I'm not going to look through the list right now, but some of my applications go into several gigabytes. For people who game on their computers, games take up way too much storage space. If you use parallels or bootcamp, that's another chunk of space. These things fill up fast, and were you assuming the system use this smaller disk for pagefile/caching as that is typically done on the boot drive. If so you do need some free space on there. OSX has a really weird file system, so I'd give it breathing room no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Thus I see no point in putting in a SSD that is too small to handle an average MBP users app install. My point is that you can easily, within a day, install more apps and stuff that will effectively use up all of that space.
Sorry, but neither of you is close to the average MBP user if you need more than 64 GB on the boot drive. My entire System folder is well under 20 GB. Even if you put the app itself on the System drive, 64 GB would be plenty for most people.
Games? Well, the average MBP user doesn't have 200 GB of Games - and even if they do, only the app really needs to be on the system drive. The data files could be elsewhere.
If you really want 512 GB of SSD, feel free, but it's a waste for most people if there's a platter disk to hold the high volumes of data.
I am not using hardly any of the space on my SSD but even I know 64 GB of space isn't enough. 128 GB is the minimum, with options for 256, 512, and possibly even 1 TB.
I bought an iPad, i'm not going to buy the next MacBook Pro or MacBook Air. That said I still need a desktop Mac for Xcode, so I have my eye on a Mac Pro or Macmini (and continue doing video capture work on the Windows box.)
I don't see Apple ever using the "Extreme" chips. The only system that has used anything like this was the upper end of the Mac Pro with the 6-core Xeons. This is where they belong. Not laptops. No doubt I'll see Dell and HP sell overpriced junk with them anyway. I learned my lesson in 2004 about buying "desktop replacement" laptops, they are not worth it, you get no battery life with the expense of getting poor video graphics performance.
What I do see Apple doing is, using the first two parts listed in the article for the 15" and 17" laptops and dropping the 13" Pro entirely since it duplicates the Air. The Air CPU's are the 17watt models, where as the i7 Quadcores with 45watt TDP can't be put in anything smaller than a 15" model since it would compromise the ability to cool it.
So no, with the emergences of OpenCL integrated into LLVM/Clang and how Apple leverages the GPGPUs for process tasks the more power the discrete GPU the more responsive the system, overall.
What many people miss in the GPU/Improved integrated graphics argument is just that. If a program isn't written to take advantage of it it won't even enter into it. If it is it makes a huge difference in user experience. Just having the GPU isn't the solution, it has to be written for. Apple has a stake in creating several layers of good hardware options and also writing their signature apps to function at their best on these. But they also have to get 3rd party developers to deliver the same. Especially with the prospects of retina displays on Apple laptops. It's not good if it looks great but performs just pretty OK.
Gotta say 'm getting pretty excited about the spring laptops, with more small confirmations of their schedule like these.
Actually this is a hard learned lesson from way back in 2008 when I got my MBP. I think with in a day I had surpassed 70 GB of stuff installed. It adds up quick. Look at what happens when you install XCode, open Office, Eclipse, a couple of web browsers, Mac Ports, a few graphics programs like Gimp, a VM or two and other apps.
I was actually shocked at how fast the capacity iPod that 200GB drive disappeared. Note too this is before I even had an iTunes account. or for that matter any media to amount to anything. That media currently resides on an external disk.
In the end I ended up ditching Open Office for Apples "office" apps, removed Mac Ports in favor of Homebrew and did a number of other refactorings. In the end I'm pretty confident when I say 64 GB is too small these days for an app / boot drive. Even Apple has heard the whine form it's XCode users as they have dramatically trimmed that apps install profile along with the documentation it installs. Even iBooks author downloads to a huge impact on you disk drive.
Remember I'm talking about a MBP used as a machine by someone more than a novice to do more than the average person does with his machine. However I'm not by any measure a power user, nor do I get into some of the demanding graphics work that many on the forum do. So by that measure I don't think to many MBP users would be happy at all with a 64 GB boot / app drive.
Here is just a quick few install numbers from my Applications directory. Not that often stuff gets installed elsewhere so these are minimals.
Adobe Reader 296MB
Aperture 304 MB (an old version)
DraftSight 265 MB
Garage band 300MB
Gimp 222 MB
Firefox 78MB
IBooks Author 322 MB
IMovie 236 MB
Inkscape 284 MB
IPhoto 388 MB (an old version)
iTunes 222 MB
IWeb 441 MB
Lyx 461 MB
Solid works eDrawings 206MB this isn't even a CAD system
Virtual box 225 MB
WebKit 144 MB
XCode 4.49 GB
iWork 705MB
These are not everything on disk but represent some of the bigger things in just the Apps directory. Right now finder reports 15 GB of space used in then Applications directory, 19 GB in the Library directory, 5 GB in the System directory, /usr has 9 GB of data in use. So you see we have already basically used up that 64 GB drive before we have even started on the users directories.
Now look at my home directory, it is at almost 100 Gb even. Yes it needs to be pruned but I don't expect a major reduction in space usage. Now mind you most of my media files are on another drive. Of that 25 GB sits in the Library directory which is a pain to clean up, because you need to figure out what is stale and unneeded. Speaking of which Apple needs to put better controls into uninstallers as much gets left around the disk that doesn't need to be there.
In the end though it is very very easy to go past the 64 GB mark just with App installs.
64GB is more than adequate for your OS and oft used apps. I am using 24GB of an 80GB Intel X25 G2 SSD. I have a a 1TB @5400RPM HDD as my Home Folder.
I have Xcode installed. It's 3.24GB (BASE2). I also have iWork, MS Office and other large suites installed.
If for some reason you can't put all your apps on the boot drive then the OS could intelligently place them on the secondary drive, whether that be an HDD or SSD.
PS: If I were to redo my setup I would have gone with a smaller SLC SSD from Intel.
Sorry, but neither of you is close to the average MBP user if you need more than 64 GB on the boot drive. My entire System folder is well under 20 GB. Even if you put the app itself on the System drive, 64 GB would be plenty for most people.
Games? Well, the average MBP user doesn't have 200 GB of Games - and even if they do, only the app really needs to be on the system drive. The data files could be elsewhere.
