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
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?
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.
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.
Correction of my previous post "<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;">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.</span>
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzomedici
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Not really, it's just the next increment after 512.
So, why isn't a 1 TB option available?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
So, why isn't a 1 TB option available?
Cost probably or even space.