or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Teardown of Retina MacBook Pro finds soldered RAM, proprietary SSD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Teardown of Retina MacBook Pro finds soldered RAM, proprietary SSD - Page 4

post #121 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

The fact that you are among the lucky group who can work effectively with a small amount of RAM is not necessarily an argument against eliminating user-upgradability.

I do agree that using Aperture on a 2 GB machine is sometimes painful. Yet, this is a laptop, not a desktop or tower machine. But you’re wrong in thinking I’m against the user-upgradability; on the contrary, I am very happy that I can increase memory, storage capacity or change my battery any time just by pushing a slider in the Unibody enclosure…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

2GB is plenty for users who only work with text and use Safari.  Usually the sorts of consumers who use their laptop for text and web browsing don't spend $2500 on their laptop.

2 GB is plenty also if you do development. But developers can be tempted to invest $ 2,500 on a brand new machine that gives more processing power, both conventional and GPU, and has a nice display. SSD is not an issue either; a mean developer need barely exceeds a few GB of text/binaries/icons/auxiliary stuff…
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #122 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by astonmartindb9 View Post

In a very near future, RAM will not be as important as it used to be. Of course this is a Pro machine, and pro apps do better with more RAM. But as developers become better and technologies become better integrated, as well as with the help of SSD, software will require less RAM to do the same work. And disk swapping (when ram is full and the software uses memory on the disk) on an SSD is almost seamless, and will become more seamless as they get speedier. Who know, RAM may as well disappear in a few years.

Exactly.  

 

Nobody will ever need more than 512 KB.

post #123 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive View Post


I do agree that using Aperture on a 2 GB machine is sometimes painful. Yet, this is a laptop, not a desktop or tower machine. But you’re wrong in thinking I’m against the user-upgradability; on the contrary, I am very happy that I can increase memory, storage capacity or change my battery any time just by pushing a slider in the Unibody enclosure…
2 GB is plenty also if you do development. But developers can be tempted to invest $ 2,500 on a brand new machine that gives more processing power, both conventional and GPU, and has a nice display. SSD is not an issue either; a mean developer need barely exceeds a few GB of text/binaries/icons/auxiliary stuff…

True, but how large large of a market to developers constitute?  

 

I think the point that seems to be getting lost here is that while many people only need 2-4 GB RAM, many other people need more, and 4-5 years from now everyone will need more than they need now.  Thus the need for a way to upgrade RAM in computer representing a serious investment.

post #124 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by astonmartindb9 View Post

In a very near future, RAM will not be as important as it used to be. Of course this is a Pro machine, and pro apps do better with more RAM. But as developers become better and technologies become better integrated, as well as with the help of SSD, software will require less RAM to do the same work. And disk swapping (when ram is full and the software uses memory on the disk) on an SSD is almost seamless, and will become more seamless as they get speedier. Who know, RAM may as well disappear in a few years.

Ridiculous. RAM is orders of magnitude faster than SSD--and it will stay that way as long as flash retains its idiosyncrasies.

 

I appreciate Apple pushing us all forward with great technology, but as the complainers here (like me) can attest, it's not all sweetness on their part. One could even argue that the new iPad and retina MBP are both premature/transitional, too. The new iPad takes forever to charge, can't hold a charge while running GPS, and is significantly heavier and even a tad thicker than the iPad 2--because of its ginormous battery and USB power limits. (We'll all welcome the new i-connector for faster data transfers and faster charging). The guts of the retina MBP are dominated by battery--and the system is bigger and heavier than it otherwise would need to be--just to achieve the same battery life as before. The retina MBP foregoes built-in ethernet but doesn't offer 802.11ac. So the retina displays and platforms are wonderful to look at but they're certainly not as ready for today as one would like.

post #125 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

 

They are loving it if they work for Apple.  You either replace a drive, a motherboard or a battery.  So many fewer whacky things to go wrong.  

 

If they don't work for Apple and are worried about not being able to charge those hours spent tracking down those whacky issues, then not so much.

One hopes Apple recognizes there are only 3 truly serviceable parts and don't continue to take issue with authorized service providers who keep ordering motherboards. In the past if you order too many in a month, you get your hand slapped by Apple. But now there's no choice; you can't swap RAM, HD, etc.

post #126 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

EWWWWWWWWW

 

SAMSUNG PARTS???!!!

 

NOT GONNA BUY!!!

I assume you dont own a iPad or iPhone then?

post #127 of 193

Where I'm having trouble with this latest round of engineering and marketing decisions at Apple is their continued use of the label MacBook PRO.

 

I didn't join the chorus of critics bemoaning the shortcomings of the Air when it came out because it was never MEANT to serve users like me.  For many, many users it was (and is) just fine, and the sacrifices in power and flexibility were offset by gains in portability and... well, probably something else, too.

