Will the New Version of Affinity Photo run smoothly on the New M2 Mac Mini with 16GB RAM ?

[loukash]

6 minutes ago, augustya said:

But the info that I have been given is that correct ? Having a Larger SDD in this case 512 vs 256 can that also result in Faster and smoother running of the Computer with the M1 or M2 Chip because of the Unified Memory set up ?

Yes, I remember having read such articles before. But since I don't own an Apple Silicon Mac, I didn't pay too much attention to them yet.

[v_kyr]

15 minutes ago, augustya said:

But the info that I have been given is that correct ? Having a Larger SDD in this case 512 vs 256 can that also result in Faster and smoother running of the Computer with the M1 or M2 Chip because of the Unified Memory set up ?

Yes, but but more to this fact ...

Quote

SSDs are made up of so called storage modules (NAND chips). These NAND chips can differ in size. The "old" M1 MacBook Air had 2x128GB to achieve the total 256GB storage, the new one only has one 256GB NAND chip, while the 512GB model has 2x256GB. An end user never sees this while using a Mac, since the storage is simply presented as the total capacity.

Having two storage modules allows the computer to access both at the same time. I.e. imagine you have one thumb drive with 256GB capacity or two with each 128GB, but all other technical specs (i.e. read/write speed,...) are the same. In both cases your total capacity is the same. However, it is obvious that you can read data twice as fast with two thumb drives than with just one.

... so the point here is, that a 256 GB SSD with just one NAND chip is transfering data slower than for example a embedded 512 GB SSD with two NAND chips who are operating in parallel here. Meaning in short, that the 512GB SSD has/offers a faster data transfer, which in turn might be recognized when for example swapping huge amount of datas between RAM and SSD memory (... video editing and transcribing etc.).

[NotMyFault]

5 minutes ago, augustya said:

But the info that I have been given is that correct ? Having a Larger SDD in this case 512 vs 256 can that also result in Faster and smoother running of the Computer with the M1 or M2 Chip because of the Unified Memory set up ?

This was reported for M1 chips, but may no longer apply. The difference is actually academic, only measurable in synthetic tests.

Don‘t make you decision too complicated. Can use any current Apple device, even in the entry level configuration. M1 or M2 only maters if you know with absolute certainty that you need e.g 24 or 32 GB RAM. Most uses can’t say.

Go with at least 16 GB RAM and 512 GB ssd, Affinity will be good enough. It you are not happy after a month and want more, sell the Mac (which normally has excellent value even used) and buy a bigger one. 

[augustya]

7 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

This was reported for M1 chips, but may no longer apply. The difference is actually academic, only measurable in synthetic tests.

Don‘t make you decision too complicated. Can use any current Apple device, even in the entry level configuration. M1 or M2 only maters if you know with absolute certainty that you need e.g 24 or 32 GB RAM. Most uses can’t say.

Go with at least 16 GB RAM and 512 GB ssd, Affinity will be good enough. It you are not happy after a month and want more, sell the Mac (which normally has excellent value even used) and buy a bigger one. 

Have the Budget only for 256GB SSD and 16GB RAM 

[v_kyr]

7 minutes ago, augustya said:

Have the Budget only for 256GB SSD and 16GB RAM 

Then save a little more money for it (in order to opt for the 512 GB SSD instead) and wait a bit longer until you buy the hardware.

[NotMyFault]

You should factor in 2 external HDD or ssd for Time Machine backups.  Which are cheap.

 

[augustya]

4 minutes ago, NotMyFault said:

You should factor in 2 external HDD or ssd for Time Machine backups.  Which are cheap.

 

Having an external SSD or HDD is definitely worth buying but it still does not compensates for the fact that having an internal bigger SSD in a Mac itself also results in working as an indirect RAM. 

[v_kyr]

On 1/20/2023 at 2:04 PM, augustya said:

but it still does not compensates for the fact that having an internal bigger SSD in a Mac itself also results in working as an indirect RAM. 

See related now for the new M2 based Mac Mini and MacBook Pro's ...

• New 256GB Mac Mini and 512GB MacBook Pro Have Slower SSD Speeds Than Previous Models

• 2023 MacBook Pro SSD has performance drop similar to M2 MacBook Air

• MacBook Pro und Mac mini 2023: Langsamere SSDs in Basismodellen (DE)

[v_kyr]

Well sadly Apple started with the M2 architecture to strip down all the entry level hardware models SSDs performances (... so for MBA M2, MacMini M2, MBP M2 14" and MBP M2 16" entry models they save on NAND chips). - Here are some SSD speed measurements for the Mac Mini M2 hardware ...

BTW, if someone is going to measure his own Mac SSD speeds I would personally use ...

• AmorphousDiskMark

... instead of ...

