The pricing outside the US is outrageous though. Those are very expensive laptops.
€1520 for the base version with only 8GB lol
€1520 for the base version with only 8GB lol
In the case of the EU/Euro you've also got an active shooting war, massive inflation and the economic damage that the UK did both to itself and the EU and a bunch of other stuff.
This is if one believes they actually care about stabilizing European industry and economy and not rather that they are keen on seeing global chaos for a period of time and a weaker Europe dependent on US instead of having close trade relations with Russia and a thriving domestic industrial sector (which they have with cheap Russian energy, which they don't with sanction and less supplied more expensive substitutes), in service to US's own relative position becoming stronger and maintenance of global hegemony.
Many analysts, particularly leaders form China, have opined on the nature of US periodic "harvesting" through dollar strengthening policy which crushes developing (and now even developed) countries so as to maintain their reserve currency status and relative global strength (even conceding that in short term everyone experiences pain as result). Great speech from Qiao Liang, a Chinese PLA Major-General articulating the nature of the reserve $ and the way US uses it as financial weapon particularly when they strengthen it to temporarily crush world economy [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord
[1] http://chinascope.org/archives/6458
^From link General Qio Lian quote: "Not many people had a clear understanding of this at the time. People, including economists and financial experts, didn’t realize that the most important thing in the 20th century was not World War I, World War II, or the disintegration of the USSR, but rather the August 15, 1971, disconnection between the U.S. dollar and gold."
Precient insight into developing Ukraine crises, (speech made in 2015):
"Where else did [US] target? Ukraine, the connection between the EU and Russia. Of course there were some problems under Ukraine President Yanukovych’s administration, but the reason that the Americans picked it was not simply because of his problem. They had three goals: teach a lesson to Yanukovych who didn’t listen to the U.S., prevent the EU from getting too close to Russia, and create a bad investment environment in Europe."
^In the context of recent financial sanctions against Russian trade and currency, this is exactly what is happening across Europe right now.
I might be misunderstanding something here, but wouldn't a weak dollar strengthen the US economy (in terms of exports) relative to other peer economies (e.g. Euro area, the UK, Japan)?
But this is why I noted that, every so often US for geopolitical reason seems willing to except even domestic pain for some period of time if the relative position of US increases due to the rest of world suffering more during strong-dollar periods.
Give that article a read to understand what I'm saying regarding periodic "harvesting" of rest of world economy (for one, via financial flows into $ and assets as safe haven). Arguably Volcker's extreme tightening in 1970's, with his willingness to crush even the domestic economy for a time, was due to geopolitical interests to maintain trust in the $ as reserve currency and to crush USSR economy by destroying commodity prices and bankrupting their economy partially due to their inability to print the currency of which they had some external debts in.
But I think this is a complex topic you can find many arguments both ways. And US policy has gone back at forth at times pursing both strong and weak for their own interest.
Though I didn't mean to imply weak dollar wouldn't also boost US domestic economy. But to the thrust of my post which way US regime wants to go depends on current geopolitical context.
It's prescient because it hints as US long term interest in keeping Europe and Russia apart (in recent times seen most clearly with meddling with Nord Stream 2 pipeline agreement, and encouraging sanctions that are on their way to destroying European industrial power and impoverishing their citizens on account of lack of cheap energy).
and Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Germany, France, UK, Spain, Slovakia, Georgia, and everyone else who understands what a bloody nightmare Russia has been the last 100 years. Ask any closest neighbor: Pole, Slovak, or Georgian 10 years ago how much they trust anything Russia says.
> They picked the wrong horse to follow. If they stuck with Russia, they wouldn't be in this situation (would US have invaded?).
Seriously? They picked the wrong ally because the other would invade and murder them? Should France have allied with Germany against UK in WW2 instead too? We already know US won't invade with the script flipped; Belarus exists.
> seen most clearly with meddling with Nord Stream 2 pipeline agreement
Are you living under a rock? Every civilized country now unanimously realizes how stupid trying to Nord Stream 2 with Russia was, including Germany.
I am so sick and tired of the goalposts being moved for Russian apologetics. Invasion of Georgia, Donbas, and now full scale invasion of Ukraine. I thought, surely, surely if Russia invades all of Ukraine, there's no possible way some fool can try to make these arguments anymore.
No. In fact, soon they will see how stupid cancelling it was and reopen it willingly.
