Even if you simply drive by your house? I mean, personality goes a long way¡
Seriously, I hear ya. I also think they should have iOS devices auto-config the Notifications on the fly: when I'm behind my Mac I don't need to have all these Push Notifications on my iPad or iPhone, telling me there's new mail when I'm already reading it. Also, next to Push Notifications, they need to implement Pull Notifications; unread email counter (on icon) should update on all devices.
When did they start soldering in the RAM on MacBook Pros? How did I miss this this?
Is 16 GB the maximum anyway so user access is irrelevant?
They went soldered as soon as they made a Retina model. The old model used stacked RAM slots, which are too tall to fit into a Retina model. 32GB is the maximum that the CPUs support but the vast majority of tasks won't max out 16GB. It's possible to do but you'd have to be doing a pretty heavy workload.
There appears to be something wrong with your system.
My 2010 Mac mini (with 8GB RAM) running Mavericks uses 1.65GB after a boot.
Mavericks has a file cache now so it loads up more into RAM but it's not that you have less RAM available, it'll flush that extra content out when it needs to. The actual usage is the total minus the file cache and it's further complicated by compression as the total is higher than the physical amount used.
That should be the baseline, but a BTO with a 32GB soldiered option.
They won't be able to fit 32GB in until DDR4 (likely Broadwell) as there's not enough room for the chips. Double density chips will let them use 16x 16 gigabit chips. There's even a single 128GB DDR4 module been made for high-end applications:
The next Mac Pro will move to DDR4 so it should be able to hold at least 128GB but maybe even up to 512GB. Anything above 128GB would be far too expensive though and probably won't be offered commercially.
A 200 MHZ upgrade at 2.8 GHZ is about 7%. What would the reaction be if the iPhone 6 is only 7% faster than the iPhone 5s?
If you consider the MBA, the entry 2008 model scored 1210 in Geekbench 32-bit at $1799. The current model starts at $899 and scores 4678. So 3.86x speedup in 7 years and the price is half. If Moore's Law were to be followed, it would be 2x every 18 months so it should be 16x speedup but it's not only the CPU that has sped up. The transistor count is being shared with the internal GPU. The X3100 in the original is slower than the GPU in the A6 chips for the iPhone.
The latest HD5000 is about 3x faster than the 9400M and the 9400M is easily double the X3100 so 6x faster GPU. The power consumption goes down too.
Moore's Law really has to take into account price because you can compare a 12-core Xeon otherwise. So the Air has 3.8x faster CPU, 6x faster GPU and 1/2 the price. This is pretty close to a 16x CPU speedup at the same price.
It would be nice to get larger speed jumps but this revision isn't a major one. The GPU manufacturers have been doing the same. The 750M was a rebadge of the 650M and even came out slower in some tests. Broadwell is supposed to drop 30% of the power for the same performance so they may boost performance a bit and lower power consumption.
Hopefully the 850M will be available as BTO. It's only 3% slower than two 750Ms in SLI, a major upgrade.
It's a big upgrade but I very much doubt they'd do a BTO option. It would be disappointing if they didn't use it. Even if the consumption went up 5W, it's not the end of the world to get a 50-90% speed boost.
I think they are phasing out 3rd party GPUs because the power draw and temperatures will be much easier to lower with a single chip. A Broadwell MBP could run at 35-45W and stay much cooler than the old one.
I also think they should have iOS devices auto-config the Notifications on the fly: when I'm behind my Mac I don't need to have all these Push Notifications on my iPad or iPhone, telling me there's new mail when I'm already reading it. Also, next to Push Notifications, they need to implement Pull Notifications; unread email counter (on icon) should update on all devices.
Isn't that in Yosemite?
I wouldn't know as I've only installed it yesterday on a single Mac and don't have iOS8. I would certainly hope they will implement both of 'my issues'.
I wouldn't know as I've only installed it yesterday on a single Mac and don't have iOS8. I would certainly hope they will implement both of 'my issues'.
Thanks for that. Yup, Handoff will be cool and useful, but I'd love for the unread count on my mail to update as well. Across all devices. Plus a single device notifying me of a new email, not all 3 together. I therefore already disabled most notifications on my iPad but there should be a better implementation coming from Apple.
Thanks for that. Yup, Handoff will be cool and useful, but I'd love for the unread count on my mail to update as well. Across all devices. Plus a single device notifying me of a new email, not all 3 together. I therefore already disabled most notifications on my iPad but there should be a better implementation coming from Apple.
What you are asking for comes out in the wash with handoff. If you are starting a mail on your iPhone and it is handed off to your iMac then it stands to reason that the iMac "knows" how much mail you have drafted, read, and unread. So it will not just allow you to continue the mail, but will update the count.
As for one device notifying, my expectation is handoff will do that too. Come into proximity of your iMac and you will automatically hand off the phone to the iMac ( dependent on user preferences, it could go the other way). As far as I understand it, this handed to device is now the "listening device", not just for phone calls. So handoff does two things. Gets your Mac up to date when your iPhone comes in proximity ( or vice versa) and makes the active device ( iMac or iPhone) the only listening device.