If you really want 512 GB of SSD, feel free, but it's a waste for most people if there's a platter disk to hold the high volumes of data.
I was stating how things could add up. I don't personally install games. I used to play a couple, but there are better ways to spend time. I wasn't suggesting 200GB worth of games. This stuff is always a mix. As for me personally, terabytes of photos, raw files, exr files, layered comps that can be 1-2GB each, and backups of this stuff. Hehe... it wouldn't fit on a laptop drive under any circumstance. Anyway you bring up an interesting point. What is the profile of a macbook pro user going forward given the increasing popularity of the macbook air. Obviously it has to encapsulate users in need of a laptop whose needs are not met by the Air, but it becomes a matter of where that starts going forward.
Wait, are you suggesting differences in product line numbers between different manufacturers is evidence that one is inferior to the other? nVidia's on their 600 series. Does that mean it's much worse than the Intel 4000?
I don't disagree that the performance is worse on the Intel stuff, but saying the numbers have anything to do with that is fallacy.
I assume what he meant to say is that since the HD 4000 is released well after the AMD 7000 series, yet won't even come remotely close to even the AMD GPU's released well before the 7000 series, all while AMD is has already been working on their 8000 series for some time, which more or less proves the point that Intel graphics suck. As they have always done, except for the few times they licensed PowerVR designs and rebranded them as Intel graphics.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Intel fan (they are actually one of the main reasons my employer can pay me to do my job), but just for their CPU's.
Intel = great CPU's, crap GPU's. It's a bit like NVidia, everyone assumes that because they can make great desktop GPU's, their mobile GPU's are automatically also great, even though are actually pretty crappy compared to the competition.
I assume what he meant to say is that since the HD 4000 is released well after the AMD 7000 series, yet won't even come remotely close to even the AMD GPU's released well before the 7000 series, all while AMD is has already been working on their 8000 series for some time, which more or less proves the point that Intel graphics suck. As they have always done, except for the few times they licensed PowerVR designs and rebranded them as Intel graphics.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Intel fan (they are actually one of the main reasons my employer can pay me to do my job), but just for their CPU's.
Intel = great CPU's, crap GPU's. It's a bit like NVidia, everyone assumes that because they can make great desktop GPU's, their mobile GPU's are automatically also great, even though are actually pretty crappy compared to the competition.
You're missing the entire point.
I don't think anyone suggested that an integrated GPU would ever be faster than a dedicated GPU. That's just not going to happen. People who need the ultimate in performance will always benefit from a dedicated GPU like that provided by Nvidia or ATI/AMD.
The issue, though, is whether an integrated GPU is good enough. And the answer is that, for many users, it is. For example, I never do anything on my laptop that would require the power of a dedicated GPU. So, for me, the Intel 4000 graphics would be fine. There are certainly some people who need a dedicated GPU. If Apple's assessment is that the latter group is large enough, then they will continue to offer a dedicated GPU. If they believe that the latter group is not large enough, they might not.
Personally, my guess would be that they would continue to offer a dedicated GPU at least for the 17" MBP, and probably for the 15", as well. To me, it makes sense to have MBA without dedicated GPU in sizes of 11, 13, and 15" and to have MBP with dedicated GPU in sizes of 15 and 17". That's only a guess, though.
I don't think anyone suggested that an integrated GPU would ever be faster than a dedicated GPU. That's just not going to happen. People who need the ultimate in performance will always benefit from a dedicated GPU like that provided by Nvidia or ATI/AMD.
Somewhere earlier in this thread the question was raised if anyone would care about the lack of a discrete GPU, if it turned out the HD 4000 is 'about as good as a mid-range discrete GPU'. Also, the current 15"+ MBP's have a discrete GPU, and the 13" models used to have one before the current generation. So I think it's a perfectly valid discussion to compare IGP's to discrete GPU's when talking about what Apple should use in the MBP's. Another thing to keep in mind when evaluating the Ivy Bridge IGP is that AMD's IGP's absolutely wipe the floor with Intel's, to the point that for some applications, the HD4000 will likely barely keep up with e.g. the GPU in AMD's E350, which is already almost a year old.
Quote:
The issue, though, is whether an integrated GPU is good enough. And the answer is that, for many users, it is. For example, I never do anything on my laptop that would require the power of a dedicated GPU.
You never transcode or edit video? You expect to never browse websites with WebGL content? You expect to never hook up your MBP to a HiDPI monitor somewhere in the future? You're not going to use any image editing software that can use the GPU for real-time previews of image processing effects?
Quote:
So, for me, the Intel 4000 graphics would be fine.
That remains to be seen, but maybe for you, an IGP could be perfectly fine. Maybe a C2D CPU from 2009 would also be fine since most people rarely if ever tax their CPU's. Or 4GB of RAM or more, why would you need that if you just browse the web and do some word processing every now and then?
Probably you are better off with a MacBook Air if this is the case, but we were talking about the MBP here.
Quote:
There are certainly some people who need a dedicated GPU.
Anyone who wants to play games, anyone who wants to run heavy GPGPU tasks, anyone who wants to get decent desktop performance at the 4k2k resolutions you can expect within a year or 2, anyone who out of principle doesn't want to buy a new laptop that has worse graphics performance than their 3-year old old MBP. Seems like it's not too hard to come up with some valid use cases for a dedicated GPU.
Quote:
If Apple's assessment is that the latter group is large enough, then they will continue to offer a dedicated GPU. If they believe that the latter group is not large enough, they might not.
Well, I've always been very forgiving in the design choices that Apple makes, even if that means a small step back so they can make 2 steps forward on some other attributes of their products (now or in the future), but in this case I'm simply not going to accept just an IGP in a laptop that costs $1500 and upwards. I don't mind paying more for quality, but in that case I expect quality. Graphics performance that is on par or even worse than a 2008 model in the premium laptop of a premium brand, is inexcusable. For design + power/weight vs. specs we have the MBA. The MBP is supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine.
Quote:
Personally, my guess would be that they would continue to offer a dedicated GPU at least for the 17" MBP, and probably for the 15", as well. To me, it makes sense to have MBA without dedicated GPU in sizes of 11, 13, and 15" and to have MBP with dedicated GPU in sizes of 15 and 17". That's only a guess, though.