Look around at all the industrial heads telling you their production will collapse soon without oil and gas imports. This was self inflicted from sanctions and confiscating Russian reserves.
>because the other would invade and murder them
Russia is incapable of invading the rest of Europe. They don't have enough troops or power to do this. And they don't have any national interest in pursuing this. Invading half of Ukraine is difficult enough. Encroachment of NATO forces and weapons along a strategic position on Russia's border (they said for years Ukraine was existential and could never align with NATO) was a terrible decision that Europe went along with while it was only in US's interest to cause chaos and threaten Russia's security interest that way.
Now all of Europe pays the price.
This is real politik. No I do not think it was in Germany's interest to destroy their own domestic economy by backing US's NATO schemes.
It is in Germany and rest of Europe's interest to have good relations with Russia and stop NATO expansion on their border. To have a cheap plentiful energy supply right nearby not import expensive gas from far away.
[0] https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/26/base-m2-13-inch-macbook...
Common ~$100-150 1 TB M.2 SSDs read 7000 MB/s and write 5000 MB/s.
Shared memory and unified memory are very, veeery different things.
People complaining about low ram sound like the bros asking how many cylinders a car has. Doesn't matter for most people.
Just complain about price, yeah, it is expensive!
---
This is coming from someone who does light gaming on an 8gb m1 MacBook Air and has plenty of tabs open. I don't see lag.
Then again, I use safari, maybe Chrome it'd be different.
The developer for whom a macbook air brings a huge amount of power?
I mean, they aren't low-end when compared to the general laptop market, they're awesome!
They may be the target of the pro line, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the performance of the M1 attracted more developers to the Air line. I saw no reason to go to the 'Pro' when I got mine.
I don't know if MacOS's low-RAM behavior has anything particular to it that makes it act so erratically, but it's the only time using a Mac in the last ten years where I've gone "oh, this sucks." Going to 16GB of RAM is a way better spot, I think, for folks who want more than strictly web-browser-and-keyboard. (And those folks are probably better off with an iPad in 2022 I think? The current iPads are great.)
16GB is great though, never had a problem with RAM issue.
YMMV
So that’s not surprising - heck, with 16gb or ram it’s not a walk in the park. I’ve discussed with owner a Mac studio, and they were not happy for Fusion either, that’s with 64gb of ram so…
I think 8gb is borderline criminally low in the circumstances. At least this thing has the option for 24gb though. I just wish that was a stocked model so you could just walk into a store and buy one without having to order it.
That depends. Your average 1080p display doesn't really use a ton of video memory, but a 5k display connected to an internal 1440p display? That's a pretty huge framebuffer. AFAIK, Quartz also has a separate video buffer for each individual window, ranging from 50-150mb for the average application. Add it all up, and I agree that 8gb is pretty low, even with swap. Macs are memory-hungry devices, limiting your physical memory to 8gb is going to be really difficult to work with on anything that isn't text editing or light web browsing.
Air with 8 GM of ram is perfect for a personal laptop where your primary focus is web browsing, watching media and occasional video/photo editing.
I hear people say that today, but how is it going to feel in 2025, when you try loading up MacOS 16 on it? Given the trend of Apple's development, I don't think 8 gigs is going to be sufficient for most people going forward. That's basically iPad-tier memory constraints on a desktop-class operating system.
One thing that is a problem is that web pages get bigger and bigger and more resource intense. I doubt my 2011 air could handle a modern day web page with videos and a bunch of css transforms like on the apple site.
I believe Apple is pretty good about keeping people on the latest versions of their software, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few stragglers or people using EOL devices that are stranded on an older build. I can definitely believe that it's a PITA supporting them, though. Working around MacOS shenanigans is the most frustrating part of my job too.
> One thing that is a problem is that web pages get bigger and bigger and more resource intense.
Eh... I'm not sure if I agree with that sentiment. In the early 2000s there were also people saying "desktop apps are going to get bigger and more resource-intensive", but that never really happened. In fact, the Java runtimes people used in that era were usually heavier than modern applications today, or evestn Electron-bundled programs. IMO, the web has been resource-intensive ever since Javascript became the lingua franca. Nowadays, I think we're making progress to reduce the resources used on websites. Things like WASM and lighter JS frameworks are going to make all the difference here. In fact, I can even see ourselves in another Web2 golden age in a few years. I personally don't think the SAAS landscape is long for this earth, and once it fades away, there will be less incentive to make bloated, broken applications and more of a focus on refining user experience and performance.
