Even 16GB of RAM is acting deceptive on my M2 Mac Mini ? Perplexed !!

[picpicmac]

I have 32gb and it regularly uses swap just from having too many safari tabs (~200) open.

And here I thought I was a tab fiend....

 

[picpicmac]

I refuse to buy another Apple computer until they start coming with 16GB of ram and a 500GB SSD drive.

Well fine for you.

But many people want a computer for rather simple tasks. Why burden them with your requirements?

Use the memory for cache and then free up memory for when it needs it but mine doesn’t.

Have you figured out why this happens?

In my experience, some applications don't play nice. If I have Google Chrome with many windows open, and swap is being used, it seems some of the swap is not given up until I quite Chrome. Closing a tab sometimes doesn't seem to help.

 

[Analog Kid]

I refuse to buy another Apple computer until they start coming with 16GB of ram and a 500GB SSD drive.

You can't always get exactly what you want, but if you're willing to accept 12GB more than you want then they've been coming that way for a while now. I wouldn't hold out for the ability to choose capacities more finely though.

 

[avkills]

Techno explained:
"Swap isn’t just about enough RAM or living in RAM. If you have processes, apps that are inactive/not actively using memory. MacOS and most of Linux variants will offload that to Swap, ready to reclaim the RAM if it needs for more intensive active process. This ensures that OS isn’t swapping in real time when it is busy. It also acts like hot standby as the memory is mapped."

OK.

But I have VM disk swapping DISABLED on both my desktop (2018 Mini) and laptop (2021 MBP 14") Macs.

And they still run just fine.

Why?

 

[Ethosik]

I have 44GB used. Just a handful of tabs between Arc, Brave and Safari, Plex and Apple Music open. I have 192GB of RAM.

 

[IG88]

I am worried, not looking a good sign, especially when I will need it. So how do I bring it down and maintain it at that level.

Many others have said something similar, but as long as it isn't doing a lot of swapping to SSD, you have enough RAM.

Any modern OS will only free up RAM as it needs it.

Even if it is swapping occasionally, it's not something I'd worry about. 16GB is enough for the basic stuff you're talking about. Even if you did some occasional video editing, 16GB is still enough.

 

[NewOldStock]

Trial by fire!
Load every app you "might run at the same time" and let it rip..
If it does not blow up it's working as intended.
If it still runs smoothly forget about the memory usage.
If issues you might need upgrades.
I went to 16gb ram and glad I did.
Mine floats around 10gb to 14 gb ram usage.
Runs smooth with M1 and 16gb ram and 512ssd older Mac mini.


So yours with M2 should run just fine.

So Loaded but idle time a lot.

 

[bzgnyc2]

I am always maxing out my 8GB Mac mini. You just start a program like Firefox and next thing you know it’s using 5GB+ of system memory. Same thing with Finder. I open a few windows and before long Finder is using 3-5GB of system memory. I’m not sure what is causing this but the fact that Apple still insists on selling computers that only come with 8GB of ram is ridiculous. I refuse to buy another Apple computer until they start coming with 16GB of ram and a 500GB SSD drive. People say that’s what the system is supposed to do. Use the memory for cache and then free up memory for when it needs it but mine doesn’t. The swap file will get progressively bigger and the computer will bog down. It used to be where my Windows computer I had to restart it every 2 or 3 days because it would get slow but my Apple computer would run for over a week without any slow down but lately it seems like things have flipped. My Windows computer runs a lot longer before it slows down and I have to restart it but it seems I have to restart my Apple computer every 3 days due to it slowing down.

I observe similar symptoms as you (other than Finder exploding -- mine is normally <130MB) but I want a different solution from Apple. I want them to tighten up these programs and deal with what appear to be memory leaks.

Safari/WebKit has become the biggest culprit. It's ridiculous that my Safari with maybe 5 windows/10 simple tabs open is using >5GB of RAM. And it also doesn't fully release that RAM until closed. What's getting left behind and how do I know those aren't some sort of rogue JavaScript/WASM keeping itself resident past its closed window?