If Apple doesn't put a discrete GPU in the 15" MBP's, their MBP sales will tank. It would get hammered on the graphics in every review except the most biased ones, since you simply cannot defend the value proposition of a MBP with graphics performance on par with a cheap-ass laptop from 3 years back. They might get away with a 13" model that doesn't have a discrete GPU, but for me, it would be a show-stopper. I would have to reconsider whether I'd want to get an MBA instead, or just give up on the idea of buying an Apple laptop altogether, for the simple fact that I refuse to pay $1200 for a laptop I want to use for at least 3 or 4 years, with graphics performance that is worse than a $400 Windows laptop from last year. There are limits...
If Apple doesn't put a discrete GPU in the 15" MBP's, their MBP sales will tank. It would get hammered on the graphics in every review except the most biased ones, since you simply cannot defend the value proposition of a MBP with graphics performance on par with a cheap-ass laptop from 3 years back. They might get away with a 13" model that doesn't have a discrete GPU, but for me, it would be a show-stopper. I would have to reconsider whether I'd want to get an MBA instead, or just give up on the idea of buying an Apple laptop altogether, for the simple fact that I refuse to pay $1200 for a laptop I want to use for at least 3 or 4 years, with graphics performance that is worse than a $400 Windows laptop from last year. There are limits...
3-4 years isn't that unreasonable these days, as the hardware progression has slowed somewhat in terms of real results unless things are artificially hindered. While Apple seems to be heading that direction, it would make for a relatively pointless machine as you'd pay more for a bigger machine with less and less differentiation. As noted I don't care about machine size so much in desktops, but it can be a bigger factor if you wish to transport it.
The system itself is leveraging the GPU more and more. This means some apps benefit from GPU acceleration even if they aren't specifically taking advantage of OpenCL or other GPU technologies. Apple isn't anywhere near as far along as they have been with iOS but Mac OS is using the GPU more and more with each release. Apps the use core features that are accelerated to benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
What many people miss in the GPU/Improved integrated graphics argument is just that. If a program isn't written to take advantage of it it won't even enter into it. If it is it makes a huge difference in user experience. Just having the GPU isn't the solution, it has to be written for.
Well that is obvious in one sense but misleading in another. Apps don't have to be specifically written to use the GPU to benefit from it begin in the system. Any system call that they use that is at a lower level accelerated by a GPU benefits the app. This is what people often mis, you can get better performance out of an app if the system it runs under has a GPU that is significantly faster that the CPU solution.
Quote:
Apple has a stake in creating several layers of good hardware options and also writing their signature apps to function at their best on these. But they also have to get 3rd party developers to deliver the same. Especially with the prospects of retina displays on Apple laptops. It's not good if it looks great but performs just pretty OK.
One thing people seem to misunderstand is that some apps simply don't have a play in app specific GPU acceleration. GPU acceleration is an advantage for certain types of data and instructions flows only and can not realistically be used to accelerate every app out there. At best these apps can only make use of the GPU accelerated functions in the system software they call.
As to HiDPI screens (maybe not retina) you have reasonable concerns. That is why I'm a strong proponent of MBP's with good discrete GPU options. I'm pretty much convinced that the Ivy Bridge GPU won't be able to keep up.
Quote:
Gotta say 'm getting pretty excited about the spring laptops, with more small confirmations of their schedule like these.
Confirmations? Rumors yes, but nothing has been confirmed. What we do have is a leak of Intel release information which seems to indicate a long drawn out laptop release schedule for Apple this year. Sad in a way.
64GB is more than adequate for your OS and oft used apps. I am using 24GB of an 80GB Intel X25 G2 SSD. I have a a 1TB @5400RPM HDD as my Home Folder.
Look it is pretty simple, add up what is in your Applications directory, and the system support directories and see what you get. Basically everything outside of your home directory. This isn't a difficult thing to do. And yes those UNIX systems directories are important along with the Apple System and Library directories.
On top of all of that you need some free space on your root directory for spool files, logs and the like.
Quote:
I have Xcode installed. It's 3.24GB (BASE2). I also have iWork, MS Office and other large suites installed.
My Xcode was just recently installed and is version 4.3.2. The size, 4.47GB, is pretty constant with past installs. Plus the Xcode install spreads files and links across the OS.
Quote:
If for some reason you can't put all your apps on the boot drive then the OS could intelligently place them on the secondary drive, whether that be an HDD or SSD.
Well a logical volume manage or some other sort of tool would be nice so that the OS sees one huge volume for /. Actually Mac OS does support user applications in /Users/UserName/Applications, surprisingly Homebrew is very good about putting apps or links to apps in there.
Quote:
PS: If I were to redo my setup I would have gone with a smaller SLC SSD from Intel.
That is a really bad idea. Your needs will always grow. well maybe I should say app updates grow in size. The other thing is you never want your / volume complete filled up. Spool files, log files and the like are constantly changing in size.
Look at it this way, I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't think this would lead to many people having issues with their machines. I'm 100% for SSD boot / app drives, but I'm not going to suggest such to people if it would lead to an over crowded SSD. As such I still maintain that 64 GB is far too small for the targeted users, this being the MBP owners.
Look it is pretty simple, add up what is in your Applications directory, and the system support directories and see what you get. Basically everything outside of your home directory. This isn't a difficult thing to do. And yes those UNIX systems directories are important along with the Apple System and Library directories.
[...]
Look at it this way, I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't think this would lead to many people having issues with their machines. I'm 100% for SSD boot / app drives, but I'm not going to suggest such to people if it would lead to an over crowded SSD. As such I still maintain that 64 GB is far too small for the targeted users, this being the MBP owners.
I don't know how I could have been more clear in my writing. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO ADD UP! I included the entire boot drive which includes every application. And Xcode via the Mac App Store is the size I stated.
It is rather everything outside of the /Users directory where your home folder is. That means /System, /System, /Library, / /usr /bin /var & etc.
If you are into handling very large files (of any type) apps often use the directories in /var to spool large temporary files so having free space on your boot drive can be extremely important. Some apps allow control over where tmp and spool files are located others do not. So one might see that they have 2 or 3 GB of free space on a drive and think everything is good to go and then have an app crap out during the middle of a run and wonder why.
