There were a number of exciting announcements from Apple at WWDC 2024, from macOS Sequoia to Apple Intelligence. However, a subtle addition to Xcode 16 — the development environment for Apple platforms, like iOS and macOS — is a feature called Predictive Code Completion. Unfortunately, if you bought into Apple’s claim that 8GB of unified memory was enough for base-model Apple silicon Macs, you won’t be able to use it. There’s a memory requirement for Predictive Code Completion in Xcode 16, and it’s the closest thing we’ll get from Apple to an admission that 8GB of memory isn’t really enough for a new Mac in 2024.

127 points

And now all the fan boys and girls will go out and buy another MacBook. That’s planned obsolescence for ya

permalink
report
reply
60 points

Someone who is buying a MacBook with the minimum specs probably isn’t the same person that’s going to run out and buy another one to get one specific feature in Xcode. Not trying to defend Apple here, but if you were a developer who would care about this, you probably would have paid for the upgrade when you bought it in the first place (or couldn’t afford it then or now).

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Well no, not this specific scenario, because of course devs will generally buy machines with more RAM.

But there are definitely people who will buy an 8GB Apple laptop, run into performance issues, then think “oh I must need to buy a new MacBook”.

If Apple didn’t purposely manufacture ewaste-tier 8GB laptops, that would be minimised.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

I wouldn’t be so sure. I feel like many people would not buy another MacBook if it were to feel a lot slower after just a few years.

This feels like short term gains vs. long term reputation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

And why they solder the RAM, or even worse make it part of the SoC.

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

There are real world performance benefits to ram being as close as possible to the CPU, so it’s not entirely without merit. But that’s what CAMM modules are for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

But do those benefits outweigh doubling or tripling the amount of RAM by simply inserting another stick that you can buy for dozens of dollars?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Apple’s SoC long predates CAMM.

Dell first showed off CAMM in 2022, and it only became JEDEC standardised in December 2023.

That said, if Dell can create a really good memory standard and get JEDEC to make it an industry standard, so can Apple. They just chose not to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

In this particular case the RAM is part of the chip as an attempt to squeeze more performance. Nowadays, processors have become too fast but it’s useless if the rest of the components don’t catch up. The traditional memory architecture has become a bottleneck the same way HDDs were before the introduction of SSDs.

You’ll see this same trend extend to Windows laptops as they shift to Snapdragon processors too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

People do like to downplay this, but SoC is the future. There’s no way to get performance over a system bus anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

BUT BUT you’ll get 5% fasTEr SpeED!!! And MOrE seCuRiTy!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Well. The claim they made still holds true, despit how I dislike this design choice. It is faster, and more secure (though attacks on NAND chips are hard and require high skill levels that most attacker won’t posses).

And add one more: it saves power when using LPDDR5 rather DDR5. To a laptop that battery life matters a lot, I agree that’s important. However, I have no idea how much standby or active time it gain by using LPDDR5.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

And the apple haters will keep making this exact same comment on every post using their 3rd laptop in ten years while I’m still using my 2014 MacBook daily with no issues.

Be more original.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Nice attempt to justify planned obsolescence. To think apple hasn’t done this time and time again, you’d have to be a fool

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

👍

-posted from my ten year old MacBook which shows no need for replacement

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They will keep making the same comment as long as it keeps being true.

  • Typed from my 2009 ThinkPad

Meanwhile your 2014 MacBook stopped receiving OS updates 3 years ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Weren’t you just complaining about software bloat?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This is pretty much it. People really just want to find reasons to hate Apple over the past 2 - 3 years. You’re right, though, your Mac can run easily for 10+ years. You’re good basically until the web browsers no longer support your OS version, which is more in the 12-15 year range.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In fairness, most computers built after around 2014-2016+ last way longer, performance started to level off not long after that. After all, devs write software for what people have, if everyone had 128 gigs of RAM we’d load everything we could think of into memory and you’d need it to keep up

Macs did have some incredible build quality though, the newer ones aren’t holding up even close to as well. I’m still using a couple 2012 Macs to play videos, it’s slow as hell when you interact, but once the video is playing it still looks and sounds good

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

I still have a fully functioning Windows 95 machine.

My daily driver desktop is also from around 2014.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s pretty sick actually

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

These were obsolete the minute they were made, though… So it’s not really planned obsolescence. I got one for free (MacBook Air), and it’s always been trash.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I have an M2 MBA and it’s the best laptop I’ve ever owned or used, second to the M3 Max MBP I get to use for work. Silent, battery lasts all week, interface is fast and runs all my dev tools like a charm. Zero issues with the device.

permalink
report
parent
reply
96 points

This isn’t a big deal.

