Yes, I'm aware that Windows has memory compression, so let's think about why it's less successful and Windows systems need more memory than Macs.

The Apple version has a very high-performance hardware implementation versus Microsoft's software implementation (not a slam on Microsoft, they just have to support more hardware).

The Apple designers can assume a higher performance baseline memory subsystem because, again, they're working with hardware designers at the same company who are equally committed to making the product succeed.

The core Mac frameworks are optimized to reduce VM pressure and more Mac apps use the system frameworks, which means that you're paying the overhead tax less.

Many Mac users use Safari instead of Chrome so they're saving multiple GB for an app which most people have open constantly as well as all of the apps which embed a WebKit view.

Again, this is not magic, it's aligned incentives. Microsoft doesn't control Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm's product design, they can't force Google to make Chrome better, and they can't force every PC vendor not to skimp on hardware. They can and do work with those companies but it takes longer and in some cases the cost incentives are wrong – e.g. a PC vendor knows 99% of their buyers will blame Windows if they use slower RAM to save a few bucks or get paid to preload of McAfee which keeps the memory subsystem busy constantly so they take the deal which adds to their bottom line now.

He didn’t say 8 gigs is great but that you can get by with about 8 gigs less than equivalent on Windows.

i think i had 20+ years ago servers with this https://www.eetimes.com/serverworks-rolls-out-chip-set-based...

My point is that it's not just the OS for Apple, because every part of the device is made by people with the same incentives. Android is slower and has worse battery efficiency than iOS not because Google are a bunch of idiots (quite the contrary) but because they have to support a wider range of hardware and work with the vendors who are going to use slower, less capable components to save $3 per device. Apple had a decade lead on basic things like storage security because when they decided to do that, the hardware team committed to putting high-quality encryption into the SoC and that meant that iOS could just assume that feature existed and was fast starting on the 3GS whereas Google had to spend years and years haranguing the actual phone manufacturers into implementing what was at the time seen as a costly optional feature.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about: Apple can do that because everyone involved works at the same place and owns the success or failure of the product. Google or Microsoft have to be a lot more conservative because they have limited ability to force the hardware vendors to do something and they'll probably get blamed more if it doesn't work well: people are primed to say “Windows <version + 1> sucks!” even if the real answer is that their PC was marginally-specced when they bought it 5 years ago.