Well at least not about RAM upgradablitliy in the MBP. I simply can't imagine Apple being so far off the tracks that they would offer up a ""PRO"" machine that would be so lacking in a valuable Pro feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Automaticftp
Exactly correct.
If the new 15" MBPs retain user-upgradable RAM and storage, I'll get one and keep my 13" for when I need an optical drive (I'm one of those who use it frequently). If the new MBPs don't, then I'll order a current top of the line 15" and put 16 GB RAM in it and then see how long it will last.
I agree with you - I just hope you're right! I have a part of my tax refund allocated for a new 15".
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Well at least not about RAM upgradablitliy in the MBP. I simply can't imagine Apple being so far off the tracks that they would offer up a ""PRO"" machine that would be so lacking in a valuable Pro feature.
The idea of two SSD card slots is a good idea. In 2012, Apple could offer SSD cards of up to 512GB each, for a total of 1TB. That would, of course, be an expensive configuration, but few users need more than 256GB in a laptop. Many users are still buying the 64GB MacBook Air, though I would expect 128GB to be the minimum configuration for the MacBook Pro.
The idea of three SSD card slots is silly.
The idea of two Thunderbolt ports is also silly. The five year use case argument is the icing on the cake though. It is not in Apple's interest for users to keep their laptops for five years. Two to three years is the normal time to replacement and it's in Apple's interest to reduce that time by offering compelling improvements every year, not increase that time by offering functionality that is useless (and expensive) today but might become useful in the future.
The idea of 8GB minimum RAM is silly too. With the Mac Pro still shipping with 3GB of RAM in the base configuration and the Mac Mini still shipping with 2GB in the base configuration, it's obviously too early to ship any Mac with a minimum 8GB configuration. We'll see the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini rise to a minimum configuration of at least 4GB before any laptop gets an 8GB minimum configuration.
I don't understand why it is so difficult for some readers here to see past what they want and think for a moment about what makes sense for Apple to offer.
Maybe they start shipping all models sans the Air with 8 GB minimum?
And maybe tent poles… become…
Well, you get what I'm saying.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if Apple didn't do 4GB minimum across the board with the next update. I would be exceptionally surprised if they made 8GB standard on ANY model.
My mother, who's currently in the market for a Mac laptop after having commandeered mine for so long and who is a virtual greenhorn when it comes to technology, has told me outright there's no way she'll be buying a computer with the RAM soldered on ("Why would anyone not want to be able to get more RAM?") unless there's at least 8GB.
So it sounds like the next 11" or 13" laptop from Apple is out for her.
The idea of two SSD card slots is a good idea. In 2012, Apple could offer SSD cards of up to 512GB each, for a total of 1TB. That would, of course, be an expensive configuration, but few users need more than 256GB in a laptop. Many users are still buying the 64GB MacBook Air, though I would expect 128GB to be the minimum configuration for the MacBook Pro.
The idea of three SSD card slots is silly.
So adding one to the number of slots makes a good idea silly? Silly or not depends upon the hardware support that is available and the space that can be easily offered up for such capability. To that end three slots for AIR like SSD modules ought to be easy for Apple to engineer in. I say AIR like because I would expect a higher performance PCI-Express implementation.
The driving force behind such a configuration is the very fact that large SSDs are still very expensive. Thus one might find it cheaper to populate the machine with three 256GB "blades" than two 512GB modules. The problem for Apple is pretty clear, if they want to transition to all SSD based machines they need a way to satisfy the needs of a wide array of users. Offering up three slots is probably the best bet for the next two years.
Quote:
The idea of two Thunderbolt ports is also silly.
For a laptop marketed as a desktop replacement for Pros it is a very good idea. It means that a fast disk array can be attached without the bandwidth issues seen on a single TB channel. People have to remember that the port is still serial and like all such ports can become congested.
Quote:
The five year use case argument is the icing on the cake though. It is not in Apple's interest for users to keep their laptops for five years. Two to three years is the normal time to replacement and it's in Apple's interest to reduce that time by offering compelling improvements every year, not increase that time by offering functionality that is useless (and expensive) today but might become useful in the future.