If you’re developing in Xcode, you did not buy an 8GB Mac in the last 10-years.

If you are just using your Mac for Facebook and email, I don’t think you know what RAM is.

If you know what RAM is, and you bought an 8GB Mac in the last 10-years, then you are likely self-aware of your limited demands and/or made an informed compromise.

permalink
report
reply
38 points
*

If you know what RAM is, and you bought an 8GB Mac in the last 10-years, then you are likely self-aware of your limited demands and/or made an informed compromise.

Or you simply refuse to pay $200+ to get a proper machine. Like seriously, 8GB Mac’s should have disappeared long ago, but nope, Apple stick to them with their planned obsolescence tactics on their hardware, and stubbornly refusing to admit that in 2023 releasing a MacBook with soldered 8Gb of RAM is wholy inadequate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

I get around this by simply not buying a Mac. Free’s up so much money for ram.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yeah, the 8GB model’s purpose is to make an “starting at $xxxx” price tag possible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

I’m not gonna stand up and declare that 8gb is absolutely fine, because in very short order it won’t be. But yeah, currently for an average use case, it is.

My work Mac mini has 8gb. It’s a 2014 so can’t be upgraded, but for the tasks I ask of it it’s ok. Sure, it gets sluggish if I’m using the Win11 VM I sometimes need, but generally I don’t really have any issues doing regular office tasks.

That said, I sometimes gets a bee in my bonnet about it, so open Activity Monitor to see what’s it’s doing, and am shocked by how much RAM some websites consume in open tabs in Safari.

8gb is generally ok on low end gear, but devs are working very hard to ensure that it’s not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Funny: knowing that you only get one shot, I bought 32GB of RAM for my Mac Mini like 1.5 years ago. I figured that it gave me the best shot of keeping it usable past 5 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
84 points

imagine showing this post to someone in 1995

shit has gotten too bloated these days. i mean even in my head 8GB still sounds like ‘a lot’ of RAM and 16GB feels extravagant

permalink
report
reply
23 points

I still can’t fully accept that 1GB is not normal, 2GB is not very good, and 4GB is not all you ever gonna need.

If only it got bloated for some good reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I remember when I got my first computer with 1GB of RAM, where my previous computer had 64MB, later upgraded to 192MB. And there were only like 3 or 4 years in between them.

It was like: holy shit, now I can put all the things in RAM. I will never run out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The moment you use a file that is bigger than 1GB, that computer will explode.

Some of us do more than just browse Lemmy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Wow. Have you ever considered how people were working with files bigger than total RAM they had in the normal days of computing?

So in your opinion if you have 2GB+ of a log file, editing it you should have 2GB RAM occupied?

I just have no words, the ignorance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

High quality content is the reason. Sit in a terminal and your memory usage will be low.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

So we’re just going to ignore stuff like Electron, unoptimized assets, etc… Basically every other known problem… Yeah let’s just ignore all that

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

256MB or 512MB was fine for high-quality content in 2002, what was that then.

Suppose the amount of pixels and everything quadrupled - OK, then 2GB it is.

But 4GB being not enough? Do you realize what 4GB is?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I chalk it up to lazy rushed development. Good code is art.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

That’s not true at all. The code doesn’t take much space. The content does. Your high quality high res photos, 4K HDR videos, lossless 96kHz audio, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

But there are lots of shortcuts now. Asset packs and coding environments that come bundled with all kinds of things you don’t need. People import packages that consume a lot of space to use one tiny piece of it.

To be clear, I’m not talking about videos and images. You’d have these either way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I have a VPS that uses 1GB of RAM, it has 6-7 apps running in docker containers which isn’t the most ram efficient method of running apps.

A light OS really helps, plus the most used app that uses a lot of RAM actually reduce their consumption if needed, but use more when memory is free, the web browser. On one computer I have chrome running with some hundreds of MB used, instead of the usual GBs because RAM is running out.

So it appears that memory is full,but you can actually have a bit more memory available that is “hidden”

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Same here. When idle, the apps basically consume nothing. If they are just a webserver that calls to some PHP script, it basically takes no RAM at all when idle, and some RAM when actually used.

Websites and phone apps are such an unoptimized pieces if garbage that they are the sole reason for high RAM requirements. Also lots of background bloatware.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This is resource reservation, it happens at an OS level. If chrome is using what appears to be alot of ram, it will be freed up once either the OS or another application requires it.

It just exists so that an application knows that if it needs that resource it can use X amount for now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Absolutely.

