I don't believe so. I know the 2011 MBP will take 16 GB ($595), but the 2010 model is listed as maxing out at 8 (using macsales.com where I buy a lot of Mac upgrades).
It is sometimes possible to use a larger RAM upgrade than Apple's stated specs, but if that were the case, macsales would probably show 16 GB on the 2010 model. Other sites also show 8 GB as being the max for this model.
most helpful, thanks; it looks like my best option then is to wait and see if the 2012 15" MBA (ivy Bridge presumably) will allow dropping in 16 Gb. It's funny (not ha ha, but you know what I mean) that until I started ePubing my dictionaries, the projects were pretty pedestrian sizewise at 6-12 mb files, but by adding images, I've been dragged into the "power user" category with files that tip the scales at 500 mb; cognoscenti have told me that the only way to stop the constant crashing is to up the RAM; 4 Gb is clearly not enough and I doubt 8 will be a huge help; as said, thanks much
What exactly do you need 16GB for? Serious question. I have 4GB on my 13' Air and it's lightning fast. I routinely work on large files in the CS5 suite.
I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, but I use quark XPress for Epublishing and I've been told that the only way around the problem is upping the RAM. You may not be impressed by 500 Mb files, but my machine sputters and freezes every time I try to put three commands in row
What exactly do you need 16GB for? Serious question. I have 4GB on my 13' Air and it's lightning fast. I routinely work on large files in the CS5 suite.
I have 10GB of RAM in my iMac. I use CS5 - Computer became a snail. 16-bit colour depth and CMYK in photoshop is a good test of a computer's might. Especially on a 300DPi, 8000x10000 (approx A1 paper) sized image. I think my hard drive was bearing most of the onslaught from the constant read/writes to the swap space.
EDIT: Also, 64-bit computers do not gain any of the advantages of 64-bit tech unless they have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. 8GB+ allows applications plenty of breathing room.
4GB of RAM will be fine, I'm sure 8 will be an option
A-HA AHA HA HA. no.
6GB MacBook Pro here. Currently using 3.4GB of RAM according to activity monitor (3492MB according to htop in the terminal) with only mail, safari, iChat, wunderlist and Address Book open. If I need to do any moderate work in Photoshop today that usage will rise sharply. I'm going to upgrade this baby to 8GB when I can.
most helpful, thanks; it looks like my best option then is to wait and see if the 2012 15" MBA (ivy Bridge presumably) will allow dropping in 16 Gb. It's funny (not ha ha, but you know what I mean) that until I started ePubing my dictionaries, the projects were pretty pedestrian sizewise at 6-12 mb files, but by adding images, I've been dragged into the "power user" category with files that tip the scales at 500 mb; cognoscenti have told me that the only way to stop the constant crashing is to up the RAM; 4 Gb is clearly not enough and I doubt 8 will be a huge help; as said, thanks much
You're talking to the wrong 'cognoscenti'. Crashing would not be caused by 'only' 4 GB of RAM. Depending on your workload, that could slow things down considerably, but it should not crash.
Now, if it's BAD RAM, that might cause crashing, but there are other possible causes, as well.
If you're getting crashing, make an appointment at your Apple Genius Bar to get the problem fixed.
It would be nice to have SSD for OS and a larger capacity HDD (instead of DVD drive). I can't remember the last time I used the DVD. Certainly not in the last 5 years.
I have 10GB of RAM in my iMac. I use CS5 - Computer became a snail. 16-bit colour depth and CMYK in photoshop is a good test of a computer's might. Especially on a 300DPi, 8000x10000 (approx A1 paper) sized image. I think my hard drive was bearing most of the onslaught from the constant read/writes to the swap space.
EDIT: Also, 64-bit computers do not gain any of the advantages of 64-bit tech unless they have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. 8GB+ allows applications plenty of breathing room.
That's not true. 64 bit computing is not only about RAM/addressing (OS X made more than 4 GB available to apps even in Leopard days). Intel 64 bit CPUs also make more CPU registers available, which can make certain apps faster.
Is it a given that a 15" MBA would be too flimsy? It's not just a matter of how thin the computer is. It's also a matter of weight as well. Take away the hard drive and some additional weight, there's no reason why a 15" MBA cannot be structurally stiff enough.
The bigger question is positioning of product lines. It's not Apple's standard modus operandi to have significant overlap between product lines. To me, having both the MBP and MBA lines sharing two sizes just doesn't sound like Apple.