• Blackmagic Disk Speed

[Chills]

The problems of the M1/M2 macs have been discussed at length in other forums.  My profession is an embedded systems engineer (I do both hardware and SW development)
The problem is that when an M1 or M2 mac runs out or RAM it pages to virtual memory on the hard drive.  At one time a PC main RAM maxed at, wait for it,  512KB!!  Hard disks were slow spinning disks. This  paging was slower than just using RAM but enabled large working spaces. 

Most general purpose computers still use paging and virtual memory.  These days with the advent of much faster hard drives indeed moving to SSD's and M2's along with anything up to 128GB RAM things have got faster. 

However there is a problem RAM is design to change state often but retains no memory.  Flash memory as used on SSD's M.2 memory etc is Flash memory that has a far far lower write/read/erase or re-write life than magnetic spinning hard disks (and even those have a finite life). most flash memory ie better more expensive SDHC cards, all SSD drives and M.2 drive all have wear levelign that ensures all sectors get the same or similar use. So you don't get a drive dying because 100 sectors have maxed out and die where the other 500 have sectors near zero use.

So.... for an M1 or M2 MAC with a small amount of memory eg 8/16GB  it appears to have amazing performance because it is using a lot of virtual memory on very  fast flash memory drives. The problem is even with wear leveling lots of paging is cutting into the life of the drive. Various tests by video editing users have determined that their M1/M2 MACS with 8 or 16GB RAM will probably die in about 2 - 3  years. NOTE this is for heavy video edit use. The discussion decided that the numbers of heavy video users that only have 8/16GB RAM will be small so Apple will live with any that fail in the 3 year Apple care program.  Most will fail in years 4-6.
For many users just using their Macs for office use,  light weight apps that are not using vast amounts of memory like video editing does, it won't be a problem. Though 2nd hand M1/2 macs are not going to have any resale value. 

Then you have the problem is that if the internal hard drive fails  (or anything else fails) you are screwed anyway. It is a board swap. Of course if you use Apple back-up and buy ALL your apps from the Apple store you can recover them to a new computer. How you sort out licensees for other apps that didn't come via Apple I don't know.

I have several Mac Book-Pro's and a MAC Pro (The old silver crate) however I have now moved to PC's where *everything* is individually up-gradable.  Also all the items cost a lot less than for a Mac (and I have choices).  I have upgraded all my laptops. Both PC and Mac over the years. The RAM, the hard drives (all to SSD's)  and had my MAC repaired. I can't do any of that with the M1/M2 macs.

So in a nutshell if you are a light user then a Mac M1/2 is stylish and fast but expensive and have a lot fewer options. (and no 3rd party repiarers) 
PC's are less stylish, almost as fast, cost a lot less and have a longer life. (lots of 3rd party repair places)
 

 

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, Chills said:

The problems of the M1/M2 macs ...

All good points!

1 hour ago, Chills said:

The problem is even with wear leveling lots of paging is cutting into the life of the drive. Various tests by video editing users have determined that their M1/M2 MACS with 8 or 16GB RAM will probably die in about 2 - 3  years. NOTE this is for heavy video edit use. ...

As somebody who does frontend/backend development with huge project related frameworks, a bunch of involved third party libs and containers etc., I can see the same things without having to do any video editing at all here. - Meaning the SSDs are always continiously under pressure and in action here too, writing/reading/indexing ... etc. So their overall wear leveling is cutting too into their life time before failure here.

 

2 hours ago, Chills said:

Then you have the problem is that if the internal hard drive fails  (or anything else fails) you are screwed anyway.

Well the overall bad here is that with silicon (M1/M2) based Macs you can't even boot from an external SSD then if the internal SSD died, in contrast to that on the older Mac Intel hardware you were at least able to boot up from external drives if the internal one died. - On silicon hardware the internal SSD has to be alive, in order to being able to boot from an external one.

 

2 hours ago, Chills said:

Of course if you use Apple back-up and buy ALL your apps from the Apple store you can recover them to a new computer. How you sort out licensees for other apps that didn't come via Apple I don't know.

Making often and having backups of all (incl. the installer apps etc. of all bought third party software) is essential here. - For keeping non MAS licenses etc. I personally use local portable app password safes, where I keep all software licenses. I run the same/similar password safe software (which all can read/write the pwd DB format) on all platforms. Of course I backup that stuff too also periodically and also always keep some actual running versions on USB-sticks.

 

[Chills]

11 hours ago, N.P.M. said:

Ditto and also my approach for windows.
Saving installers on external drive(s) and using a passwordmanager with login/license information.

Absolutley.  You need backups and raid storage not matter the OS.  
The differernce is should almost any componant fail on a windows system you can replace (or upgrade it) 

If anything fails onthe new Macs it is a motherboard, IE whole computer, swap.