 

But what about those of us for whom ultimate portability and cool factor are NOT the primary criteria?  The introduction of smaller, lighter, less capable models was fine as long as I had still had the option of trading size and weight for power and versatility.  I had a CHOICE.  Now I don't.  I can't get a big screen.  I can't get upgradeable storage.  The digital audio I/O is gone (which probably doesn't matter to most people but is a key component in how I use my existing 17" Pro).

 

If they had just called this thing a MacBook Retina and still offered a more versatile and capable "Pro" alternative I'd be happy.  Yes, it will be larger and heavier, and it may cost somewhat more, but just as some people are willing to sacrifice capability for size, some of us are willing to give up a degree of portability for greater power.  I spend only a comparatively short time carrying the computer to the gig, but hours and hours using it in demanding applications.  Sure, size and weight still matter when taking the computer to a client site or on location, but not at the expense of capability.  What Apple is doing is closing the door on users who need a high-end but portable device.

post #128 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcr View Post

From date of hardware purchase, not AppleCare purchase

 

"Every Mac and Apple display comes with a one-year limited warranty and up to 90 days of complimentary telephone technical support. Extend your coverage to three years from your hardware product’s original purchase date with the AppleCare Protection Plan."

 

http://www.apple.com/support/products/mac.html

Apple should really be giving at least 2 years, if not 3, warranty if this is considered a "Pro" machine. One year warranty compared to the price of thing isn't good enough anymore.

post #129 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Ridiculous. RAM is orders of magnitude faster than SSD--and it will stay that way as long as flash retains its idiosyncrasies.

SSD's speed relative to RAM. You were responding to someone who pointed out that swapping to SSD will be much less damaging to performance than swapping to hard disk. And since SSDs are much faster than hard disk, that's absolutely true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Where I'm having trouble with this latest round of engineering and marketing decisions at Apple is their continued use of the label MacBook PRO.

Yet another person who confuses "I have a problem with this" with "Apple should never do this".

For many, many, many Pro users, 16 GB of RAM is plenty for now and well into the future. And many of them don't keep their computers all that long, anyway, so it's not as necessary to plan for years into the future.

Now, granted, a small number of pro users can't get by with 16 GB of RAM, but they're not using MacBook Pros, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Also there are PS users who never edit more than one 25 meg image at a time, but there are those who need ten 200 meg images loaded together and many who spend all day working with psd files of over a gig.  So right tool for the right job and all that, but the RMBP isn't a machine to grow with, which is something we're all used to.  Gotta pop for the maxed out model if you think you'll be getting there eventually.

So what are those people using today? The current MBP has 16 GB Max RAM, so if the new MBP doesn't have enough RAM, then the current one isn't good enough, either. So what are they using? Probably a Mac Pro - so soldering RAM onto the MBP is irrelevant.

Plus, of course, the problem with insufficient RAM is excessive swapping. Since the new MBP has a fast SSD, swapping will not harm performance as much as the older one, so you still get a performance gain.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #130 of 193

The soldered RAM may or may not be an issue for me.  I tend to install as much RAM as is practical at the time of purchase and rarely upgrade later.  I've never let Apple max it out though, because the cost has been OUTRAGEOUS!  I've always ordered replacement RAM from OWC or Crucial at the same time I ordered my Mac from Apple.  For me the question is just how the cost of being forced to buy RAM from Apple will compare to buying good quality sticks from a reputable source?

 

A much bigger concern for me is the proprietary storage.  Every single Mac I have ever owned has had a mid-life drive upgrade.  Over time storage prices fall and available capacity increases.  Even SSDs have come down by more than a third since just last fall.  At some point before I'm likely to replace my computer my local supplier will have 1TB SSDs for $500.  Will I be able to upgrade a RetinaMac to take advantage of that?  If not, I'm much less likely to buy into this new design.

 

I've also read that solid-state storage deteriorates over time.  Obviously so do hard drives, and I've had two fail in the last three years, but replacing them was simple.  What happens when the SSD in the Mac starts to slow down?  Am I at the mercy of the Genius Bar or do I have alternatives?

post #131 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

You need to think deeper and refresh yourself if you are a former hardware engineer rendering an opinion.  Your thought process is indicative of the lack of progress in design most of the electronics industry has seen over the last decade.

Glued batteries are because the SINGLE largest cause of battery failures/overheats is fastener puncturing.  