I have 10GB of RAM in my iMac. I use CS5 - Computer became a snail. 16-bit colour depth and CMYK in photoshop is a good test of a computer's might. Especially on a 300DPi, 8000x10000 (approx A1 paper) sized image. I think my hard drive was bearing most of the onslaught from the constant read/writes to the swap space.
EDIT: Also, 64-bit computers do not gain any of the advantages of 64-bit tech unless they have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. 8GB+ allows applications plenty of breathing room.
What does breathing room mean? Not familiar with that tech jargon.
He thinks that having unused RAM above the amount being used by his applications makes the computer faster.
Which is nonsense.
Since he never said that, the comment is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Or he thinks that having extra RAM in the event that his workflow increases in size (and therefore RAM usage) would be useful.
Which makes sense.
And that was probably the intent.
Everyone who has used computers finds that, over time, RAM requirements increase. New OS versions need more RAM. New versions of apps need more RAM. User uses new apps which needs more RAM. A computer you buy today with "just enough" RAM will probably have "too little" RAM in 2 years.
I see the Macbook Pro getting thinner just based upon using only SSD's and without optical drives. I would think that would significantly slim the form of it, and possibly even further by strategically locating things inside and a nice sweet tapered design. I seriously doubt they'll just make bigger Macbook Airs.
With the ever decreasing prices of SSD's, I'd expect to see this product next year, when they expect the SSD retail market to close to $1.00 per GB. 256GB SSD would be standard, with larger ones available.
Comments
MBA redesign with tablet format - sort of OSX version of the iPad.
External portable ODD & HDD are light & cheap enough to replace internal drives.
iTunes/AppStore will replace ODD & iCloud will replace HDD for many people.
One more thing.... iTunes streaming from your own personal digital locker to combat the likes of Spotify, Netflix, Amazon, etc.
I don't believe so. I know the 2011 MBP will take 16 GB ($595), but the 2010 model is listed as maxing out at 8 (using macsales.com where I buy a lot of Mac upgrades).
It is sometimes possible to use a larger RAM upgrade than Apple's stated specs, but if that were the case, macsales would probably show 16 GB on the 2010 model. Other sites also show 8 GB as being the max for this model.
most helpful, thanks; it looks like my best option then is to wait and see if the 2012 15" MBA (ivy Bridge presumably) will allow dropping in 16 Gb. It's funny (not ha ha, but you know what I mean) that until I started ePubing my dictionaries, the projects were pretty pedestrian sizewise at 6-12 mb files, but by adding images, I've been dragged into the "power user" category with files that tip the scales at 500 mb; cognoscenti have told me that the only way to stop the constant crashing is to up the RAM; 4 Gb is clearly not enough and I doubt 8 will be a huge help; as said, thanks much
What exactly do you need 16GB for? Serious question. I have 4GB on my 13' Air and it's lightning fast. I routinely work on large files in the CS5 suite.
I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, but I use quark XPress for Epublishing and I've been told that the only way around the problem is upping the RAM. You may not be impressed by 500 Mb files, but my machine sputters and freezes every time I try to put three commands in row
What exactly do you need 16GB for? Serious question. I have 4GB on my 13' Air and it's lightning fast. I routinely work on large files in the CS5 suite.
I have 10GB of RAM in my iMac. I use CS5 - Computer became a snail. 16-bit colour depth and CMYK in photoshop is a good test of a computer's might. Especially on a 300DPi, 8000x10000 (approx A1 paper) sized image. I think my hard drive was bearing most of the onslaught from the constant read/writes to the swap space.
EDIT: Also, 64-bit computers do not gain any of the advantages of 64-bit tech unless they have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. 8GB+ allows applications plenty of breathing room.
4GB of RAM will be fine, I'm sure 8 will be an option
A-HA AHA HA HA. no.
6GB MacBook Pro here. Currently using 3.4GB of RAM according to activity monitor (3492MB according to htop in the terminal) with only mail, safari, iChat, wunderlist and Address Book open. If I need to do any moderate work in Photoshop today that usage will rise sharply. I'm going to upgrade this baby to 8GB when I can.
I would have expected Apple to wait until the new Ivy Bridge chips were ready from Intel. I don't think that's supposed to happen until Spring.