I'm not sure where you get your numbers from. First it is not normal to trade a machine in every 2-3 years. Most people are saddled with hardware for much longer. The problem here though is that you mis the point anyways. Apple designs platforms and then gets about four to five years use out if them with minor respins each year. This isn't a discussion about users it is a discussion about how Apple markets and designs hardware. The UniBody came out in 2008 so it is about time for another platform to serve them for the next 4-5 years.
As to Apples interest here, it would be a terrible mistake to build hardware to entice only the existing customer base. It is in Apples best interest to continue to design hardware that brings in new customers. Relying on the replacement business is breath to most companies.
Quote:
The idea of 8GB minimum RAM is silly too. With the Mac Pro still shipping with 3GB of RAM in the base configuration and the Mac Mini still shipping with 2GB in the base configuration, it's obviously too early to ship any Mac with a minimum 8GB configuration. We'll see the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini rise to a minimum configuration of at least 4GB before any laptop gets an 8GB minimum configuration.
I really don't care about Apple existing hardware, what I care about is what is reasonable for Apple to offer on new models. RAM has gotten so cheap over the last year that anything less than 8Gb in a Pro laptop would be a ripoff. Beyond that why even bring up the Pro in a discussion about RAM, the machine is well past 500 days for an update.
Quote:
I don't understand why it is so difficult for some readers here to see past what they want and think for a moment about what makes sense for Apple to offer.
I really don't understand why readers are so willing to bend over for Apple when they have pricing structures that are clearly out of whack with reality. Here I'm talking specifically about base RAM in their machines. It really doesn't make sense for Apple to offer up hardware that gives a bad user experience right out of the box. This is exactly what we are getting right now.
Some other ways to look at this. My MBP came with 2GB of RAM in early 2008. This wasn't bad at introduction but is clearly a limitation with the current shipping software suite. Today that 2GB of RAM is a trivial expense. If you don't like that reference consider this, my new iPad comes with 1GB of RAM. This for a single tasking machine that never runs a VM, XCode, Eclipse, Mac OS Safari or other demanding piece of software. In any event I can tell you with some confidence that 2GB of RAM is not enough for even casual use of a Mac these days.
As to the Mini of course it should have 4GB in the base machine, though again 8GB wouldn't hurt. Apple could do that and lower the price at the same time. You know I really don't know if the management teams at Apple are too dense to see the reality of their hardware lineup, but the Minis poor sales can be directly attributed to its crappy value relative to even the laptops.
If you think this is out of line then I'd have to suggest looking around a bit. Compare the cost of 4GB or 8GB of RAM to what it would cost a year ago. In the case of a Mac Pro two years ago. Then consider this, Apple is a huge consumer of RAM, they likely get very good prices relative to what we see in the market today. In the end I really don't understand why people are so willing to give Apple a pass on this issue.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if Apple didn't do 4GB minimum across the board with the next update. I would be exceptionally surprised if they made 8GB standard on ANY model.
My mother, who's currently in the market for a Mac laptop after having commandeered mine for so long and who is a virtual greenhorn when it comes to technology, has told me outright there's no way she'll be buying a computer with the RAM soldered on ("Why would anyone not want to be able to get more RAM?") unless there's at least 8GB.
So it sounds like the next 11" or 13" laptop from Apple is out for her.
Best post I've seen in ages!
If a greenhorn can grasp the importance of RAM to Mac OS and it's users then I have to wonder why posters here are so willing to take it in the behind from Apple.
The idea of two SSD card slots is a good idea. In 2012, Apple could offer SSD cards of up to 512GB each, for a total of 1TB. That would, of course, be an expensive configuration, but few users need more than 256GB in a laptop. Many users are still buying the 64GB MacBook Air, though I would expect 128GB to be the minimum configuration for the MacBook Pro.
Offering two of these cards might be cheaper than offering a higher density version in one. If you consider that Apple would like to push everyone to a laptop, and that many people use a laptop as their primary machine, it's reasonable to expect some powerful options rather than everything based around the macbook air paradigm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
The idea of two Thunderbolt ports is also silly. The five year use case argument is the icing on the cake though. It is not in Apple's interest for users to keep their laptops for five years. Two to three years is the normal time to replacement and it's in Apple's interest to reduce that time by offering compelling improvements every year, not increase that time by offering functionality that is useless (and expensive) today but might become useful in the future.