I agree to the equation no fastener = no puncturing. But, on my late-2008 MacBook, this equation has been solved in a much more elegant way: the combination of the lock, the removable part of the enclosure and the connector keep the battery firmly in place, and it can be changed at any time without even possessing a screwdriver. Now I call that intelligent design. Glue is just awful.
Quote:
Your comments on soldering RAM totally ignore modern IC robotic assembly techniques.  Your assessment was only a statistically significant problem when done by early robotics or human hands, even with alignment guides.  Production engineering has come a long way in the last 20 years, making previous assumptions obsolete.

Well, okay, the last PCB I designed was using the very first BGA chips. At that time, soldering issues with this new packaging were the norm.
Quote:
We finally have an engineering outlook that takes more into account than just the engineers hourly cost and bottom line cost of manufacturing into account.  Sure the results look alien to run-of-the-mill engineers, the results are coming from considering issues long left off the table either out of ignorance or lack of desire to increase the scope of the examination.  These incorrectly labeled "engineering prototype actually industrialized without any further refinements" artifacts which are the result of exactly the opposite, actually have a far higher ROI for the engineering and manufacturing process costs than the old fashioned process of limiting the design process by cost constraining it.  It's not surprising that an old school informed dismissal misses the point on all counts.

You’ll have to make yourself clearer for me to answer meaningfully. Either I’m tired (it’s beginning to be late here in Paris), either my command of English is insufficient to figure out what you mean (I am not a native English speaker).

If you right, and this is a deliberate choice, and not one commanded by haste, then John Gruber’s comment is right: this MacBook retina is a hardware Back to the Mac from iOS. We are beginning to behold engineering practices that were reserved to consumer products (sealed bodies, glued parts, whatever) like the iPad slowly creep into what is deemed a "professional computer". That "professional" adjective means, to me, a machine almost fully user-serviceable, with standard screws, easy accessibility to parts, etc. In this sense, the 2008 MacBook I own is more professional that this new machine: care has been taken to ensure more-than-easy swap of HD and battery and memory upgrade, albeit requiring to remove some screws, is straightforward and officially supported. Since that first Unibody model, Apple has made a U-turn: the recent MacBooks Pro are trickier to upgrade, let alone this new retina one.
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #132 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

The soldered RAM may or may not be an issue for me.  I tend to install as much RAM as is practical at the time of purchase and rarely upgrade later.  I've never let Apple max it out though, because the cost has been OUTRAGEOUS!  I've always ordered replacement RAM from OWC or Crucial at the same time I ordered my Mac from Apple.  For me the question is just how the cost of being forced to buy RAM from Apple will compare to buying good quality sticks from a reputable source?

 

A much bigger concern for me is the proprietary storage.  Every single Mac I have ever owned has had a mid-life drive upgrade.  Over time storage prices fall and available capacity increases.  Even SSDs have come down by more than a third since just last fall.  At some point before I'm likely to replace my computer my local supplier will have 1TB SSDs for $500.  Will I be able to upgrade a RetinaMac to take advantage of that?  If not, I'm much less likely to buy into this new design.

I agree with this and that's why I bought the 256GB MBA just in case. I would love to upgrade the ram 8GB but that's obviously not going to happen and I knew that in advance.

 

MBA with retina display, 8GB ram and 512GB SSD sounds perfect to me.

post #133 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

True, but how large large of a market to developers constitute?
Insignificant, of course.
 
Quote:
I think the point that seems to be getting lost here is that while many people only need 2-4 GB RAM, many other people need more, and 4-5 years from now everyone will need more than they need now.  Thus the need for a way to upgrade RAM in computer representing a serious investment.

At the same time, compilers like Clang have made real progresses lately both on speed and size. Binaries sizes are no more an issue; only data is.
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
Predictions are perilous, especially about future. Niels Bohr
Reply
post #134 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Where I'm having trouble with this latest round of engineering and marketing decisions at Apple is their continued use of the label MacBook PRO.

 

I didn't join the chorus of critics bemoaning the shortcomings of the Air when it came out because it was never MEANT to serve users like me.  For many, many users it was (and is) just fine, and the sacrifices in power and flexibility were offset by gains in portability and... well, probably something else, too.

 

But what about those of us for whom ultimate portability and cool factor are NOT the primary criteria?  The introduction of smaller, lighter, less capable models was fine as long as I had still had the option of trading size and weight for power and versatility.  I had a CHOICE.  Now I don't.  I can't get a big screen.  I can't get upgradeable storage.  The digital audio I/O is gone (which probably doesn't matter to most people but is a key component in how I use my existing 17" Pro).

 

If they had just called this thing a MacBook Retina and still offered a more versatile and capable "Pro" alternative I'd be happy.  Yes, it will be larger and heavier, and it may cost somewhat more, but just as some people are willing to sacrifice capability for size, some of us are willing to give up a degree of portability for greater power.  I spend only a comparatively short time carrying the computer to the gig, but hours and hours using it in demanding applications.  Sure, size and weight still matter when taking the computer to a client site or on location, but not at the expense of capability.  What Apple is doing is closing the door on users who need a high-end but portable device.