From your post I think you grasp these issues but it is pretty obvious that others don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I was stating how things could add up. I don't personally install games. I used to play a couple, but there are better ways to spend time. I wasn't suggesting 200GB worth of games. This stuff is always a mix. As for me personally, terabytes of photos, raw files, exr files, layered comps that can be 1-2GB each, and backups of this stuff. Hehe... it wouldn't fit on a laptop drive under any circumstance. Anyway you bring up an interesting point. What is the profile of a macbook pro user going forward given the increasing popularity of the macbook air. Obviously it has to encapsulate users in need of a laptop whose needs are not met by the Air, but it becomes a matter of where that starts going forward.
This makes me wonder do you download documentation and additional components for Xcode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't know how I could have been more clear in my writing. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO ADD UP! I included the entire bott drive which includes every application. And Xcode via the Mac App Store is the size I stated.
In any event I've been up to this for years splitting Linux installs across multiple drives and frankly the numbers you guys are reporting are extremely minimal. So I still have to write what I believe is rational advice, and that is a 64 GB boot / app drive is very small these days.
In any event I've been up to this for years splitting Linux installs across multiple drives and frankly the numbers you guys are reporting are extremely minimal. So I still have to write what I believe is rational advice, and that is a 64 GB boot / app drive is very small these days.
For the average user? You do realize that 64GB is what the entry-level MBA comes with... which includes the /Users folder and all its content.
We're not even talking about any of the media files one might have on their system for this type of setup. As you can see my Home folder has about 800GB on the HDD. This is the setup I'm looking for with Apple. If not, I'll be getting a 64GB SLC SSD for my next Mac to go along with my 1TB HDD.
If not for having the exact setup that you seem to be explaining and watching the size drop since I started doing this with Leopard I probably would have agreed with you. But I see how little the system is without my Home folder obesifying the place.
As you can see I highlighted the segment accounts for my 8GB of RAM for the Sleep Image locate in /private/var/vm/.
Also, you can see that I have a 3.5GB copy of the Mountain Preview 1 installer that I forgotten to delete since upgrading to Preview 2. As you know, the OS X installers since Lion delete themselves before completing the installation.
PS: WhatSize, the app used for the piechart screenshot, is using BASE-2 while the previous mention of 24GB for Mountain Lion boot drive is using BASE-10. After deleting MLb1 my boot drive is 18.6GB or 21,103,525,888 bytes. I really wish Apple would use the IEC binary prefixes to make it more clear.
I don't know how I could have been more clear in my writing. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO ADD UP! I included the entire boot drive which includes every application. And Xcode via the Mac App Store is the size I stated.
He's on a roll, don't bother him with the facts...
For the average user? You do realize that 64GB is what the entry-level MBA comes with... which includes the /Users folder and all its content.
At least you wrote "entry level MBA". People need to grasp what I'm talking about and that is Mac Book Pro users. In that respect we are not talking entry level at all.
Even given that I can't really reccomend a 64 GB AIR to anyone as a primary machine. Especially if you are an iPhone and iPad user, as backing up and syncing with such a machine would be taxing to say the least.
Quote:
We're not even talking about any of the media files one might have on their system for this type of setup. As you can see my Home folder has about 800GB on the HDD. This is the setup I'm looking for with Apple. If not, I'll be getting a 64GB SLC SSD for my next Mac to go along with my 1TB HDD.
I likewise carry around a fat HD to store my media files. Basically an "iTunes " disk.
Quote:
If not for having the exact setup that you seem to be explaining and watching the size drop since I started doing this with Leopard I probably would have agreed with you. But I see how little the system is without my Home folder obesifying the place.
All I can say is that the numbers I posted for my /System, /Library, /Applications and other directories are what Finder reported. I really don't know how much cruft has accumulated since 2008 but my experience back then was that a shocking amount of disk space was taken up by the Apps I installed back then. Few of those apps have been deleted though many have been updated since. Of course more Apps have been installed since.
In the end the big deletions where Open Office and Mozzilas Mail program. Open Office went due to its huge demands on disk space and my preference for other programs that work well.
Quote:
As you can see I highlighted the segment accounts for my 8GB of RAM for the Sleep Image locate in /private/var/vm/.
Also, you can see that I have a 3.5GB copy of the Mountain Preview 1 installer that I forgotten to delete since upgrading to Preview 2. As you know, the OS X installers since Lion delete themselves before completing the installation.
Unless of course you circumvent that deletion.
Quote:
PS: WhatSize, the app used for the piechart screenshot, is using BASE-2 while the previous mention of 24GB for Mountain Lion boot drive is using BASE-10. After deleting MLb1 my boot drive is 18.6GB or 21,103,525,888 bytes. I really wish Apple would use the IEC binary prefixes to make it more clear.
The IEC created a big joke with their prefixes.
As to XCode you really have me interested in why we are seeing such a huge difference in size. I make a point to download available document packages and in fact downloaded a new 10.7 package tonight. Download indicated about 500MB for that file. I also downloaded and installed an older simulator tonight.
At least you wrote "entry level MBA". People need to grasp what I'm talking about and that is Mac Book Pro users. In that respect we are not talking entry level at all.
Fine, let's us the MBP. That's 128GB which includes your home folder that contains your videos and music. What we're talking about here excludes all that. It's just the OS and apps so the system can boot quickly but still have another, larger, internal drive that can hold all your media files.
Again, I'm using 1/4th of my 80GB SSD which includes an 8GB sleep image for for my 8GB of RAM.
It's the media that takes up the space, not the binaries, which benefit from the SSD. Apple could split the OS across an SSD and HDD for even better organization if that was necessary but everything points to it being well within the norm for the average MBP user.