If you bothered to look up the chips being used, the thunderbolt chips shipping in everything but the macbook air and possibly the mini support 2 port configurations. Given that it will not always be practical to daisy chain things, it makes perfect sense to make use of this. Apple is weirdly stingy on ports at times. If the prediction of the ODD removal comes true, they will have extra space available on the edges assuming that it can work with their board design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
The idea of 8GB minimum RAM is silly too. With the Mac Pro still shipping with 3GB of RAM in the base configuration and the Mac Mini still shipping with 2GB in the base configuration, it's obviously too early to ship any Mac with a minimum 8GB configuration. We'll see the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini rise to a minimum configuration of at least 4GB before any laptop gets an 8GB minimum configuration.
I wouldn't use the mac pro configuration as a reference for anything. It is configured this way because at the time, they used tri channel ram, so Apple made the base configuration take advantage of this. Given slow development from Intel in this market segment, it's gone untouched for a very long time. It's just a poor point of reference.
Keep in mind that for a number of years we were hitting the wall on ram configurations. You could get 1GB dimms in 2003 or so, yet until SL it was basically pointless going past 4GB as the gains were ridiculously minimal. Look at the current price of ram relative to a year or two ago. It's fallen off a cliff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And maybe tent poles? become?
Well, you get what I'm saying.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if Apple didn't do 4GB minimum across the board with the next update. I would be exceptionally surprised if they made 8GB standard on ANY model.
My mother, who's currently in the market for a Mac laptop after having commandeered mine for so long and who is a virtual greenhorn when it comes to technology, has told me outright there's no way she'll be buying a computer with the RAM soldered on ("Why would anyone not want to be able to get more RAM?") unless there's at least 8GB.
So it sounds like the next 11" or 13" laptop from Apple is out for her.
No one likes to deal with performance quirks from lack of ram, and Lion is ridiculously ram hungry. Apple states minimum requirements at 2GB of ram, so I find it silly that they'd ship current machines with that. The bare minimum amount of ram should be something that's only really applicable to older machines as an indication of whether or not the user can take advantage of such an upgrade rather than currently shipping machines that came out around the time of Lion's debut.
Comments
Exactly correct.
If the new 15" MBPs retain user-upgradable RAM and storage, I'll get one and keep my 13" for when I need an optical drive (I'm one of those who use it frequently). If the new MBPs don't, then I'll order a current top of the line 15" and put 16 GB RAM in it and then see how long it will last.
Well at least not about RAM upgradablitliy in the MBP. I simply can't imagine Apple being so far off the tracks that they would offer up a ""PRO"" machine that would be so lacking in a valuable Pro feature.
The idea of three SSD card slots is silly.
The idea of two Thunderbolt ports is also silly. The five year use case argument is the icing on the cake though. It is not in Apple's interest for users to keep their laptops for five years. Two to three years is the normal time to replacement and it's in Apple's interest to reduce that time by offering compelling improvements every year, not increase that time by offering functionality that is useless (and expensive) today but might become useful in the future.
The idea of 8GB minimum RAM is silly too. With the Mac Pro still shipping with 3GB of RAM in the base configuration and the Mac Mini still shipping with 2GB in the base configuration, it's obviously too early to ship any Mac with a minimum 8GB configuration. We'll see the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini rise to a minimum configuration of at least 4GB before any laptop gets an 8GB minimum configuration.
I don't understand why it is so difficult for some readers here to see past what they want and think for a moment about what makes sense for Apple to offer.
Maybe they start shipping all models sans the Air with 8 GB minimum?
And maybe tent poles… become…
Well, you get what I'm saying.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if Apple didn't do 4GB minimum across the board with the next update. I would be exceptionally surprised if they made 8GB standard on ANY model.
My mother, who's currently in the market for a Mac laptop after having commandeered mine for so long and who is a virtual greenhorn when it comes to technology, has told me outright there's no way she'll be buying a computer with the RAM soldered on ("Why would anyone not want to be able to get more RAM?") unless there's at least 8GB.