Then every MacOS seems to have increasing numbers of background processes/services -- many of which sit in the background despite being disabled. Not great from a security standpoint as far as minimizing surface area for attack.

I woundn't buy a new Mac with less than 16GB these days but I would rather Apple make 8 (or even 4) GB perfectly usable for general purpose/web browsing than just adding more memory to the base configuration.

I say replace every Apple developer's computer with an i3 Mac with 4GB and give them 2 years to come back with a new release. It would be like Snow Leopard all over again.

 

[Darren.h]

this why Apple should never sell any present day computer with just 8gb of ram.

16 gb should be the new bare minimum.

 

[maxoakland]

This is actually a good thing because it means your Mac is using all the memory it needs to cache and do other stuff. And it just goes to show you how 8GB is nowhere near enough for a Mac in 2024

 

[maxoakland]

Then every MacOS seems to have increasing numbers of background processes/services -- many of which sit in the background despite being disabled. Not great from a security standpoint as far as minimizing surface area for attack.

This is something that drives me crazy. A huge culprit is audio production software and audio plugins (they loooove to install DRM apps) and Wacom! I actually stopped using Wacom because they keep getting more and more bloated with their drivers and managers and stuff

 

[Evangelion]

Hi Guys,

I have just started using my New Mac Mini which is the M2 and has 16GB of RAM and 512 GB of SSD. And I am worried about the RAM it uses, it is constantly on the 11GB used Status. I mean I am hardly doing anything some 5-6 Safari Browsing Tabs, occasionally opening Finder, Photos and Notes but also making sure I quit them completely so that they don't remain open and keep running in the background and yet this thing the Activity Monitor keeps showing so much of RAM consumed.

I was always told that the Mac Mini is so efficient and intelligent that for such light kind of use as mine, even the basic level configuration which only comes with 8GB of RAM is good enough, then how come in my case it keeps clocking around 11GB of RAM.

I am worried, not looking a good sign, especially when I will need it. So how do I bring it down and maintain it at that level.

RAM is meant to be used. The OS uses the RAM to cache data, making things faster. If some applications needs the RAM it will free it to that app.

Unused RAM is just that: unused. It gives no benefit. I’m using M1 MacBook Air with 8Gb of RAM as my daily driver. I have no problems with RAM or performance.

 

[Spidder]

I think some people here don’t understand the concept of what a system is.

It isn’t called operating system for the lulz. There is logic behind everything a system does and one of the most important tasks of an operating system is handling the transactions between cpu and ram. If you think that the kernel is not handling this efficiently enough, then dig through the kernel (its open source), find a better solution and suggest it through a bug report.

If you can’t, because you’re not an operating system programmer, then just be user and let people who know what they’re doing do their job. Unless you run into real issues when using your system… then file a bug report.

This pseudo academic discussion on how Apple should do things on such a deep level, just to make you happy looking at ram usage is ridiculous.

 

[SAdProZ]

But many people want a computer for rather simple tasks. Why burden them with your requirements?

Burden?

What they are implying would only service others: for the same price we’d get more spec and a longer lifespan.

Trial by fire!
Load every app you "might run at the same time" and let it rip..
If it does not blow up it's working as intended.
If it still runs smoothly forget about the memory usage.
If issues you might need upgrades.
I went to 16gb ram and glad I did.
Mine floats around 10gb to 14 gb ram usage.
Runs smooth with M1 and 16gb ram and 512ssd older Mac mini.


So yours with M2 should run just fine.

So Loaded but idle time a lot.

what app is that CPU LOAD screenshot from?

 

[arkitect]

Burden?

What they are implying would only service others: for the same price we’d get more spec and a longer lifespan.

what app is that CPU LOAD screenshot from?

Activity Monitor.

 

[MilaM]

I refuse to buy another Apple computer until they start coming with 16GB of ram and a 500GB SSD drive.

Me too 😬.

I'm still using my 2017 5K iMac (16GB/512GB). Another reason is the screen. The 27 inch 5K is just perfect for me, and I can't justify the price of the Studio Display.