 

How is this device less capable? Let's go over your points shall we? First, regarding upgradeable storage, the machine was just released, so buy in accordance with your current needs. If down the road you need to change the size of your internal drive, rest assured by then you will have alternatives at that point, just like you can buy alternative storage for MBAs now but not the first week they were released. That complaint seems silly. As far as RAM, it has already been proven by Hiro why the non-upgradable form is superior in terms of performance, which is what you'd want if you cared about a "pro" machine and not about "cool" factors and portability. As far as digital audio I/O, what the hell are you saying it is gone? Did you fail to see that spiffy new HDMI port on the machine? You realize HDMI can do digital audio right? Maybe your complaint then is that the machine isn't catering to your antiquated Toslink tech. Well, that's your problem and has nothing to do with the "pro"ness of the new machine. In fact, this is too "pro" for your needs.

 

So, try again regarding the failure of this machine to live up to its "pro" label...

post #135 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

 

I put 32GB of DDR3 in my laptop for less than the cost of the 16GB upgrade for the RMBP.  If you want to look at 8gb as a "gift from apple due to lower prices", well then, enjoy the blinders.

1333MHz DDR3...

 

Or 1600MHz DDR3L?

post #136 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post
We are not in the post-PC era; we are in the disposable PC era.

Computer and electronics manufacturers have completely abandoned the idea of making quality, long lasting products with big price tags and moved to making gadgets with smaller price tags that have to be replaced frequently

It makes sense not to make electronics to last, because they change so frequently now. Some things, like furniture or beautiful leather books you still want to make to last.

post #137 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive View Post

At the same time, compilers like Clang have made real progresses lately both on speed and size. Binaries sizes are no more an issue; only data is.

Binary size matters for a different reason nowadays. If you notice, Mountain Lion is now doing the same thing as iOS: keeping binaries in memory after you quit them (with the program counter frozen of course).

post #138 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

It makes sense not to make electronics to last, because they change so frequently now. Some things, like furniture or beautiful leather books you still want to make to last.

lol that is ridiculous statement...I think most people would not expect a laptop of this price to be disposable. You are the perfect customer if you believe it is.

post #139 of 193

i dont get the fuzz.. they clearly soldered the RAM because of space issues.. look at the thing, its mostly batteries... i dont think this is an Apple evil masterplan.. And to make the complaining even dumber, they still sell the old school variant.....

 

and to those of you saying OS X can be run fine with 2 GB RAM, are you kidding me?!? I cant imagine using a pro-app with that.. 

playing the waiting game...
Reply
playing the waiting game...
Reply
post #140 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

lol that is ridiculous statement...I think most people would not expect a laptop of this price to be disposable. You are the perfect customer if you believe it is.

I was referring more to the lack of upgradability.

post #141 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yet another person who confuses "I have a problem with this" with "Apple should never do this".

 

Huh?  No, I didn't.  The line you quoted in your response reads: "Where I'm having trouble with this latest round of engineering and marketing decisions at Apple is their continued use of the label MacBook PRO."  You've drawn a conclusion about my meaning that isn't indicated by what I wrote.  What I meant is exactly what I wrote and nothing more.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
 
For many, many, many Pro users, 16 GB of RAM is plenty for now and well into the future.

 

Are we discussing the same post?  I didn't even mention the issue of RAM.  I agree, 16GB is fine for a laptop.  The only issues I addressed specifically were screen size, user-replaceable storage and digital audio I/O.  If those issues don't affect you, great.  For me, they may have a significant impact on my work.

 

Unfortunately changing suppliers is a significant undertaking because changing the computer means changing software and some peripheral hardware, not to mention developing a completely new workflow, so it's less expensive and disruptive for me to lobby Apple for features I (and presumably others doing similar work) need than it is to just buy an Asus or HP.  By posting my concerns here I might just trigger a lightbulb for others who have similar issues, who then may also share their concerns with Apple.  If enough of us do, some of those concerns may be addressed.  If not, then I just have to suck it up and figure out how best to proceed.  I'm not sure why you would have a problem with any of that?


Edited by v5v - 6/13/12 at 2:30pm
post #142 of 193

Correction of my previous post "I did not know it was possible to get 32 GB in a MP and especially for less than $200. Please describe how you accomplished this." I should have written a MBP.

post #143 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

Exactly.  

 

Nobody will ever need more than 512 KB.