So it sounds like the next 11" or 13" laptop from Apple is out for her.
The idea of two SSD card slots is a good idea. In 2012, Apple could offer SSD cards of up to 512GB each, for a total of 1TB. That would, of course, be an expensive configuration, but few users need more than 256GB in a laptop. Many users are still buying the 64GB MacBook Air, though I would expect 128GB to be the minimum configuration for the MacBook Pro.
The idea of three SSD card slots is silly.
So adding one to the number of slots makes a good idea silly? Silly or not depends upon the hardware support that is available and the space that can be easily offered up for such capability. To that end three slots for AIR like SSD modules ought to be easy for Apple to engineer in. I say AIR like because I would expect a higher performance PCI-Express implementation.
The driving force behind such a configuration is the very fact that large SSDs are still very expensive. Thus one might find it cheaper to populate the machine with three 256GB "blades" than two 512GB modules. The problem for Apple is pretty clear, if they want to transition to all SSD based machines they need a way to satisfy the needs of a wide array of users. Offering up three slots is probably the best bet for the next two years.
The idea of two Thunderbolt ports is also silly.
For a laptop marketed as a desktop replacement for Pros it is a very good idea. It means that a fast disk array can be attached without the bandwidth issues seen on a single TB channel. People have to remember that the port is still serial and like all such ports can become congested.
The five year use case argument is the icing on the cake though. It is not in Apple's interest for users to keep their laptops for five years. Two to three years is the normal time to replacement and it's in Apple's interest to reduce that time by offering compelling improvements every year, not increase that time by offering functionality that is useless (and expensive) today but might become useful in the future.
I'm not sure where you get your numbers from. First it is not normal to trade a machine in every 2-3 years. Most people are saddled with hardware for much longer. The problem here though is that you mis the point anyways. Apple designs platforms and then gets about four to five years use out if them with minor respins each year. This isn't a discussion about users it is a discussion about how Apple markets and designs hardware. The UniBody came out in 2008 so it is about time for another platform to serve them for the next 4-5 years.
As to Apples interest here, it would be a terrible mistake to build hardware to entice only the existing customer base. It is in Apples best interest to continue to design hardware that brings in new customers. Relying on the replacement business is breath to most companies.
The idea of 8GB minimum RAM is silly too. With the Mac Pro still shipping with 3GB of RAM in the base configuration and the Mac Mini still shipping with 2GB in the base configuration, it's obviously too early to ship any Mac with a minimum 8GB configuration. We'll see the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini rise to a minimum configuration of at least 4GB before any laptop gets an 8GB minimum configuration.
I really don't care about Apple existing hardware, what I care about is what is reasonable for Apple to offer on new models. RAM has gotten so cheap over the last year that anything less than 8Gb in a Pro laptop would be a ripoff. Beyond that why even bring up the Pro in a discussion about RAM, the machine is well past 500 days for an update.
I don't understand why it is so difficult for some readers here to see past what they want and think for a moment about what makes sense for Apple to offer.
I really don't understand why readers are so willing to bend over for Apple when they have pricing structures that are clearly out of whack with reality. Here I'm talking specifically about base RAM in their machines. It really doesn't make sense for Apple to offer up hardware that gives a bad user experience right out of the box. This is exactly what we are getting right now.
Some other ways to look at this. My MBP came with 2GB of RAM in early 2008. This wasn't bad at introduction but is clearly a limitation with the current shipping software suite. Today that 2GB of RAM is a trivial expense. If you don't like that reference consider this, my new iPad comes with 1GB of RAM. This for a single tasking machine that never runs a VM, XCode, Eclipse, Mac OS Safari or other demanding piece of software. In any event I can tell you with some confidence that 2GB of RAM is not enough for even casual use of a Mac these days.
As to the Mini of course it should have 4GB in the base machine, though again 8GB wouldn't hurt. Apple could do that and lower the price at the same time. You know I really don't know if the management teams at Apple are too dense to see the reality of their hardware lineup, but the Minis poor sales can be directly attributed to its crappy value relative to even the laptops.
