283

Apple exec defends 8GB $1,599 MacBook Pro, claims it's like 16GB on a PC (www.theregister.com)

submitted 7 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@beehaw.org

165 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 64 points 7 months ago

In my entirely anecdotal experience, MacOS is significantly better at RAM management than Windows. But it's still a $1,600 USD computer, and 16GB of RAM costs nearly nothing, it's just classic Apple greed.

[-] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 11 points 7 months ago

I'm also under the impression the M powered books are much better at thermo management and battery usage over PC versions?

[-] anlumo@feddit.de 8 points 7 months ago

ARM chips are generally better at that.

[-] sane@feddit.de 1 points 7 months ago

Really hoping Snapdragon Oryon can be the same boon for Windows/Linux that Apple's M CPUs were for Mac

[-] realharo@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

How did you measure this?

[-] YouMayBeOntoSomethin@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 7 months ago

Sounds like "feelz" measuring to me

[-] jcrm@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago

The main metric has been with Adobe apps. 2017 Macs with 8GB of RAM are still able to run Premiere and a few others things smoothly simultaneously. Windows machines with the same config were crashing constantly and kept going.

But I'm still not defending Apple here. It's been 6 years, and their base level MacBook still ships with the same amount of RAM.

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

It’s not anecdotal in the least. It’s been widely tested. There’s a reason an M1 Mac mini with 8GB of RAM can load and fully support over 100 tracks in Logic Pro. The previous Intel machines would buckle with just a few.

ARM is not comparable to x86-64. The former is totally unified, the latter totally modular.