My advice is that if you are short on cash and can not afford the M1/M2 with maxed out RAM  go for a PC instead.
Otherise you are putting style over function.

[loukash]

15 hours ago, v_kyr said:

if someone is going to measure his own Mac SSD speeds I would personally use ...

• AmorphousDiskMark

Given that my 2012 MBP with a 2TB SanDisk SSD peaks at measly R:550/W:420 MB/s – which still appears blazingly fast to me compared to the decades I spent with spinning hard drives – I'm now actually less worried than before.

11 hours ago, v_kyr said:

14 hours ago, Chills said:

The problems of the M1/M2 macs ...

All good points!

Hm. I wonder how many average Affinity users this may actually affect.

[loukash]

11 minutes ago, Chills said:

Otherise you are putting style over function.

Can we please keep this old and tiresome "argument" out of this discussion? thanks

[augustya]

3 minutes ago, loukash said:

Can we please keep this old and tiresome "argument" out of this discussion? thanks

Tiresome as in "Windows" vs "Mac" Argument ?

[loukash]

7 minutes ago, augustya said:

Tiresome as in "Windows" vs "Mac" Argument ?

Yeah, that would be certainly one aspect.  
But to each their own.
My late dad loved Windows PCs because… they gave him always excuses like: "Sorry, I couldn't send you birthday wishes last month because all my PCs were broken!" No joke.  

Now his PCs sit in our backyard storage room and I still don't know what to do with them. They all run Win 7, so I can't even install my Affinity Universal License on them. Oh well…

[Chills]

15 minutes ago, loukash said:

Can we please keep this old and tiresome "argument" out of this discussion? thanks

This was a purely electronics/techincal argument.  
Also the cost of ownership. As the OP is short on cash a Mac is not the most cost effective option.
That is  a fact.

I have both MAcs and Windows machines (and a couple of Linux ones too) 
 

[loukash]

1 minute ago, Chills said:

This was a purely electronics/techincal argument.

How is "style over function" a "technical" argument? 

7 minutes ago, Chills said:

Also the cost of ownership.

Given that I can still do all my work on a 2012 MacBook Pro, at least my "cost of ownership" appears pretty good to me.
It still has to be seen if it also applies to current models. We don't know yet. It's all just guesses, "half-" or even "less-"educated.

[Chills]

6 minutes ago, loukash said:

Yeah, that would be certainly one aspect.  
But to each their own.
My late dad loved Windows PCs because… they gave him always excuses like: "Sorry, I couldn't send you birthday wishes last month because all my PCs were broken!" No joke.  

Now his PCs sit in our backyard storage room and I still don't know what to do with them. They all run Win 7, so I can't even install my Affinity Universal License on them. Oh well…

I have (multiple) Macs and PC's here.
The Macs (old) are are at their upgrade limit but lasted a long time because I could upgrade and reonvate them. (more RAM, swap HDD for bigger SSD, new Battery,  could be repaired by 3rd party tech)

I capuld also upgrade the PC's *any componant* with a wide choice and rarely an loss of data.
You can't do that with the new Macs.  Now you can't fix mac it is a motherboard (and CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD swap allin one go) along with all the contents and this can only be done by Apple. Also the New M12's have a finite life.

I have had both MAC and PC failures.  *everytime* the Mac was more expensive and difficult to fix.

Also with the older MACs Apple Intentionally  build in obsolessence in that new versions of the OS will not, by design,  run on older hardware. It is a way of ensureing people have to buy new Apple hardware in order to carry on.  ALso updates to new  Apps in the APple store onl;y tend to work with the latest version of the OS.  Apple force peopel tro move to new hardware.

I have PC's with Win XP and Win 7 on them because I need those OS for running some obsolete software.  Some old Dev programs for some old  8bit MCU's are not longer supported. Even if the devices are still in the field. 

Basically if you are short of cash unless you NEED some Apple only software you are better with a PC.

That is just the view of an embedded syustems engineer who designs HW and SW who has had Macs for over 20 years PC's for pver 30 years and many other computer systems as well (Linux, Unix, Solaris,  OS2,   OS-9,  LynxOS, BITS (a DG clone)  Sciopta, embOS, TOS,  GEM etc) on a  wide variety of 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 bit platforms.
 

 

 

[augustya]

3 minutes ago, loukash said:

How is "style over function" a "technical" argument? 

Given that I can still do all my work on a 2012 MacBook Pro, at least my "cost of ownership" appears pretty good to me.
It still has to be seen if it also applies to current models. We don't know yet. It's all just guesses, "half-" or even "less-"educated.