If you think this is out of line then I'd have to suggest looking around a bit. Compare the cost of 4GB or 8GB of RAM to what it would cost a year ago. In the case of a Mac Pro two years ago. Then consider this, Apple is a huge consumer of RAM, they likely get very good prices relative to what we see in the market today. In the end I really don't understand why people are so willing to give Apple a pass on this issue.
And maybe tent poles? become?
Well, you get what I'm saying.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if Apple didn't do 4GB minimum across the board with the next update. I would be exceptionally surprised if they made 8GB standard on ANY model.
My mother, who's currently in the market for a Mac laptop after having commandeered mine for so long and who is a virtual greenhorn when it comes to technology, has told me outright there's no way she'll be buying a computer with the RAM soldered on ("Why would anyone not want to be able to get more RAM?") unless there's at least 8GB.
So it sounds like the next 11" or 13" laptop from Apple is out for her.
Best post I've seen in ages!
If a greenhorn can grasp the importance of RAM to Mac OS and it's users then I have to wonder why posters here are so willing to take it in the behind from Apple.
The idea of two SSD card slots is a good idea. In 2012, Apple could offer SSD cards of up to 512GB each, for a total of 1TB. That would, of course, be an expensive configuration, but few users need more than 256GB in a laptop. Many users are still buying the 64GB MacBook Air, though I would expect 128GB to be the minimum configuration for the MacBook Pro.
Offering two of these cards might be cheaper than offering a higher density version in one. If you consider that Apple would like to push everyone to a laptop, and that many people use a laptop as their primary machine, it's reasonable to expect some powerful options rather than everything based around the macbook air paradigm.
The idea of two Thunderbolt ports is also silly. The five year use case argument is the icing on the cake though. It is not in Apple's interest for users to keep their laptops for five years. Two to three years is the normal time to replacement and it's in Apple's interest to reduce that time by offering compelling improvements every year, not increase that time by offering functionality that is useless (and expensive) today but might become useful in the future.
If you bothered to look up the chips being used, the thunderbolt chips shipping in everything but the macbook air and possibly the mini support 2 port configurations. Given that it will not always be practical to daisy chain things, it makes perfect sense to make use of this. Apple is weirdly stingy on ports at times. If the prediction of the ODD removal comes true, they will have extra space available on the edges assuming that it can work with their board design.
The idea of 8GB minimum RAM is silly too. With the Mac Pro still shipping with 3GB of RAM in the base configuration and the Mac Mini still shipping with 2GB in the base configuration, it's obviously too early to ship any Mac with a minimum 8GB configuration. We'll see the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini rise to a minimum configuration of at least 4GB before any laptop gets an 8GB minimum configuration.
I wouldn't use the mac pro configuration as a reference for anything. It is configured this way because at the time, they used tri channel ram, so Apple made the base configuration take advantage of this. Given slow development from Intel in this market segment, it's gone untouched for a very long time. It's just a poor point of reference.
Keep in mind that for a number of years we were hitting the wall on ram configurations. You could get 1GB dimms in 2003 or so, yet until SL it was basically pointless going past 4GB as the gains were ridiculously minimal. Look at the current price of ram relative to a year or two ago. It's fallen off a cliff.
And maybe tent poles? become?
Well, you get what I'm saying.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if Apple didn't do 4GB minimum across the board with the next update. I would be exceptionally surprised if they made 8GB standard on ANY model.
My mother, who's currently in the market for a Mac laptop after having commandeered mine for so long and who is a virtual greenhorn when it comes to technology, has told me outright there's no way she'll be buying a computer with the RAM soldered on ("Why would anyone not want to be able to get more RAM?") unless there's at least 8GB.
So it sounds like the next 11" or 13" laptop from Apple is out for her.
No one likes to deal with performance quirks from lack of ram, and Lion is ridiculously ram hungry. Apple states minimum requirements at 2GB of ram, so I find it silly that they'd ship current machines with that. The bare minimum amount of ram should be something that's only really applicable to older machines as an indication of whether or not the user can take advantage of such an upgrade rather than currently shipping machines that came out around the time of Lion's debut.