What you are asking for comes out in the wash with handoff. If you are starting a mail on your iPhone and it is handed off to your iMac then it stands to reason that the iMac "knows" how much mail you have drafted, read, and unread. So it will not just allow you to continue the mail, but will update the count.
That would be great, actually kinda something I'd expect from Apple. Still, they'll need to make this iOS to iOS device aware as well. Not simply proximity, but if I already read all mail on my iPad I shouldn't be seeing an unread count on my iPhone...for dotMac / MM / iCloud that is. 3rd party email I understand, though if they can serve up SMS on my Mac they should be able to update the unread count as well.
As for one device notifying, my expectation is handoff will do that too. Come into proximity of your iMac and you will automatically hand off the phone to the iMac ( dependent on user preferences, it could go the other way). As far as I understand it, this handed to device is now the "listening device", not just for phone calls. So handoff does two things. Gets your Mac up to date when your iPhone comes in proximity ( or vice versa) and makes the active device ( iMac or iPhone) the only listening device.
I think the delay of Intel Broadwell is making its impact now. And the previous leaks with Intel delaying to early 2015 instead of at the end of 2014.
You're probably right - I don't think Apple would release new computers now unless it figured the new chips wouldn't come out for months yet. I don't recall when the last time they had more than 2 refreshes in a year was.
Yes and no. It still isn't perfect. There will be plenty of times that unread mail notifications will disappear when read on another device, but the app badge still remain until Mail is opened and closed.
I think they are phasing out 3rd party GPUs because the power draw and temperatures will be much easier to lower with a single chip. A Broadwell MBP could run at 35-45W and stay much cooler than the old one.
I hope not. Given that Intel have just let them down on Broadwell, it might not be a good idea to put GPU advancements in their hands too. If they want to go the single chip, low power route then just go all the way and switch the Mac to ARM.
I hope not. Given that Intel have just let them down on Broadwell, it might not be a good idea to put GPU advancements in their hands too. If they want to go the single chip, low power route then just go all the way and switch the Mac to ARM.
I’m to understand from an Intel insider that the company is making Apple a custom GPU to be used within the next few years.
This was a little while ago, however, so things may have changed.
I’m to understand from an Intel insider that the company is making Apple a custom GPU to be used within the next few years.
This was a little while ago, however, so things may have changed.
From my friends at Intel, they know they aren't gaining business with Apple, beyond new Macs. And if they keep screwing up their fab issues they'll lose out more to Samsung, GloFo and TSMC.
Apple wouldn't hesitate to branch out to AMD by 2016 with the new direction they are headed having the talent they now have back at AMD.
From my friends at Intel, they know they aren't gaining business with Apple, beyond new Macs. And if they keep screwing up their fab issues they'll lose out more to Samsung, GloFo and TSMC.
Have you heard anything about Intel starting up an ARM fab at all?
Both mavericks and Yosemite need more than 4G. The number of system processes is exploding.
My Mavericks machine is using 4.1 GB of RAM in an idle state -- i.e. no foreground apps running at all, with only a few third-party background processes (Adobe CC stuff) -- so I guess you're right, 4 isn't enough anymore.
My Mavericks 2008 iMac is using 521MB wired, 1.54GB active, 1.52GB inactive and 30MB free. I have fourteen apps open full screen in their own spaces. Speed is fine. I guess 4GB is enough for me. Perhaps buying the top of the range specced-out iMac helped.
Total bollox geek-speak! I've never found a problem with 4 GB. The MBA runs like a beach-ball-free dream on Mavericks and that includes having Chem Office and MS Office open on Win 7 in a virtual machine, while several applications are open in MacOS.
That's just because the SSD in the MBA is fast enough that you're not noticing the paging as badly. My SO had a MBP with 4 GB and a hard drive, and all she had open was Word, Chrome, Preview, and Mail, and it would page so badly that it would take approximately a minute each time she switched apps. Opening new applications was a nightmare, even if it was something small like System Preferences. Upgrading to 8 GB, of course, fixed it.
Technology marches on, and by now it's marched past 4 GB. Mavericks helps, but really you ought to have more RAM than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid
A little off topic, but since we're talking about memory usage, how do those of you running Yosemite find it compares? Does it seem faster than Mavericks? I have a 2009 13" MacBook Pro running Mavericks and it seriously lags on certain tasks (I still only have the standard 2GB RAM) and would love to be able to update without having to worry about crippling my system... although I might just finally upgrade since it's been 5 years.
Why don't you just upgrade it? You can bring your MBP up to 8 GB, and Yosemite should run fine on that.
I would say that it was Word that was hogging your SO's MacBook. Word is appallingly inefficient. She should delete all evidence of Word and use Pages; the increase in overall snappiness of her MacBook will be immediate.
I would say that it was Word that was hogging your SO's MacBook. Word is appallingly inefficient. She should delete all evidence of Word and use Pages; the increase in overall snappiness of her MacBook will be immediate.
I don't think I'd get very far with that suggestion. I use Pages too, but Word is certainly not going anywhere anytime soon for most people.
Comments
Isn't that in Yosemite?