I agree people who say that only if you spec out the MX configuration in Mac and which would cost you a bomb would you then be able to get the best best use of Mac which is fas from reality. This is something which the Windows Lobby and Windows Fanatics always say this in hate for the Mac however real life usage has shown that in a lot of case a base level or a slightly spec out Mac model completely demolishes a windows current PC.

[v_kyr]

51 minutes ago, loukash said:

Hm. I wonder how many average Affinity users this may actually affect.

Depends on what they are mainly doing here software wise and I'm pretty sure people don't just buy a hardware only for some Affinity usuage here. - However I have the impression that there are a bunch of people who (try to) use APh a lot for photo batch development (RAW processing), or astrophotography etc. And if you always throw in a lot of images you will also stress the SSD here. Others have/use APub files which turn out to need/use gigabytes in sizes, these too will do a lot of swapping here.

So it always depends on what you are doing here with the Affinity apps and to what amount/degree!

[loukash]

15 minutes ago, Chills said:

You can't do that with the new Macs. 

I know. And I even agree that it actually sucks.
But perhaps it's not as "bad" as it reads on paper when looked at from a nerd perspective. Time will tell.

Last Friday I visited an old musician buddy who has an audio studio. He has the MBP 16" M1 at the "center", so I asked him if I can "play" with it for a few minutes. I definitely wasn't overwhelmed, compared to my trusty 2012 MBP. But it wasn't about the tech specs at all, it was more about the literal feel. 
Still, it was a better feel than on any Win compatible laptop I have tried so far. (Don't let me even start about my late dad's half broken HP laptop which he apparently tried to upgrade or repair or what do I know…)

Anyway…  

1 minute ago, v_kyr said:

it always depends on what are you doing here with the Affinity apps and to what amount

Of course.
Do we have any trustworthy statistics on that?
(At first I thought I'm asking this rhetorically, but on a second thought, it would be actually interesting.)

[Chills]

8 minutes ago, loukash said:

How is "style over function" a "technical" argument? 

Given that I can still do all my work on a 2012 MacBook Pro, at least my "cost of ownership" appears pretty good to me.
It still has to be seen if it also applies to current models. We don't know yet. It's all just guesses, "half-" or even "less-"educated.

It was a techincal argument the result is you pay a lot more for less upgradabliity of componants, lack of repair etc etc. The only conclusion is peopel spend a lot more oney for the name and the look. 

Your 2012 Macs, like mine, are different to the new M1/M2 macs.  You can upgrade the 2012 macs but you can't run the ltest MaOS or most apps past about 2014 versions.

We were diuscussing some one with limited funds looking at the M1/2 Macs this is not the same as over a decade ago looking at the 2012 macs.
As a user with limited resources the M1/2 Macs are not a good option.   

That said on the professional video forums the M1/2 macs are not seen as a good bet even if you do have money.
A lot of the big outfits have moved to Linux and Windows on "PC" hardware. There was a lot of discussion about this onthe BMD Da Vinci Resolve forums.

The new MAC Pro simply died. It only makes sense if you can make a business case for the $100K versions.  Most people quickly realised you can bulld a $6K entry level spec PC for about $3k but it performs like the $9K Mac Pro. A lot of the people who got early versions of the Mac Pro returned them.  That was dissapointing as I was intending to replace my Mac Pro (the one before the trashcan Pro)  instead after alot of investigation with jumped form Mac to PC for video and photography work.
 
 

[v_kyr]

Personally I prefer MacOS (Unix) as a development platform, since it's overall more stable and scalable for the apps/programs I commonly have to use in contrast to Windows here. Though I also do development on Win & Linux platforms. - In my case it highly depends more on what certain customer projects predictate here and what the whole project development team has to use hardware & software wise.

[Chills]

1 minute ago, loukash said:

I know. And I even agree that it actually sucks.
But perhaps it's not as "bad" as it reads on paper when looked at from a nerd perspective. Time will tell.

if you mean an electronics/Sw computing "nerd" who has been writing software from 1972 and making hardware since 1994  I work on critical systems.  It is in my blood as we always had computers at home or workas my father started programming in 1953.    I think I qualifyas a nerd.  I could bore you to death on how 4 way set associative caches in the CPU works or how you build micro code to decode assmbely instructions.

The new M1/2 macs are good if you have light computing requirments and won't be thrashing the virtual memory.  Otherwise the storage memory has a finite life and is not replaceable.  You are buying built in obsolessence.   Unlike previous PC's and Macs where there was no part that would wear out (eg flash memory, batteries or at a pinch electromytic capacitors) you cound not replace.  Though apple was moviong to wards more and more custom IC's even where it was not needed to restrictt 3rd party repairers.  It is still the case on PC's that you can repair/replace all componants or modules. On the new m1/2 macs it is a computer swap for any failure.