They could already be developing them now and given a bunch to Apple and other manufactures.
most helpful, thanks; it looks like my best option then is to wait and see if the 2012 15" MBA (ivy Bridge presumably) will allow dropping in 16 Gb. It's funny (not ha ha, but you know what I mean) that until I started ePubing my dictionaries, the projects were pretty pedestrian sizewise at 6-12 mb files, but by adding images, I've been dragged into the "power user" category with files that tip the scales at 500 mb; cognoscenti have told me that the only way to stop the constant crashing is to up the RAM; 4 Gb is clearly not enough and I doubt 8 will be a huge help; as said, thanks much
You're talking to the wrong 'cognoscenti'. Crashing would not be caused by 'only' 4 GB of RAM. Depending on your workload, that could slow things down considerably, but it should not crash.
Now, if it's BAD RAM, that might cause crashing, but there are other possible causes, as well.
If you're getting crashing, make an appointment at your Apple Genius Bar to get the problem fixed.
I have 10GB of RAM in my iMac. I use CS5 - Computer became a snail. 16-bit colour depth and CMYK in photoshop is a good test of a computer's might. Especially on a 300DPi, 8000x10000 (approx A1 paper) sized image. I think my hard drive was bearing most of the onslaught from the constant read/writes to the swap space.
EDIT: Also, 64-bit computers do not gain any of the advantages of 64-bit tech unless they have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. 8GB+ allows applications plenty of breathing room.
That's not true. 64 bit computing is not only about RAM/addressing (OS X made more than 4 GB available to apps even in Leopard days). Intel 64 bit CPUs also make more CPU registers available, which can make certain apps faster.
The bigger question is positioning of product lines. It's not Apple's standard modus operandi to have significant overlap between product lines. To me, having both the MBP and MBA lines sharing two sizes just doesn't sound like Apple.
I have 10GB of RAM in my iMac. I use CS5 - Computer became a snail. 16-bit colour depth and CMYK in photoshop is a good test of a computer's might. Especially on a 300DPi, 8000x10000 (approx A1 paper) sized image. I think my hard drive was bearing most of the onslaught from the constant read/writes to the swap space.
EDIT: Also, 64-bit computers do not gain any of the advantages of 64-bit tech unless they have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. 8GB+ allows applications plenty of breathing room.
What does breathing room mean? Not familiar with that tech jargon.
What does breathing room mean? Not familiar with that tech jargon.
He thinks that having unused RAM above the amount being used by his applications makes the computer faster.
Which is nonsense.
Or he thinks that having extra RAM in the event that his workflow increases in size (and therefore RAM usage) would be useful.
Which makes sense.
He thinks that having unused RAM above the amount being used by his applications makes the computer faster.
Which is nonsense.
Since he never said that, the comment is meaningless.
Or he thinks that having extra RAM in the event that his workflow increases in size (and therefore RAM usage) would be useful.
Which makes sense.
And that was probably the intent.
Everyone who has used computers finds that, over time, RAM requirements increase. New OS versions need more RAM. New versions of apps need more RAM. User uses new apps which needs more RAM. A computer you buy today with "just enough" RAM will probably have "too little" RAM in 2 years.
THAT is what he was probably referring to.
then in that case, I'll take mine with the unobtanium case, 2TB of SSD, retina display, and backlit keyboard with massaging wrist rests.
You forgot the hermetically sealed keyboard, required with the wrist option.
With the ever decreasing prices of SSD's, I'd expect to see this product next year, when they expect the SSD retail market to close to $1.00 per GB. 256GB SSD would be standard, with larger ones available.
Just my prediction...
- Hybrid SSD + HDD mode ?
- Discrete Graphics ?
- Carbon Fibre Lid ?
- Liquid Metal uniBody ?
- Slimmer design ?
- 3G Internet Connection ?
without DVD Rom ?
Hope so. And saying "DVD-ROM" today is really quite silly.
Hybrid SSD + HDD mode ?
I seriously doubt it. It'd be a stick SSD like the current MacBook Air.
Discrete Graphics ?
Carbon Fibre Lid ?
Silliness. Carbon fiber is a dead end in computers. Build all the planes and cars you want with it.
Liquid Metal uniBody ?
Sure hope so. Hello, radio transparency!
Slimmer design ?
Apple rumored to be testing new ultrathin 15-inch MacBook
3G Internet Connection ?
lolno.
Silliness. Carbon fiber is a dead end in computers. Build all the planes and cars you want with it.
And why do you say carbon fiber is a dead end in computers? It's just another material.