 

The thing is, you're more right than may know. If you really think about it (and assuming I'm not mistaken), the core i7 the new MBP still only uses 64 KB (32KB instruction + 32KB data) of first-tier memory (L1 cache) per core. The L2 cache is still only 256KB per core, and the L3 cache is 8MB (shared between all [four] cores).

 

Timeframe aside, I think the previous post was pretty close. When external storage hits a certain price and performance threshold, we may just see processors start to include primary storage on-die like the caches.

 

It would be interesting to see, on average, and not counting RAM failures, how often do people upgrade (as in add more) RAM? Once - or maaayyybe twice - in the time they own the computer? I'd bet in practice there's a strong correlation between the installed processor and the installed amount of RAM. Not necessarily a 1:1, but they're probably more closely related then most people would think. Not counting edge-cases, for the people that upgrade RAM, I'd wager that the difference between the RAM at purchase and the RAM at end-of-life (for that user) is probably on the order of double (so, for example, if you bought your shiny new computer with 4GB, by the time you were ready to move on the the next model you might have bumped it up to 8GB).

 

Think about it, in 2018 we could see the "core i21". The [hypothetical] 9270 model has 32GB on-chip RAM, and the 9290 model has 64GB ... or something like that. Then mainboards could stop bothering entirely with the whole mess of having to include the slots & circuit traces for sloppy hand-installed memory. :)

post #144 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anton 1917 View Post

Correction of my previous post "I did not know it was possible to get 32 GB in a MP and especially for less than $200. Please describe how you accomplished this." I should have written a MBP.

Oh, it's not. Well, it is. Now. Sort of. SHOULD be, that is. Ivy Bridge supports 32 GB of RAM, so once OWC has had a chance to pop in some sticks, they'll know whether Apple has done any artificial restricting and can sell 32GB RAM kits for the new laptops.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #145 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Ultimately, it comes down to how many people actually bother with upgrading their RAM. If the number is small enough, soldered RAM isn't a problem. If a significant number of people want to upgrade their RAM, there could be some backlash.
However, given the modest price for the upgrade to 16 GB, I would simply get the higher RAM from the start and it should be sufficient for most people for the life of the computer. Heck, I'm currently still stuck at 3 GB and lots of people are using even less.

The performance hit tends to increase as applications and the OS become more ram hungry. 32 bit practical limits merely kept it in check until mid-Snow Leopard. It's likely to get worse starting at the mid range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

Yep. The brackets and such add bulk. 

 

The real issue for this kind of build is that folks can't just go in and mess around putting in their own ram, drives etc. And for many geeks (and sites that exist to tell users how to do things themselves) that's the most sinful move of all. If they can't jerk around inside then the computer its instantly crap. Pricing on this makes it basically a pro machine and those folks have little issue with whether the whole board with all the RAM etc gets replaced so long as the machine works. Pros even get Apple Care so that big ass part doesn't cost them $1000 to replace out of warranty after 2 years. 

 

I'm more interested in a nice slim and light Retina iMac of at least 27 inches (if they had a 40 inch I'd go for it). But this laptop is a bit tempting. If I got it I'd want to max it out to the top of everything and keep it for like 4-5 years. If they turned around and released a new Retina Cinema Display that had a larger size, hdmi etc I would be very tempted. 

Making it impractical to repair is still an issue considering how easy it is to fix a drive failure today and be back up and running without ever leaving your computer with Apple. Even with Applecare, much of the time it's not worth it. If time is a factor, buy another drive and swap it in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

When I predicted here that the next MacBook Pro would have RAM soldered directly onto the motherboard, no one believed me.  This means lower cost, higher reliability, better performance, and a more compact design.  All manufacturers will follow Apple's lead on this.

You're attributing way too many advantages to this. You won't have a point of failure at the socket, but if a stick goes bad, you're screwed. Thankfully ram isn't a common point of failure, but they soldered in the drive. SSDs are no more immortal than HDDs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Oh, it's not. Well, it is. Now. Sort of. SHOULD be, that is. Ivy Bridge supports 32 GB of RAM, so once OWC has had a chance to pop in some sticks, they'll know whether Apple has done any artificial restricting and can sell 32GB RAM kits for the new laptops.

I know Lenovo has 4 slots in a couple laptops, and they aren't desk notes, so you could possibly get 32 into something like that for $300 or so. Ultimately I think the guy claiming 32GB was trolling unless he's claiming that the total system price remained less than this mac.

post #146 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post

maybe Mountain Lion has more memory requirements as the entire line got memory bumps......

Mountain Lion supports the late 2008 through mid 2011 MacBook Air, and some models in those series have 2 GB of memory soldered in with no upgrade possible. If Apple sticks to a policy of supporting OS upgrades for at least three years after a model was discontinued, then mid 2015 is the earliest a new OS X release can require more than 2 GB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

BTW am I right that only the latest MBPs can take the 32? I think I read that 2010 models can't which is what I have.