BTW: My next Raspberry Pi 5 for USD80 will come with 8GB of RAM 😂.

 

[SAdProZ]

Activity Monitor.

Oh, duh me. I only saw the thumbnail on mobile (which cut off the other panels) and didn't recognize it because I'm always in Dark Mode.

Thank you.

 

[picpicmac]

for the same price we’d get more

No, not the same price.

Pricing a product line is not that easy. Look at all the computer companies that have gone out of business.

Apple's pricing strategy the past few years is to use $200 as a step level in product prices. The $200 is how Apple differentiates products for the sake of presenting the buyer with choices they can make.

Many costs of the Macintosh line will be hard to price per computer. The now multi-decades long operating system, support, life-cycle and research costs are not things that can easily be priced per item sold by Apple.

Nowhere is it implied that the upgrade parts cost $200 per level. However, we do know that parts and services do cost Apple something - they pay their OEMs. So adding more expensive parts will impact the price of a machine.

I suspect that the base level machines are somewhat profitable for Apple. Yes, the upgrade ladder is the more profitable part of the Macintosh line for Apple.

If you want Apple to put more expensive NAND and SDRAM chips in the base machines, then Apple will raise the price of the base machines.

Which is why forcing people to over-buy for their needs is only going to end up costing those people more money.

Many uses of a computer will be just fine with Apple base specs.

It may not be true for you, which is why Apple gives you the option of buying more.

 

[SAdProZ]

No, not the same price.

Yes, for the same price.

That person implied they wouldn't buy another Air until it defaulted with 16 GB RAM and 512 GB storage—obviously implying at the same price point.

Remember, laptops in the 2010's used to default with 4 GB RAM and 128 GB storage and then in subsequent announcements Apple upgraded specs at the same price point:

• MacBook Air (13-inch, Early 2015) — started with 4 GB RAM and 128 GB storage for $999 USD
• MacBook Air (13-inch, 2017) — started with 8 GB RAM and 128 GB storage for $999 USD
• MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2020) — started with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage for $999 USD

 

[picpicmac]

Yes, for the same price.

It is true that Apple likes certain price points and reuses them down through the years.

But currently, with the current product range, I do not expect the same price for a spec bump.

 

[SAdProZ]

It is true that Apple likes certain price points and reuses them down through the years.

I’m glad that together we can both acknowledge that technology standards move forward at Apple.

But currently, with the current product range, I do not expect the same price for a spec bump.

You want Apple to keep 8/256 as the default because you're afraid of a price bump and 'you don't want everybody to suffer a price bump?'

Well in June 2022 Apple increased the price by $200 and kept the same 8/256. And then a year later reduced the price by $100 while keeping the same 8/256. So the MSRP is arbitrary to any reasoning you may have in mind. 8 GB DRAM costs $3 wholesale which is what their additional cost would be. Theres enough margin in $1099 for Apple to be happy. The real reason has to do with profit margin of +$200 spec upgrades, as well as protecting their MacBook Pro line that had 16 GB RAM already. It's not about costs, its about differentiation and creating an upsell gravity to more expensive MacBook Pros (which are Apple's highest selling laptop, by the way).

This is partly why the new MacBook Pros went with 18 GB RAM instead of last years's 16 GB. Apple are using new 6 GB SDRAM chips in the M3 Pro MacBook Pro: 3 x 6 GB SDRAM chips = 18 GB RAM total.

So I suspect next year the M4 chip (or the year after, the M5 chip) will come with 2 x 6 GB SDRAM chips = 12 GB RAM. Thats much better than 8 GB (given that macOS needs 2 GB of that).

RAM costs Apple about $3-5 for that so don't expect a price increase for that alone. New designs, new casing, new display technology—those are much more costly and responsible for price increases. RAM and storage is tiny percentage of costs in comparison. When Apple puts OLED in MacBook Airs in 2027—that is when the price will likely increase. Will it irk you knowing people are calling for Apple to bring OLED to MacBook Airs?

 

[Chuckeee]

I’m glad that together we can both acknowledge that technology standards move forward at Apple.