Even you have many very large production apps you're still going to need several dozen GB used before that becomes an issue. EVEN IF IT DOES that doesn't mean you can't put your app on a HDD or decide to purchase the MBP with a larger SSD card. I'm sure there are fringe users that have enough to fill up that much space and more just as there are fringe users like me that need more than 1TB in their machine, but that certainly isn't the same as saying tht 64GB SSD isn't enough for the OS and apps as my testimonials and screenshots clearly show.
edit: Here's another way to look at it. Right now the minimum SSD is 128GB for a MBP. If 64GB simply isn't enough for a the typical user for their OS and apps that means you have under 64GB for all your music, movies, and other media. Now I think 128GB is low when only talking about one internal drive, but we're talking about 2 internal drives. 64GB+500GB as a minimum. That's better in every way... and it's the entry level option.
Comments
I'm not going to look through the list right now, but some of my applications go into several gigabytes. For people who game on their computers, games take up way too much storage space. If you use parallels or bootcamp, that's another chunk of space. These things fill up fast, and were you assuming the system use this smaller disk for pagefile/caching as that is typically done on the boot drive. If so you do need some free space on there. OSX has a really weird file system, so I'd give it breathing room no matter what.
Thus I see no point in putting in a SSD that is too small to handle an average MBP users app install. My point is that you can easily, within a day, install more apps and stuff that will effectively use up all of that space.
Sorry, but neither of you is close to the average MBP user if you need more than 64 GB on the boot drive. My entire System folder is well under 20 GB. Even if you put the app itself on the System drive, 64 GB would be plenty for most people.
Games? Well, the average MBP user doesn't have 200 GB of Games - and even if they do, only the app really needs to be on the system drive. The data files could be elsewhere.
If you really want 512 GB of SSD, feel free, but it's a waste for most people if there's a platter disk to hold the high volumes of data.
I don't see Apple ever using the "Extreme" chips. The only system that has used anything like this was the upper end of the Mac Pro with the 6-core Xeons. This is where they belong. Not laptops. No doubt I'll see Dell and HP sell overpriced junk with them anyway. I learned my lesson in 2004 about buying "desktop replacement" laptops, they are not worth it, you get no battery life with the expense of getting poor video graphics performance.
What I do see Apple doing is, using the first two parts listed in the article for the 15" and 17" laptops and dropping the 13" Pro entirely since it duplicates the Air. The Air CPU's are the 17watt models, where as the i7 Quadcores with 45watt TDP can't be put in anything smaller than a 15" model since it would compromise the ability to cool it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-rnWNZxKu8 - 6:29 - 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme Option (X7900)
So no, with the emergences of OpenCL integrated into LLVM/Clang and how Apple leverages the GPGPUs for process tasks the more power the discrete GPU the more responsive the system, overall.
What many people miss in the GPU/Improved integrated graphics argument is just that. If a program isn't written to take advantage of it it won't even enter into it. If it is it makes a huge difference in user experience. Just having the GPU isn't the solution, it has to be written for. Apple has a stake in creating several layers of good hardware options and also writing their signature apps to function at their best on these. But they also have to get 3rd party developers to deliver the same. Especially with the prospects of retina displays on Apple laptops. It's not good if it looks great but performs just pretty OK.
Gotta say 'm getting pretty excited about the spring laptops, with more small confirmations of their schedule like these.
Actually this is a hard learned lesson from way back in 2008 when I got my MBP. I think with in a day I had surpassed 70 GB of stuff installed. It adds up quick. Look at what happens when you install XCode, open Office, Eclipse, a couple of web browsers, Mac Ports, a few graphics programs like Gimp, a VM or two and other apps.
I was actually shocked at how fast the capacity iPod that 200GB drive disappeared. Note too this is before I even had an iTunes account. or for that matter any media to amount to anything. That media currently resides on an external disk.
In the end I ended up ditching Open Office for Apples "office" apps, removed Mac Ports in favor of Homebrew and did a number of other refactorings. In the end I'm pretty confident when I say 64 GB is too small these days for an app / boot drive. Even Apple has heard the whine form it's XCode users as they have dramatically trimmed that apps install profile along with the documentation it installs. Even iBooks author downloads to a huge impact on you disk drive.
Remember I'm talking about a MBP used as a machine by someone more than a novice to do more than the average person does with his machine. However I'm not by any measure a power user, nor do I get into some of the demanding graphics work that many on the forum do. So by that measure I don't think to many MBP users would be happy at all with a 64 GB boot / app drive.
Here is just a quick few install numbers from my Applications directory. Not that often stuff gets installed elsewhere so these are minimals.
- Adobe Reader 296MB
- Aperture 304 MB (an old version)
- DraftSight 265 MB
- Garage band 300MB
- Gimp 222 MB
- Firefox 78MB
- IBooks Author 322 MB
- IMovie 236 MB
- Inkscape 284 MB
- IPhoto 388 MB (an old version)
- iTunes 222 MB
- IWeb 441 MB
- Lyx 461 MB
- Solid works eDrawings 206MB this isn't even a CAD system
- Virtual box 225 MB
- WebKit 144 MB
- XCode 4.49 GB
- iWork 705MB
These are not everything on disk but represent some of the bigger things in just the Apps directory. Right now finder reports 15 GB of space used in then Applications directory, 19 GB in the Library directory, 5 GB in the System directory, /usr has 9 GB of data in use. So you see we have already basically used up that 64 GB drive before we have even started on the users directories.Now look at my home directory, it is at almost 100 Gb even. Yes it needs to be pruned but I don't expect a major reduction in space usage. Now mind you most of my media files are on another drive. Of that 25 GB sits in the Library directory which is a pain to clean up, because you need to figure out what is stale and unneeded. Speaking of which Apple needs to put better controls into uninstallers as much gets left around the disk that doesn't need to be there.
In the end though it is very very easy to go past the 64 GB mark just with App installs.
64GB is more than adequate for your OS and oft used apps. I am using 24GB of an 80GB Intel X25 G2 SSD. I have a a 1TB @5400RPM HDD as my Home Folder.
I have Xcode installed. It's 3.24GB (BASE2). I also have iWork, MS Office and other large suites installed.
If for some reason you can't put all your apps on the boot drive then the OS could intelligently place them on the secondary drive, whether that be an HDD or SSD.
PS: If I were to redo my setup I would have gone with a smaller SLC SSD from Intel.
Sorry, but neither of you is close to the average MBP user if you need more than 64 GB on the boot drive. My entire System folder is well under 20 GB. Even if you put the app itself on the System drive, 64 GB would be plenty for most people.