The mid 2011 series can take 16 GB. In theory the mid 2012 series (non-retina) might be able to upgrade to 32 GB, but it only has two sockets, so you would have to wait until 16 GB SODIMMs are available and cheap enough. The question then is whether the chipset and sockets support 16 GB modules.
post #147 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

 

If down the road you need to change the size of your internal drive, rest assured by then you will have alternatives at that point, just like you can buy alternative storage for MBAs now but not the first week they were released. That complaint seems silly.

 

If not basing business decisions on assumptions of continuity between Apple devices (even third-party support for them) is "silly," then call me goofy as a goober.  Remember the commitment to Firewire right up until the machine that didn't have it?

 

The one and only time I ever made a purchasing decision based on vapourware I got burned -- at the time of purchase the supplier promised a specific feature should be available in the next release, then when the next release came they formally announced that they would not be implementing that particular feature after all, ever.  So, no, I am NOT resting assured that suitable alternatives will exist when I need them.  Sure, it seems likely, based on what you've told me about the Air (I didn't know that, thanks!), but the example above taught me to be suspiscious (it doesn't get any more "likely" than a supplier specifically telling you it's coming, yet it didn't).  Obviously any capital decision involves risks, but at this point I wouldn't call concerns about storage "silly."  I'm LESS concerned now that you've told me about the Air, but I still think it's prudent to be cautiously skeptical.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

As far as digital audio I/O, what the hell are you saying it is gone? Did you fail to see that spiffy new HDMI port on the machine? You realize HDMI can do digital audio right? Maybe your complaint then is that the machine isn't catering to your antiquated Toslink tech. Well, that's your problem and has nothing to do with the "pro"ness of the new machine. In fact, this is too "pro" for your needs.

 

With due respect (which may not be much, considering the insulting and adversarial tone you've taken with me), Im not sure I'd consider HDMI a REASONABLE replacement for Toslink (nor is Toslink antiquated -- it's been around a long time, but it's not going anywhere anytime soon since new gear is still using it).  Yes, HDMI can be MADE to substitute for Toslink but I don't see it being a particularly PRACTICAL alternative.

 

When I walk into the studio I plug a 3.5mm optical plug into my MBP which terminates at a Lucid converter that spits out up to +26 balanced analog (or just converts the Toslink input to S/PDIF or AES/EBU).  The A/D also puts out all three formats, so I can record from a pro quality converter via the 3.5mm input on the MBP.  I very rarely do, but I can on the odd occasion I want to.  Which HDMI device do you recommend as an alternative?  How much will it add to the cost of replacing my computer?  Will it deliver +4dBu at -20dBFS?  Can it handle the 20dB of headroom above 0VU without crapping out?  Will it interface with all the other digital devices in the studio that use industry-standard interfaces (i.e. Toslink, S/PDIF and AES/EBU)?  Will it mount nicely in 1RU like the Lucids?  Will the bloody HDCP associated with HDMI interrupt our workflow?  I can't think of such a device off the top of my head (and I work in TV production) but obviously there may be units I've overlooked.  The Blackmagic Thunderbolt boxes spring to mind, but like most audio-for-video devices, there's no way they can reproduce a full scale signal (i.e. around +24dBu).

 

I admit that the loss of the optical I/O on the new Mac is not a deal-breaker and can certainly be overcome without too much inconvenience or expense, but I DO take issue with your response.  It was unnecessarily insulting and not really an accurate assessment, but I'm just going to assume you were having a bad day.


Edited by v5v - 6/13/12 at 2:46pm
post #148 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

 

The thing is, you're more right than may know. If you really think about it (and assuming I'm not mistaken), the core i7 the new MBP still only uses 64 KB (32KB instruction + 32KB data) of first-tier memory (L1 cache) per core. The L2 cache is still only 256KB per core, and the L3 cache is 8MB (shared between all [four] cores).

 

Timeframe aside, I think the previous post was pretty close. When external storage hits a certain price and performance threshold, we may just see processors start to include primary storage on-die like the caches.

 

It would be interesting to see, on average, and not counting RAM failures, how often do people upgrade (as in add more) RAM? Once - or maaayyybe twice - in the time they own the computer? I'd bet in practice there's a strong correlation between the installed processor and the installed amount of RAM. Not necessarily a 1:1, but they're probably more closely related then most people would think. Not counting edge-cases, for the people that upgrade RAM, I'd wager that the difference between the RAM at purchase and the RAM at end-of-life (for that user) is probably on the order of double (so, for example, if you bought your shiny new computer with 4GB, by the time you were ready to move on the the next model you might have bumped it up to 8GB).

