I bought a 16GB MacBook Pro in 2013. It’s still going strong.

Today I wouldn’t buy less than 32GB.

Performance is always better and the machine will last much longer

> and the machine will last much longer.

At the moment, that's debatable, since the only 32GB Macs you can buy are Intel ones...

I have a Mac mini that still had upgradable ram, and was able to be kidded to add a second hard drive. I put 32 gigs of ran and an 1 tb ssd into it. I’ve had it for roughly 7 years. Any current Mac mini is a downgrade except in processor speed.

Would complain that nothing is built well / to last any more... but was recommended a NUC, and now it's my new Mini. Absolutely love it.

Enjoy that while it lasts... Hackintoshes are going to be a dying breed in two years.

Do they overperform for laptop use cases or for iPad use cases?

Video encoding is one example of a laptop use case where the iPad Pro has very competitive performance. Gaming is another.

We're talking about RAM. RAM usage is a direct function of how many apps you have open at the same time. For an iPad that number is a lot smaller than for a laptop.

I don't think that's the reason the iPad Pro performs well at video encoding (or else you'd be able to say the same thing for any Android tablet). It's a combination of dedicated hardware and a fast CPU.

What I'm saying is that just because the iPad Pro is good at video encoding it doesn't mean that it is capable of running a windowed OS with real multitasking. For that you need more RAM. The iPad is built for a specific workflow where you use one or two apps at a time, laptops are designed for a workflow that involves more multitasking.

What Apple appears to have done is transpose the hardware from iPad to Mac without thinking about the different requirements of each. There is a reason that RAM is not part of the package on laptop CPUs. This might work for casual users but people spending $$$ on a "pro" computer will wise up pretty fast.

I used to run a Windowed OS with real multitasking on a 33MHz 486 DX with 4MB of RAM! Sure, apps are a little more resource hungry these days, but there's nothing about multitasking or windowing that inherently requires tons of RAM. An iPad could for sure enable full multitasking without any problems. Apple has made millions of laptops that ran OS X perfectly fine with less than 6GB of RAM. It's just that iPad users aren't accustomed to having to manually manage which apps are open at any given time.

I have a 2019 Macbook Air with 8GB RAM and it runs OS X fine for dev work. RAM compression and fast SSD storage make a big difference. The newer Macbooks will have even faster SSDs.

I think the main reason Apple don't want to add lots of RAM to the base Macbook models is that it's the wrong compromise between battery life and performance for most users. They are probably betting on continuing gains in SSD performance obviating the need for additional RAM.

Video encoding is usually special dedicated hardware, so it's more measuring the hardware encoder than the general speed of the device. Go head to head with AV1 encoding for example and you'll see it matches it's general benchmark.

Also, hardware encoders produce much less efficient results (in terms of the ratio of quality to file size) then the best software encoders like x264.

Yes, but Apple are moving in the direction of adding dedicated hardware to support a lot of common use cases. The point remains that video encoding is something that people often use laptops for. Users just want it to go fast; they don't care how exactly the hardware is making that happen.

The iPad Pro has strong raw CPU performance in any case. It certainly outperforms plenty of entry-level Windows laptops.

What's the difference nowadays?

The vast majority of people need a social media, word editor, reminder list, chat machine.

Last time I checked, my laptop doesn't run the oom killer constantly.

For a lot of people, that will be four running copies of Chromium.