Games? Well, the average MBP user doesn't have 200 GB of Games - and even if they do, only the app really needs to be on the system drive. The data files could be elsewhere.
If you really want 512 GB of SSD, feel free, but it's a waste for most people if there's a platter disk to hold the high volumes of data.
I was stating how things could add up. I don't personally install games. I used to play a couple, but there are better ways to spend time. I wasn't suggesting 200GB worth of games. This stuff is always a mix. As for me personally, terabytes of photos, raw files, exr files, layered comps that can be 1-2GB each, and backups of this stuff. Hehe... it wouldn't fit on a laptop drive under any circumstance. Anyway you bring up an interesting point. What is the profile of a macbook pro user going forward given the increasing popularity of the macbook air. Obviously it has to encapsulate users in need of a laptop whose needs are not met by the Air, but it becomes a matter of where that starts going forward.
Wait, are you suggesting differences in product line numbers between different manufacturers is evidence that one is inferior to the other? nVidia's on their 600 series. Does that mean it's much worse than the Intel 4000?
I don't disagree that the performance is worse on the Intel stuff, but saying the numbers have anything to do with that is fallacy.
I assume what he meant to say is that since the HD 4000 is released well after the AMD 7000 series, yet won't even come remotely close to even the AMD GPU's released well before the 7000 series, all while AMD is has already been working on their 8000 series for some time, which more or less proves the point that Intel graphics suck. As they have always done, except for the few times they licensed PowerVR designs and rebranded them as Intel graphics.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Intel fan (they are actually one of the main reasons my employer can pay me to do my job), but just for their CPU's.
Intel = great CPU's, crap GPU's. It's a bit like NVidia, everyone assumes that because they can make great desktop GPU's, their mobile GPU's are automatically also great, even though are actually pretty crappy compared to the competition.
I assume what he meant to say is that since the HD 4000 is released well after the AMD 7000 series, yet won't even come remotely close to even the AMD GPU's released well before the 7000 series, all while AMD is has already been working on their 8000 series for some time, which more or less proves the point that Intel graphics suck. As they have always done, except for the few times they licensed PowerVR designs and rebranded them as Intel graphics.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Intel fan (they are actually one of the main reasons my employer can pay me to do my job), but just for their CPU's.
Intel = great CPU's, crap GPU's. It's a bit like NVidia, everyone assumes that because they can make great desktop GPU's, their mobile GPU's are automatically also great, even though are actually pretty crappy compared to the competition.
You're missing the entire point.
I don't think anyone suggested that an integrated GPU would ever be faster than a dedicated GPU. That's just not going to happen. People who need the ultimate in performance will always benefit from a dedicated GPU like that provided by Nvidia or ATI/AMD.
The issue, though, is whether an integrated GPU is good enough. And the answer is that, for many users, it is. For example, I never do anything on my laptop that would require the power of a dedicated GPU. So, for me, the Intel 4000 graphics would be fine. There are certainly some people who need a dedicated GPU. If Apple's assessment is that the latter group is large enough, then they will continue to offer a dedicated GPU. If they believe that the latter group is not large enough, they might not.
Personally, my guess would be that they would continue to offer a dedicated GPU at least for the 17" MBP, and probably for the 15", as well. To me, it makes sense to have MBA without dedicated GPU in sizes of 11, 13, and 15" and to have MBP with dedicated GPU in sizes of 15 and 17". That's only a guess, though.
You're missing the entire point.
I don't think anyone suggested that an integrated GPU would ever be faster than a dedicated GPU. That's just not going to happen. People who need the ultimate in performance will always benefit from a dedicated GPU like that provided by Nvidia or ATI/AMD.
Somewhere earlier in this thread the question was raised if anyone would care about the lack of a discrete GPU, if it turned out the HD 4000 is 'about as good as a mid-range discrete GPU'. Also, the current 15"+ MBP's have a discrete GPU, and the 13" models used to have one before the current generation. So I think it's a perfectly valid discussion to compare IGP's to discrete GPU's when talking about what Apple should use in the MBP's. Another thing to keep in mind when evaluating the Ivy Bridge IGP is that AMD's IGP's absolutely wipe the floor with Intel's, to the point that for some applications, the HD4000 will likely barely keep up with e.g. the GPU in AMD's E350, which is already almost a year old.
The issue, though, is whether an integrated GPU is good enough. And the answer is that, for many users, it is. For example, I never do anything on my laptop that would require the power of a dedicated GPU.
You never transcode or edit video? You expect to never browse websites with WebGL content? You expect to never hook up your MBP to a HiDPI monitor somewhere in the future? You're not going to use any image editing software that can use the GPU for real-time previews of image processing effects?
So, for me, the Intel 4000 graphics would be fine.
That remains to be seen, but maybe for you, an IGP could be perfectly fine. Maybe a C2D CPU from 2009 would also be fine since most people rarely if ever tax their CPU's. Or 4GB of RAM or more, why would you need that if you just browse the web and do some word processing every now and then?
Probably you are better off with a MacBook Air if this is the case, but we were talking about the MBP here.
There are certainly some people who need a dedicated GPU.
Anyone who wants to play games, anyone who wants to run heavy GPGPU tasks, anyone who wants to get decent desktop performance at the 4k2k resolutions you can expect within a year or 2, anyone who out of principle doesn't want to buy a new laptop that has worse graphics performance than their 3-year old old MBP. Seems like it's not too hard to come up with some valid use cases for a dedicated GPU.
If Apple's assessment is that the latter group is large enough, then they will continue to offer a dedicated GPU. If they believe that the latter group is not large enough, they might not.
Well, I've always been very forgiving in the design choices that Apple makes, even if that means a small step back so they can make 2 steps forward on some other attributes of their products (now or in the future), but in this case I'm simply not going to accept just an IGP in a laptop that costs $1500 and upwards. I don't mind paying more for quality, but in that case I expect quality. Graphics performance that is on par or even worse than a 2008 model in the premium laptop of a premium brand, is inexcusable. For design + power/weight vs. specs we have the MBA. The MBP is supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine.