 

Think about it, in 2018 we could see the "core i21". The [hypothetical] 9270 model has 32GB on-chip RAM, and the 9290 model has 64GB ... or something like that. Then mainboards could stop bothering entirely with the whole mess of having to include the slots & circuit traces for sloppy hand-installed memory. :)

Exactly.  So 8 GB of RAM soldered to the logic board is good for the life of the Retina MBP.  

post #149 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

However, given the modest price for the upgrade to 16 GB

 

Only on a system who's base price is already $2,200 would paying $200 for $40 worth of ram be considered "modest," and even then we're stretching the meaning a bit.

post #150 of 193

That's bullshit. Buying AppleCare is NOT the solution. What happens after 3 years? You have a big repair expense if one of your RAM chips goes out. Can't replace the SSD either? 

Wow. What retard decided this was a good idea? I wouldn't buy this laptop, ever. I'll keep my old Macbook Pro.

post #151 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzomedici View Post

That's bullshit. Buying AppleCare is NOT the solution. What happens after 3 years? You have a big repair expense if one of your RAM chips goes out. Can't replace the SSD either? 

Wow. What retard decided this was a good idea? I wouldn't buy this laptop, ever. I'll keep my old Macbook Pro.

Indeed, the logic board is going to cost a fortune on this thing. A three year warranty should have been standard too.

post #152 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

The soldered RAM may or may not be an issue for me.  I tend to install as much RAM as is practical at the time of purchase and rarely upgrade later.  I've never let Apple max it out though, because the cost has been OUTRAGEOUS!  I've always ordered replacement RAM from OWC or Crucial at the same time I ordered my Mac from Apple.  For me the question is just how the cost of being forced to buy RAM from Apple will compare to buying good quality sticks from a reputable source?

A much bigger concern for me is the proprietary storage.  Every single Mac I have ever owned has had a mid-life drive upgrade.  Over time storage prices fall and available capacity increases.  Even SSDs have come down by more than a third since just last fall.  At some point before I'm likely to replace my computer my local supplier will have 1TB SSDs for $500.  Will I be able to upgrade a RetinaMac to take advantage of that?  If not, I'm much less likely to buy into this new design.

I've also read that solid-state storage deteriorates over time.  Obviously so do hard drives, and I've had two fail in the last three years, but replacing them was simple.  What happens when the SSD in the Mac starts to slow down?  Am I at the mercy of the Genius Bar or do I have alternatives?

You can get SSD upgrades from third parties for the earlier MacBook Air, so it is likely that they will eventually be available for the MBP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enzomedici View Post

That's bullshit. Buying AppleCare is NOT the solution. What happens after 3 years? You have a big repair expense if one of your RAM chips goes out. Can't replace the SSD either? 
Wow. What retard decided this was a good idea? I wouldn't buy this laptop, ever. I'll keep my old Macbook Pro.

Actually, keeping the computer past 3 years is a good argument for soldered RAM. DIMMs and sockets tend to corrode. They tend to work their way loose. And there are many, many more soldered connections which are points of failure. In general, the system with the fewest points of failure should have the longest life (everything else being equal).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

Only on a system who's base price is already $2,200 would paying $200 for $40 worth of ram be considered "modest," and even then we're stretching the meaning a bit.

Really? Where can I get 16 GB of DDR3-1600 RAM that meets Apple's stringent specs for $40?

Heck, Looks like third party price is $170 for 16 GB - and we don't have any idea if it meets Apple's specs.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1600MHz_SDRAM

It's people like you that Apple is trying to protect itself from. You install the cheapest, POS RAM and then when you have problems, Apple has to spend time sorting it out. Even if they eventually tell you that it's a RAM problem and not covered because it's third party RAM, they've wasted a lot of time.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #153 of 193

What about the RMBP RAM's warranty?  Granted it hardly ever happens, but I've had two chips go funky in my life, neither was a socket issue, both time the RAM legit went bad.  Both high quality RAM, not generic cheap, both times honored by the vendor's lifetime guarantee.  I'm not crazy anyway with the generally accepted idea that shelling out for AppleCare is a given cost of doing business, though I agree it's the way to go.  But what about soldered on RAM in a 4 year old, no longer covered computer that develops a RAM issue?   I never would have given it any thought if I had to replace faulty stock RAM in an out of AppleCare computer.  Even though it's a good bet that it will never happen, the fact is that it's not an impossibility.   What is Apple's policy going to be with any RAM issues down the line?   Yes, one of your RAM chips is bad, you need to get a new logic board?  Or we'll give you a refurb board with new RAM for the price of new RAM?

post #154 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


SSD's speed relative to RAM. You were responding to someone who pointed out that swapping to SSD will be much less damaging to performance than swapping to hard disk. And since SSDs are much faster than hard disk, that's absolutely true.