It's not just the GPU that shares memory with the CPU. The "media engine" buffers are in there, too at 18 megabytes per frame for 4k reference pictures in the decoded picture buffer. The decoder, scaler, GPU, and DRAM are fast enough to have several tracks of 4k (which even the iPhone 11 & SE can shoot), so don't let RAM size be your limit. I'm happy to see a max of 24GB vs. the M1's 16GB.
Everyone from the sounds of it. Half the threads on /r/mac are from people that want to connect 2/3 monitors to their M1 MacBooks
I think Apple has a far better understanding, backed by actual data, of the circumstances than you, or indeed anyone here. My wife is still using her 2015 Air and has yet to plug it into anything, let alone 4k or 5k monitors that appears to be the "end game scenario" for posters here.
If you are posting on HN, then 8GB is not enough for you. I bought a 16GB M1 Air and it was great, and the day it came out I bought a 64GB M1 Max. But 8GB is more than enough for most of Apple's customers, and I'm sure they have the data to back that up.
Remember the 16gb iPhone? It really just existed to make the 32/64gb models look more reasonable and so Apple could say “From $lower_price_point”.
In the cheapest M2/disk combo, threads here have said Apple have crippled the storage bandwidth relative to the M1, so relying on fast virtual memory is no longer an option. In that scenario 8GB is even more constraining than it was a year ago.
Not that you can’t use plenty of GPU RAM, but 8GB gives you a lot of room to work with. (Video decoding need all that much — probably three buffers worth per stream, and at the size of the video, not the screen.)
Just as it was before, with the Intel chips. Sure you had 64MB of eDRAM or whatever they called it as a cache but you were still using system memory for video.
Of course sheep will keep buying these things.
Typical Air user would be fine performance-wise with any laptop made in last 10 years TBH.
It's a premium product that is priced accordingly, so it's fine to complain about substandard specs.
I’m sure the ARM laptops are better with only 8G but I’m not going to test that idea. 16G is the bottom line for us from now on.
It's just strange to see a premium brand product not being able to compete with same-category class products from a half-decade ago.
[1]: Lighter, in fact, than this MB Air M2
Sometimes I think people just want to feel good about their purchases… It’s 5 years old, it’s okay if it’s not top of the line anymore.
If you’ve used google chrome with messenger dot com, that’s already eating into the ram budget a good amount.
If we're going to play that game, which college student requires a new MacBook Air at all?
I'm an industry professional and do my development on used ThinkPads. Sure there are are some people out there who need more processing power than I do, but not many, and certainly not in college.
How about a college student who contributes to large open source projects? (eg. Chromium or Firefox — I don't know if their memory footprint situation improved so these examples might not be valid today, but they definitely were back in the day). Don't underestimate college students ;)
People who complain about 8 GB being too low probably have a good reason.
I know I needed more than 8 GB because my 8 GB memory laptop always had it full (and was using swap) whenever I was using it for software development (and this laptop was already an upgrade from 4 GB).
However, I also know that I don't need more than 24 GB, because my utilization never reach anywhere close to that in practice.
The problem is more pronounced on computers with memory that cannot be upgraded.
> asking how many cylinders a car has. Doesn't matter for most people.
Where I'm at, the F10 BMW 525d used to come with a creamy smooth 6 cylinder straight six motor. Made a little over 200 hp and 460 Nm of torque.
Later, they changed the engine to a highly tuned 4 cylinder with nearly identical power and torque (still called "525d"). Infact, the 4 cyl motor has a little over 10 horses more than the 6 cyl, but it came at a higher rpm.
The driving experience was noticeably different. The 6 cylinder engine just felt effortless; in-gear acceleration (which matters during overtakes) was simply better. The 4 cyl motor felt strained.
Also, there's the other point that you'd know if you're into engines — straight 6 engines are inherently balanced and yadda yadda (=> no engine vibrations => very smooth), while other configurations need balancer shafts (which can't really be perfected), so the straight 6 engines are slightly more "clean" from an engineering perspective.
Sure, 120 km/h is 120 km/h regardless of cylinder count, but that's not the point. Environmental considerations are also a different matter.
In fact, Apple should stop offering 8GB versions at this point as MacOS is very memory hungry compared to Windows. That yellow “memory pressure” graph is irritating.
I have an air for work with 16GB and frequently bump up against the amount of memory. I'm currently just waiting on reviews to decide between a 24GB Air and a 32GB Pro.