Personally, my guess would be that they would continue to offer a dedicated GPU at least for the 17" MBP, and probably for the 15", as well. To me, it makes sense to have MBA without dedicated GPU in sizes of 11, 13, and 15" and to have MBP with dedicated GPU in sizes of 15 and 17". That's only a guess, though.
If Apple doesn't put a discrete GPU in the 15" MBP's, their MBP sales will tank. It would get hammered on the graphics in every review except the most biased ones, since you simply cannot defend the value proposition of a MBP with graphics performance on par with a cheap-ass laptop from 3 years back. They might get away with a 13" model that doesn't have a discrete GPU, but for me, it would be a show-stopper. I would have to reconsider whether I'd want to get an MBA instead, or just give up on the idea of buying an Apple laptop altogether, for the simple fact that I refuse to pay $1200 for a laptop I want to use for at least 3 or 4 years, with graphics performance that is worse than a $400 Windows laptop from last year. There are limits...
If Apple doesn't put a discrete GPU in the 15" MBP's, their MBP sales will tank. It would get hammered on the graphics in every review except the most biased ones, since you simply cannot defend the value proposition of a MBP with graphics performance on par with a cheap-ass laptop from 3 years back. They might get away with a 13" model that doesn't have a discrete GPU, but for me, it would be a show-stopper. I would have to reconsider whether I'd want to get an MBA instead, or just give up on the idea of buying an Apple laptop altogether, for the simple fact that I refuse to pay $1200 for a laptop I want to use for at least 3 or 4 years, with graphics performance that is worse than a $400 Windows laptop from last year. There are limits...
3-4 years isn't that unreasonable these days, as the hardware progression has slowed somewhat in terms of real results unless things are artificially hindered. While Apple seems to be heading that direction, it would make for a relatively pointless machine as you'd pay more for a bigger machine with less and less differentiation. As noted I don't care about machine size so much in desktops, but it can be a bigger factor if you wish to transport it.
What many people miss in the GPU/Improved integrated graphics argument is just that. If a program isn't written to take advantage of it it won't even enter into it. If it is it makes a huge difference in user experience. Just having the GPU isn't the solution, it has to be written for.
Well that is obvious in one sense but misleading in another. Apps don't have to be specifically written to use the GPU to benefit from it begin in the system. Any system call that they use that is at a lower level accelerated by a GPU benefits the app. This is what people often mis, you can get better performance out of an app if the system it runs under has a GPU that is significantly faster that the CPU solution.
Apple has a stake in creating several layers of good hardware options and also writing their signature apps to function at their best on these. But they also have to get 3rd party developers to deliver the same. Especially with the prospects of retina displays on Apple laptops. It's not good if it looks great but performs just pretty OK.
One thing people seem to misunderstand is that some apps simply don't have a play in app specific GPU acceleration. GPU acceleration is an advantage for certain types of data and instructions flows only and can not realistically be used to accelerate every app out there. At best these apps can only make use of the GPU accelerated functions in the system software they call.
As to HiDPI screens (maybe not retina) you have reasonable concerns. That is why I'm a strong proponent of MBP's with good discrete GPU options. I'm pretty much convinced that the Ivy Bridge GPU won't be able to keep up.
Gotta say 'm getting pretty excited about the spring laptops, with more small confirmations of their schedule like these.
Confirmations? Rumors yes, but nothing has been confirmed. What we do have is a leak of Intel release information which seems to indicate a long drawn out laptop release schedule for Apple this year. Sad in a way.
64GB is more than adequate for your OS and oft used apps. I am using 24GB of an 80GB Intel X25 G2 SSD. I have a a 1TB @5400RPM HDD as my Home Folder.
Look it is pretty simple, add up what is in your Applications directory, and the system support directories and see what you get. Basically everything outside of your home directory. This isn't a difficult thing to do. And yes those UNIX systems directories are important along with the Apple System and Library directories.
On top of all of that you need some free space on your root directory for spool files, logs and the like.
I have Xcode installed. It's 3.24GB (BASE2). I also have iWork, MS Office and other large suites installed.
My Xcode was just recently installed and is version 4.3.2. The size, 4.47GB, is pretty constant with past installs. Plus the Xcode install spreads files and links across the OS.
If for some reason you can't put all your apps on the boot drive then the OS could intelligently place them on the secondary drive, whether that be an HDD or SSD.
Well a logical volume manage or some other sort of tool would be nice so that the OS sees one huge volume for /. Actually Mac OS does support user applications in /Users/UserName/Applications, surprisingly Homebrew is very good about putting apps or links to apps in there.
PS: If I were to redo my setup I would have gone with a smaller SLC SSD from Intel.
That is a really bad idea. Your needs will always grow. well maybe I should say app updates grow in size. The other thing is you never want your / volume complete filled up. Spool files, log files and the like are constantly changing in size.
Look at it this way, I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't think this would lead to many people having issues with their machines. I'm 100% for SSD boot / app drives, but I'm not going to suggest such to people if it would lead to an over crowded SSD. As such I still maintain that 64 GB is far too small for the targeted users, this being the MBP owners.
Look it is pretty simple, add up what is in your Applications directory, and the system support directories and see what you get. Basically everything outside of your home directory. This isn't a difficult thing to do. And yes those UNIX systems directories are important along with the Apple System and Library directories.
[...]
Look at it this way, I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't think this would lead to many people having issues with their machines. I'm 100% for SSD boot / app drives, but I'm not going to suggest such to people if it would lead to an over crowded SSD. As such I still maintain that 64 GB is far too small for the targeted users, this being the MBP owners.
I don't know how I could have been more clear in my writing. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO ADD UP! I included the entire boot drive which includes every application. And Xcode via the Mac App Store is the size I stated.
If you are into handling very large files (of any type) apps often use the directories in /var to spool large temporary files so having free space on your boot drive can be extremely important. Some apps allow control over where tmp and spool files are located others do not. So one might see that they have 2 or 3 GB of free space on a drive and think everything is good to go and then have an app crap out during the middle of a run and wonder why.
From your post I think you grasp these issues but it is pretty obvious that others don't.
