cases a bit of leverage over them too.
But outside those and some dev support on demand, Microsoft's general operating practice to hardware and device manufacturers and vendors is 'this is Windows, this is how you interface with it if you wish to'. They couldn't really do it any other way in practical or economic terms, given they can't really engineer variants of Windows - that's what the abstraction layer was created for.
Windows CE, Windows phone and Windows embedded did not have to.
They were compiled specifically for every given hardware. That was originally due to scarce device resources.
Apple could follow that efficient design too on high performance devices because they fully control the hardware.
But the other side of the medal is that they need a new macOS with every hardware iteration and nothing is upgradable.
They also are limited with the number of device generations they will support. By design. Apple's customers have been prepared to accept that.
Once again, pretty much agree.
Given the modularity of macOS, it is arguably much easier for Apple to tailor the OS to the device, and they have - theoretically - much more to gain doing that than Microsoft ever did. Ultimately, there may not be a lot of choice, but it's an opportunity lost so far.
The last point is likely the key. Clearly Apple's customers have been prepared to accept it. At this point it feels to me much like the churn between cellphone operators where each keeps its loyal customers despite their frustrations, some switch because of their frustrations, but ultimately broadly the same number of people end up in each one.
It wasn't exactly where this point was going to go however! That said, since you made the point, I will say that after a week with my 15-inch MBA, it has reminded me of the ways in which Apple get it right. Yet in a short while, I'll be booting up my $70 Windows 10 box, and settling in for an afternoon using that - quite happily. After that, I may remember better the ways in which Apple also get it wrong!
Thanks for tugging me off line a bit - that was interesting!
It's the summary of a lot of partial information given about the M-architecture, which resemble closely to what is used in smartphone/tablet design. Of course Apple does not disclose internals, but a lot of indices make a pretty clear picture.
And Windows kernel does the same things.
I really do not see where this special optimization is that Apple is doing beyond custom drivers for their devices. This is the same as Windows?
"Having less man in the middle chips" doesn't even make sense. The same chips are on most SOC. Apple is different from say, Intel, in that ram and ssd are a part of the soc where as Intel has socketed or soldered ram. It is the connection between the chips that is different. How much speed does Apple gain by having the ram and ssd a part of the SOC rather than socketed or soldered ram is the big question.
Custom tailored kernel? All kernels are custom for their platform. I mean look at what the Linux kernel can do by back engineering codecs and so much more. NT kernel is updated all the time? Apple is making a custom kernel for each device, they make a general kernel for MacOS.
The problem with his analysis is it only considers now.
At the moment 8gb ram is sufficient for his needs on a base Pro m3 with 8gb ram. This is impressive but what happens a year or two from now when the OS and software may be more resource hungry.
I think the point about a Pro machine is you don't want just enough. You want headroom for now and the future. It should come with more than enough ram in the base Pro. Heck, people complain about the base air only having 8gb ram but a Pro machine there really is no excuse unless the Pro name has no meaning?
And if 8gb were truly enough then no one would buy more ram.
Last edited:
I don't disagree that a 'Pro' product really has to be more highly capable, but I think the argument about 'what happens next' is just plain daft.
The fact is that on this guy's testing and experience (and he isn't the only one), an 8Gb MBP is a good machine and it works. Personally, I will tend to weigh the actual real life experience of a user over the guesswork assumption of those who seem to have little concept of how these systems work, or even how they are used (that isn't aimed at you, but at the general furore over RAM)
I'm not inclined to believe Apple are so incompetent that they will cripple that machine or indeed any 8Gb system by overloading it within their (in some places, mandated) period of support, and since Apple build the machine, make the OS, and provide years of support, they absolutely control the viability of systems going forward. After all, they control how much demand macOS makes on systems, and they control how much demand it will make going forward.
They're a cynical company, certainly, but not even close to being a stupid one. And ultimately, continually repeating these opinions doesn't make them fact.
I mean, it's not just in this thread; every week, at a minimum, a new thread is opened on these forums with "How much RAM do I need?" which shows many out there with RAM fear. Largely that is due to not knowing who to believe in accepting whether 8GB is enough.
The funny thing is that after reading the hundreds of whinges, moans, complaints and assertions about the base model and how that amount of RAM is just for toys, I actually have to mess with a few big apps on mine to remind myself these people don't actually know a whole lot of what they're talking about.
Real world tests count. Opinion doesn't. Even the guy who loaded up an 8Gb system to the point it ground to a halt was making a valid point, even if not the one he planned to - that it actually takes a lot, and a workflow not at all realistic for a base machine, to actually defeat it. Meanwhile, the video above, comparing an 8Gb M3 MBP to a 16Gb M3 Pro MBP actually shows what an 8Gb can quite comfortably do.
Wack-a-mole.
I agree that real world use of all devices and platforms is often a lot different than reviews or youtube videos. I agree and have used and seen for myself base model m series airs from m1 to m2 and now m3 do what pro machines did just a few years ago without the need for a fan. Pretty incredible. People can use heavy video and photo editing programs in 4k on an air with 8gb ram. With M2 and beyond a lot of the video and photo editing are accelerated by hardware encoders. So it doesn't tax the GPU or CPU as much. Efficiency of M3 is still unrivaled.