SSD being faster than HD is still several orders of magnitude slower than RAM. Furthermore, writes are most-damaging to SSDs. You do not want to swap to HD or SSD. It is not only slower than RAM--wasting a high-performance CPU--it will dramatically shorten the life of the SSD.

The classic tradeoff in computer science is memory for speed. Programs get more complex and memory use will increase. Yes, fast SSDs can sometime substitute for more memory, but this is best done when the required memory is read-mostly and it's not a general solution or one that is necessarily easy to program.


Edited by Cpsro - 6/13/12 at 4:41pm
post #155 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


You can get SSD upgrades from third parties for the earlier MacBook Air, so it is likely that they will eventually be available for the MBP.

Isn't it odd that the maximum SSD configuration from Apple is 768 GB? If the controller accesses an even number of banks, then the max. 768 GB configuration would be asymmetric (512 GB + 256 GB). If it was symmetric, then the largest SSD offered should be 1TB unless a hardware address limitation is imposed somewhere. Or perhaps market supply for the denser flash caused Apple to avoid the 1 TB option, knowing many customers would order it.

post #156 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Isn't it odd that the maximum SSD configuration from Apple is 768 GB? If the controller accesses an even number of banks, then the max. 768 GB configuration would be asymmetric (512 GB + 256 GB). If it was symmetric, then the largest SSD offered should be 1TB unless a hardware address limitation is imposed somewhere. Or perhaps market supply for the denser flash caused Apple to avoid the 1 TB option, knowing many customers would order it.

Not really, it's just the next increment after 512.

post #157 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Not really, it's just the next increment after 512.

So, why isn't a 1 TB option available?

post #158 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Isn't it odd that the maximum SSD configuration from Apple is 768 GB? If the controller accesses an even number of banks, then the max. 768 GB configuration would be asymmetric (512 GB + 256 GB). If it was symmetric, then the largest SSD offered should be 1TB unless a hardware address limitation is imposed somewhere. Or perhaps market supply for the denser flash caused Apple to avoid the 1 TB option, knowing many customers would order it.

Ask Apple. Maybe it's about the amount of space available on the motherboard. Maybe it's about the amount of energy used. I would guess the former, but it's really irrelevant. The fact is that you can't get 1 TB. Why would the reason matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

SSD being faster than HD is still several orders of magnitude slower than RAM. Furthermore, writes are most-damaging to SSDs. You do not want to swap to HD or SSD. It is not only slower than RAM--wasting a high-performance CPU--it will dramatically shorten the life of the SSD.
The classic tradeoff in computer science is memory for speed. Programs get more complex and memory use will increase. Yes, fast SSDs can sometime substitute for more memory, but this is best done when the required memory is read-mostly and it's not a general solution or one that is necessarily easy to program.

So you're pretending that you know more about that tradeoff than Apple?

I suspect that Apple knows just a bit more about designing a computer and finding a good balance between RAM and SSD size than you do.

Besides, your argument is still irrelevant. No one is complaining about a 16 GB limit on the old MBP. The new MBP has the same limit, but since it's swapping to SSD, it will suffer far, far less as the RAM usage approaches the limit.

As for wear on the SSD, why don't you tell us what the life of the SSDs that Apple is using would be and point to anyone who has had problems with that type of unit?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #159 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

So, why isn't a 1 TB option available?

Cost probably or even space.

post #160 of 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Ask Apple. Maybe it's about the amount of space available on the motherboard. Maybe it's about the amount of energy used. I would guess the former, but it's really irrelevant. The fact is that you can't get 1 TB. Why would the reason matter?
So you're pretending that you know more about that tradeoff than Apple?
I suspect that Apple knows just a bit more about designing a computer and finding a good balance between RAM and SSD size than you do.
Besides, your argument is still irrelevant. No one is complaining about a 16 GB limit on the old MBP. The new MBP has the same limit, but since it's swapping to SSD, it will suffer far, far less as the RAM usage approaches the limit.
As for wear on the SSD, why don't you tell us what the life of the SSDs that Apple is using would be and point to anyone who has had problems with that type of unit?

Man, are you bent out of shape. It's not generally practical to address questions being asked by someone who's upset/irrational.

 

It matters because it suggests a possible limit to what third parties might ever be able to offer.

The new MBP uses microprocessors capable of using 32 GB of memory, except Apple ships the units with memory soldered to the mainboard. Oops.


Edited by Cpsro - 6/13/12 at 5:28pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Teardown of Retina MacBook Pro finds soldered RAM, proprietary SSD