Last time I checked, a recently introduced Microsoft Surface model had a base memory configuration of 4GB, which is even more restrictive than the 8GB on a number of recent macs. The price of the Surface was in the same ballpark as a MacBook Pro.
I bought a late 2013 13" mbp in early 2014 (with 8GB ram, which if I remember correctly, had a base configuration of 4GB). This seemed relatively speedy until around the time Big Sur came out (except the graphics was always pokey due to limited graphics capability on the Intel chip).
Recently, replaced the 2013 13" with a 2023 14" with the base 10c/16c/16c chip and 32GB memory (and the base 512GB SSD). This is by far the fastest laptop I've ever used. Would the base 16GB memory worked out? Probably, but the additional 16GB leaves plenty of room for caching programs and data (with about 5-8GB to spare). It has been my impression that memory usually has the biggest bang for the buck in performance improvement.
Was it pricey? Depends on comparisons. Most of my professional life, I was paid to work with equipment that cost in the range of $150,000-$350,000 per unit. The corporation owned machines that cost in the 7 to 8 figures (including a Cray supercomputer, at various times). The corporation at one time competed with IBM in the mainframe business, but they could not keep up with IBM or Hitachi.
Hear how a small team of rebel employees bent the rules to create the GE 225—a giant leap in engineering that pushed computing to the mainstream.
www.redhat.com