I think the other thing that leads to misunderstanding with ram and MacOS is free ram. People think they need a ton of free ram or something is wrong. Free ram is just wasted ram and MacOS is very good at utilizing as much as possible with what it has. That being said, if you have free ram it isn't a bad thing and you want headroom for the integrated GPU which will allocate as much ram as it can when gpu is under load. If you have 32gb system for example it will allocate more ram to applications than it would for the same system with less ram. This makes everything run smoother but it gives people a skewed view of ram. So no matter how much ram you have it seems like you need more but the system is just being smart with what it has.
M chips are pretty amazing. They can compensate along with the unified architecture with less ram than windows for sure but they are still constrained by what they can allocate. And slowdowns will occur once you hit the wall which the system that was being reviewed was just under. So in a year or two it will be crippled doing the same tasks as now. All because it has only 8gb of ram that can't be upgraded it shortens the useful life of a laptop that could last a lot longer if it just had a few GB more ram. And my complaint goes to Microsoft and Surface line/XPS and others with poor storage and ram base models. Also very expensive upgrades. At least Apple has a more updated product line than Surface. We will see when the consumer line releases later this year but so far the business line is not very impressive save for the 10 pro.
Now for the air. The air is an entry level device for Apple but it is still a premium ultra light. It is also very expensive compared to the competition. So I think it would go without saying that a premium laptop, entry level or not should have at least 12gb ram. If Apple would give 12gb as base for all Mac's I don't think anyone would complain because it would remove 99% of any bottlenecks and give a little headroom for the future. The Pro should start at 16gb. Then you would have a distinction between the two and offering a base model that is truly premium and equipped whether it is a pro or an air. It would cost Apple very, very little to the overall production cost and greatly increase customer satisfaction and remove the fear many have buying a base model. I think it would increase sales and still not hurt upgrades.
Last edited:
If you’re still gaming on 16GB of RAM, you’re missing out
If you're still on the fence about making the jump to 32GB RAM on your gaming PC, the time has come.The Latest Tech News, Delivered to Your Inbox
www.msn.com
Obviously this is focused at gamers but if gamers are starting to need 32gb ram to run new games with decent frame rates then it tells you about the trend of software in general needing more resources and if you do game which Mac's and Apple are delving into then 8gb ram on a Pro machine is not going to cut it. On a air even of you want to do light gaming on a decent newer real game title it is going to be pushed to it's limits with 8gb ram and a lot of students and kids that get airs will want to play games on their laptops.
In Windows or MacOS 16gb is becoming a basic standard with 12gb being a decent alternative and 8gb becoming like 4gb was several years ago. It was functional but do anything demanding and it was bad. Now with these new cpus on all sides they are so powerful they can make up for some of the ram and with paging in windows or swap on MacOS you can use the ssd for ram but it is a lot slower even on Mac's although they seem to be able to do it without impact to the overall experience.
No, e.g. for SSDs: the memory chips can be accessed directly, without a SSD controller monkeying a rotary drive.
That was always done that way in smartphones and is by far more efficient.
Would I have bought the 8GB Air or the 12GB Pro, the 12GB Pro, with the extra ports,makes sense to me, but the 8=8 air=pro, all I paying for are extra ports, and very little actual performance air to Pro...
It would be more sane to make again an OS that does not feel constrained by 8GB.
But that would be real innovation....Lol
Never going to happen. One of the reasons I like Chrome OS despite its limitations.
Oh, yes, remove the bloaty crapware that 99% of users do not need, let us decide what we need/grant us access to "delete this app", and 2nd post purchase upgrading, no question..
Would I pay $99 for an OS for 2025? YES
Would I pay for upgrades of hardware? YES, if Apple decided to allow for post purchase upgrading...
What would be the 1st new Apple hardware device you would buy that is upgradeable? Mac Mini, as I don't need upgrades right now, but as work and income improve, upgrades become a requirement I would consider.. As many would...
If you had the chance to return the 8GB Air for a 13 inch Macbook Pro that is upgradeable for a 50% discount, would you accept? YES, Yes I would, as I know that the Pro would last 10 years, and over 10 years, with upgrades, the time saved, the improved efficiency would justify the cost, I cannot afford the BTO upfront cost, that is like buying a house, for $3m, fully furnished for cash, or on mortgage, and you cannot afford that, but given time you would buy the land, a tiny starter home, and over time build around this..
Did Apple consider the costs to end users not buying BTO? I think they felt that the low volumes, at high cost was more effective than high sales of lower specced devices that could be upgraded later..
I was forced to purchase 8GB RAM M1 Air, as the 8GB Pro was not upgradeable and the price difference was too wide to justify the expense, when I could buy a cover/dongle+Air for less than the cost of the 8GB RAM Macbook Pro..
That's definitively not the way Apple ticks. They make money on pushing you into subscriptions and selling new hardware. What you need is irrelevant, what you purchase matters.
"That's definitively not the way Apple ticks. They make money on pushing you into subscriptions and selling new hardware. What you need is irrelevant, what you purchase matters."
Exactly, I would purchase OS's and upgrades, but Apple don't sell these, I would buy hard drives, power banks, but Apple don't sell these... Apple is very very bad at this selling thing, truly they suck, lumpo is truly awful, he is so bad he is loosing money every hour, lost so much money to a company that only sells operating systems.. M/soft..And this lump of coal get to keep his job, how?
Exactly, I would purchase OS's and upgrades, but Apple don't sell these, I would buy hard drives, power banks, but Apple don't sell these... Apple is very very bad at this selling thing, truly they suck, lumpo is truly awful, he is so bad he is loosing money every hour, lost so much money to a company that only sells operating systems.. M/soft..And this lump of coal get to keep his job, how?