You want Apple to keep 8/256 as the default because you're afraid of a price bump and 'you don't want everybody to suffer a price bump?'

Well in June 2022 Apple increased the price by $200 and kept the same 8/256. And then a year later reduced the price by $100 while keeping the same 8/256. So the MSRP is arbitrary to any reasoning you may have in mind. 8 GB DRAM costs $3 wholesale which is what their additional cost would be. Theres enough margin in $1099 for Apple to be happy. The real reason has to do with profit margin of +$200 spec upgrades, as well as protecting their MacBook Pro line that had 16 GB RAM already. It's not about costs, its about differentiation and creating an upsell gravity to more expensive MacBook Pros (which are Apple's highest selling laptop, by the way).

This is partly why the new MacBook Pros went with 18 GB RAM instead of last years's 16 GB. Apple are using new 6 GB SDRAM chips in the M3 Pro MacBook Pro: 3 x 6 GB SDRAM chips = 18 GB RAM total.

So I suspect next year the M4 chip (or the year after, the M5 chip) will come with 2 x 6 GB SDRAM chips = 12 GB RAM. Thats much better than 8 GB (given that macOS needs 2 GB of that).

RAM costs Apple about $3-5 for that so don't expect a price increase for that alone. New designs, new casing, new display technology—those are much more costly and responsible for price increases. RAM and storage is tiny percentage of costs in comparison. When Apple puts OLED in MacBook Airs in 2027—that is when the price will likely increase. Will it irk you knowing people are calling for Apple to bring OLED to MacBook Airs?

The price of RAM chips has nothing to do with it. It is all based on the money apple makes selling BTO configurations. Raise the baseline configuration RAM, apple BTO sales will suffer and Apple makes less money.

 

[svenmany]

This is not true. Swap isn’t just about enough RAM or living in RAM. If you have processes, apps that are inactive/not actively using memory. MacOS and most of Linux variants will offload that to Swap, ready to reclaim the RAM if it needs for more intensive active process. This ensures that OS isn’t swapping in real time when it is busy. It also acts like hot standby as the memory is mapped.

I don't think this is true, at least for MacOS. I often have many idle programs sitting around doing nothing. I've never seen a non-zero swap number. Swap is used if the OS determines there isn't enough RAM for it to operate efficiently. It would be inefficient to use swap if there is plenty of RAM available. That's not to say the OS doesn't maintain some headroom to cater for increased workloads; you don't have to run out of RAM before swap is used.

 

[SAdProZ]

The price of RAM chips has nothing to do with it. It is all based on the money apple makes selling BTO configurations. Raise the baseline configuration RAM, apple BTO sales will suffer and Apple makes less money.

Agreed.

Obviously the economics of pricing is based on many factors—but that (essentially) free $200 bump that Apple so joyously gets to pad to their bottom line with (!!!) for each 16 GB model is certainly a core motivator for stubbornly staying at 8 GB for base models all these years.

Apple did just bump their main MacBook Pros to 18 GB so that tells me they are readying the Airs for 12 GB though, eventually.

(Another motivator is that Apple wants to increase the amount of customers that buy at Apple.com because retailers get a 7% discount, so Apple.com buyers are paying 7% more, plus spec upgrades (at least $200 more), plus accessories and cross-selling products through Apple also increases their revenue and profit margins)

 

[Chuckeee]

Apple did just bump their main MacBook Pros to 18 GB so that tells me they are readying the Airs for 12 GB though, eventually.

The entry level M3 14” MacBook Pro comes with just 8GB RAM (it’s the M3 Pro chip MacBook Pro that has 18 GB). Since it is very likely the M3 MacBook Airs will have just a plain M3*, I think it would be unlikely the M3 MBA would have more RAM than the M3 MBP. So the new M3 MacBook Air will probably come with 8GB of RAM [still].

* It is also unlikely the M3 MacBook Air will have an M3Pro chip unless there is a significant redesign of the MBA. The current Mx MBA are based on a processor on a stick with conductive cooling (no fan) and could not accommodate the additional heat from an M3Pro chip.