Bad, rushed software that wires together 200 different giant libraries just to use a fraction of them and then run it in a sandboxed container with three daemons it needs for some reason doesn’t mean “8 Gb isn’t enough”, it means write tighter, better software.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That ship has long sailed unfortunately. The industry gave up on optimization in favour of praying that hardware advancements can keep up with the bloat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You just have to watch your favorite tablet get slower year after year to understand that a lot of this is artificial. They could make applications that don’t need those resources but would never do so.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We measure success by how many GB’s we have consumed when the only keys depressed from power on to desktop is our password. This shit right here is the real issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Guy from '95: “I bet it’s lightning fast though…”

No dude. It peaks pretty soon. In my time, Microsoft is touting a chat program that starts in under 10 seconds. And they’re genuinely proud of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

And latency is more shit than it ever was

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I once went for lower CAS timing 2x 128MB ram sticks (256 MB) instead of 2x 256s with slower speeds because I thought 512MB was insane overkill. Realized how wrong I was when trying to play Star Wars galaxies mmorpg when a lot of people were on the screen it started swapping to disk. Look up the specs for an IBM Aptiva, first computer my parents bought, and you’ll understand how 512MB can seem like a lot.

Now my current computer has 64 GB (most gaming computers go for 32GB) at the time I built it. My workstation at work has 128GB which really isn’t even enough for some workloads we have that use a lot of in-memory cache… And large servers can have multiple TB of RAM. My mind has been blown multiple times.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You can always switch to a text based terminal and free up your memory. Just don’t compain that YouTube doesn’t play 4K videos anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Just don’t compain that YouTube doesn’t play 4K videos anymore.

strange, mpv handles it just fine

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

MPV doesn’t work in terminal (well, technically it does, but what’s the point of 4K HDR video in ASCII mode?). Please don’t confuse terminal emulator in GUI mode with a real text mode terminal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
76 points

Opens chrome on a 8GB Mac. Sees lifespan of SSD being reduced by 50%. After 2-3 years of heavy usage SSD starts to get errors. Apple solution: buy a new one. No wonder they are 2nd/3rd wealthiest company on the planet.

permalink
report
reply
22 points
*

buy a new one.

Buy a new SSD and swap out the old one?

…buy a new SSD, right??

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

SSD is soldered to the board. With only 8GB you’ll be using the swap partiton a lot so for anything exceeding 8GB of RAM you will be using the SSD as a slower “RAM” which will wear it’s lifespan down by constantly writing/reading into it’ s swap partition.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

“tHATs nOT tRuE the aRCHiteCTuRe iS cOmPlETlY dIffErEnT!!!1!11!!ONEONE!!!” <— Apple fanboys when this was predicted on launch of the M1 🤖

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The only people more cultish than Apple fans are Tesla/Elongated Muskrat fans.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

You don’t get the most valuable company by selling a SSD. So, yeah a new Mac of course.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Well they do charge particularly hard for SSDs as well. They’ve found a way to eat the cake twice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Oh, my sweet summer child…

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I think SSDs are also soldered to the mainboard on most apple products.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

The Mac Studio uses a standard NVMe SSD but if you replace it with anything that you didn’t buy from Apple with a 500%+ markup, the new drive simply won’t work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Nah ur nat doin that with apple. Cmon just buy a new PC! Wa don car abt the env! Who cares anyway! Cmon not that expensive

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

They moved to on-die RAM for a reason: To nickel and dime yo ass.

I needed to expense a Mac Mini for iOS development, and everyone (Me, the company, our purchasing department) was baffled at how much it cost to get 16 GB. And they only go up to 24GB. Imagine how much they’ll charge for 32 in a year!

permalink
report
reply
10 points

It’s technically a bit faster, but yeah, I think charging more is the bigger motivation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Companies primarily make decisions to maximise the profitability of someone and it’s never the consumer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

It’s a bit first but if their primary motivation was performance improvements they wouldn’t be soldering 16 GB.

If you’re going to weld shoes to your feet, you better at least make sure that they’re good shoes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Why not? There is a performance benefit to being closer to the CPU, and soldering gets you a lot closer to the CPU. That’s a fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Sounds like one of those rare cases where engineering and marketing might agree on something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Mac Mini is meant to be sort of the starter desktop. For higher end uses, they want you on the Mac Studio, an iMac, or a Mac Pro.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I assumed that the Mini was the effectively a Mac without a monitor. Is it relatively underpowered too?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Its not underpowered for average users, but it’s not meant for professional uses beyond basic office work.

Similar to the mini they offer the Studio which doesn’t have a monitor built in https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/compare/?modelList=Mac-studio-2023,Mac-mini-M2

Then for the higher end uses they offer a more typical tower format https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

As far as I understand, the Mac lineup don’t have screens, the IMacs are stationary and do have a screen, the MacBooks are the laptops.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 4.8K

    Posts

  • 84K

    Comments