I was stating how things could add up. I don't personally install games. I used to play a couple, but there are better ways to spend time. I wasn't suggesting 200GB worth of games. This stuff is always a mix. As for me personally, terabytes of photos, raw files, exr files, layered comps that can be 1-2GB each, and backups of this stuff. Hehe... it wouldn't fit on a laptop drive under any circumstance. Anyway you bring up an interesting point. What is the profile of a macbook pro user going forward given the increasing popularity of the macbook air. Obviously it has to encapsulate users in need of a laptop whose needs are not met by the Air, but it becomes a matter of where that starts going forward.
I don't know how I could have been more clear in my writing. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO ADD UP! I included the entire bott drive which includes every application. And Xcode via the Mac App Store is the size I stated.
In any event I've been up to this for years splitting Linux installs across multiple drives and frankly the numbers you guys are reporting are extremely minimal. So I still have to write what I believe is rational advice, and that is a 64 GB boot / app drive is very small these days.
In any event I've been up to this for years splitting Linux installs across multiple drives and frankly the numbers you guys are reporting are extremely minimal. So I still have to write what I believe is rational advice, and that is a 64 GB boot / app drive is very small these days.
For the average user? You do realize that 64GB is what the entry-level MBA comes with... which includes the /Users folder and all its content.
We're not even talking about any of the media files one might have on their system for this type of setup. As you can see my Home folder has about 800GB on the HDD. This is the setup I'm looking for with Apple. If not, I'll be getting a 64GB SLC SSD for my next Mac to go along with my 1TB HDD.
If not for having the exact setup that you seem to be explaining and watching the size drop since I started doing this with Leopard I probably would have agreed with you. But I see how little the system is without my Home folder obesifying the place.As you can see I highlighted the segment accounts for my 8GB of RAM for the Sleep Image locate in /private/var/vm/.
Also, you can see that I have a 3.5GB copy of the Mountain Preview 1 installer that I forgotten to delete since upgrading to Preview 2. As you know, the OS X installers since Lion delete themselves before completing the installation.
PS: WhatSize, the app used for the piechart screenshot, is using BASE-2 while the previous mention of 24GB for Mountain Lion boot drive is using BASE-10. After deleting MLb1 my boot drive is 18.6GB or 21,103,525,888 bytes. I really wish Apple would use the IEC binary prefixes to make it more clear.
I don't know how I could have been more clear in my writing. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO ADD UP! I included the entire boot drive which includes every application. And Xcode via the Mac App Store is the size I stated.
He's on a roll, don't bother him with the facts...
For the average user? You do realize that 64GB is what the entry-level MBA comes with... which includes the /Users folder and all its content.
At least you wrote "entry level MBA". People need to grasp what I'm talking about and that is Mac Book Pro users. In that respect we are not talking entry level at all.
Even given that I can't really reccomend a 64 GB AIR to anyone as a primary machine. Especially if you are an iPhone and iPad user, as backing up and syncing with such a machine would be taxing to say the least.
We're not even talking about any of the media files one might have on their system for this type of setup. As you can see my Home folder has about 800GB on the HDD. This is the setup I'm looking for with Apple. If not, I'll be getting a 64GB SLC SSD for my next Mac to go along with my 1TB HDD.
I likewise carry around a fat HD to store my media files. Basically an "iTunes " disk.
If not for having the exact setup that you seem to be explaining and watching the size drop since I started doing this with Leopard I probably would have agreed with you. But I see how little the system is without my Home folder obesifying the place.
All I can say is that the numbers I posted for my /System, /Library, /Applications and other directories are what Finder reported. I really don't know how much cruft has accumulated since 2008 but my experience back then was that a shocking amount of disk space was taken up by the Apps I installed back then. Few of those apps have been deleted though many have been updated since. Of course more Apps have been installed since.
In the end the big deletions where Open Office and Mozzilas Mail program. Open Office went due to its huge demands on disk space and my preference for other programs that work well.
As you can see I highlighted the segment accounts for my 8GB of RAM for the Sleep Image locate in /private/var/vm/.
Also, you can see that I have a 3.5GB copy of the Mountain Preview 1 installer that I forgotten to delete since upgrading to Preview 2. As you know, the OS X installers since Lion delete themselves before completing the installation.
Unless of course you circumvent that deletion.
PS: WhatSize, the app used for the piechart screenshot, is using BASE-2 while the previous mention of 24GB for Mountain Lion boot drive is using BASE-10. After deleting MLb1 my boot drive is 18.6GB or 21,103,525,888 bytes. I really wish Apple would use the IEC binary prefixes to make it more clear.
The IEC created a big joke with their prefixes.
As to XCode you really have me interested in why we are seeing such a huge difference in size. I make a point to download available document packages and in fact downloaded a new 10.7 package tonight. Download indicated about 500MB for that file. I also downloaded and installed an older simulator tonight.
At least you wrote "entry level MBA". People need to grasp what I'm talking about and that is Mac Book Pro users. In that respect we are not talking entry level at all.
Fine, let's us the MBP. That's 128GB which includes your home folder that contains your videos and music. What we're talking about here excludes all that. It's just the OS and apps so the system can boot quickly but still have another, larger, internal drive that can hold all your media files.
Again, I'm using 1/4th of my 80GB SSD which includes an 8GB sleep image for for my 8GB of RAM.
It's the media that takes up the space, not the binaries, which benefit from the SSD. Apple could split the OS across an SSD and HDD for even better organization if that was necessary but everything points to it being well within the norm for the average MBP user.
Even you have many very large production apps you're still going to need several dozen GB used before that becomes an issue. EVEN IF IT DOES that doesn't mean you can't put your app on a HDD or decide to purchase the MBP with a larger SSD card. I'm sure there are fringe users that have enough to fill up that much space and more just as there are fringe users like me that need more than 1TB in their machine, but that certainly isn't the same as saying tht 64GB SSD isn't enough for the OS and apps as my testimonials and screenshots clearly show.
edit: Here's another way to look at it. Right now the minimum SSD is 128GB for a MBP. If 64GB simply isn't enough for a the typical user for their OS and apps that means you have under 64GB for all your music, movies, and other media. Now I think 128GB is low when only talking about one internal drive, but we're talking about 2 internal drives. 64GB+500GB as a minimum. That's better in every way... and it's the entry level option.