The lack of a decent processor update isn't Apples fault. Broadwell was due months ago. Intel is really screwing the pooch here.
If you want better performance, the fusion drive is the way to go. While the Retina MBPs all have had it from day one, some of us prefer more space.
They went soldered as soon as they made a Retina model. The old model used stacked RAM slots, which are too tall to fit into a Retina model. 32GB is the maximum that the CPUs support but the vast majority of tasks won't max out 16GB. It's possible to do but you'd have to be doing a pretty heavy workload.
Mavericks has a file cache now so it loads up more into RAM but it's not that you have less RAM available, it'll flush that extra content out when it needs to. The actual usage is the total minus the file cache and it's further complicated by compression as the total is higher than the physical amount used.
They won't be able to fit 32GB in until DDR4 (likely Broadwell) as there's not enough room for the chips. Double density chips will let them use 16x 16 gigabit chips. There's even a single 128GB DDR4 module been made for high-end applications:
http://www.techpowerup.com/199648/sk-hynix-developed-the-worlds-first-highest-density-128-gb-ddr4-module.html
The next Mac Pro will move to DDR4 so it should be able to hold at least 128GB but maybe even up to 512GB. Anything above 128GB would be far too expensive though and probably won't be offered commercially.
If you consider the MBA, the entry 2008 model scored 1210 in Geekbench 32-bit at $1799. The current model starts at $899 and scores 4678. So 3.86x speedup in 7 years and the price is half. If Moore's Law were to be followed, it would be 2x every 18 months so it should be 16x speedup but it's not only the CPU that has sped up. The transistor count is being shared with the internal GPU. The X3100 in the original is slower than the GPU in the A6 chips for the iPhone.
The latest HD5000 is about 3x faster than the 9400M and the 9400M is easily double the X3100 so 6x faster GPU. The power consumption goes down too.
Moore's Law really has to take into account price because you can compare a 12-core Xeon otherwise. So the Air has 3.8x faster CPU, 6x faster GPU and 1/2 the price. This is pretty close to a 16x CPU speedup at the same price.
It would be nice to get larger speed jumps but this revision isn't a major one. The GPU manufacturers have been doing the same. The 750M was a rebadge of the 650M and even came out slower in some tests. Broadwell is supposed to drop 30% of the power for the same performance so they may boost performance a bit and lower power consumption.
It's a big upgrade but I very much doubt they'd do a BTO option. It would be disappointing if they didn't use it. Even if the consumption went up 5W, it's not the end of the world to get a 50-90% speed boost.
I think they are phasing out 3rd party GPUs because the power draw and temperatures will be much easier to lower with a single chip. A Broadwell MBP could run at 35-45W and stay much cooler than the old one.
I wouldn't know as I've only installed it yesterday on a single Mac and don't have iOS8. I would certainly hope they will implement both of 'my issues'.
I wouldn't know as I've only installed it yesterday on a single Mac and don't have iOS8. I would certainly hope they will implement both of 'my issues'.
your issues and more:
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/06/03/ios-8-yosemite-handoff-and-continuity/
Thanks for that. Yup, Handoff will be cool and useful, but I'd love for the unread count on my mail to update as well. Across all devices. Plus a single device notifying me of a new email, not all 3 together. I therefore already disabled most notifications on my iPad but there should be a better implementation coming from Apple.
Thanks for that. Yup, Handoff will be cool and useful, but I'd love for the unread count on my mail to update as well. Across all devices. Plus a single device notifying me of a new email, not all 3 together. I therefore already disabled most notifications on my iPad but there should be a better implementation coming from Apple.
What you are asking for comes out in the wash with handoff. If you are starting a mail on your iPhone and it is handed off to your iMac then it stands to reason that the iMac "knows" how much mail you have drafted, read, and unread. So it will not just allow you to continue the mail, but will update the count.
As for one device notifying, my expectation is handoff will do that too. Come into proximity of your iMac and you will automatically hand off the phone to the iMac ( dependent on user preferences, it could go the other way). As far as I understand it, this handed to device is now the "listening device", not just for phone calls. So handoff does two things. Gets your Mac up to date when your iPhone comes in proximity ( or vice versa) and makes the active device ( iMac or iPhone) the only listening device.
That would be great, actually kinda something I'd expect from Apple. Still, they'll need to make this iOS to iOS device aware as well. Not simply proximity, but if I already read all mail on my iPad I shouldn't be seeing an unread count on my iPhone...for dotMac / MM / iCloud that is. 3rd party email I understand, though if they can serve up SMS on my Mac they should be able to update the unread count as well.
Good points!
I think the delay of Intel Broadwell is making its impact now. And the previous leaks with Intel delaying to early 2015 instead of at the end of 2014.
I think the delay of Intel Broadwell is making its impact now. And the previous leaks with Intel delaying to early 2015 instead of at the end of 2014.
You're probably right - I don't think Apple would release new computers now unless it figured the new chips wouldn't come out for months yet. I don't recall when the last time they had more than 2 refreshes in a year was.
Isn't that in Yosemite?
Yes and no. It still isn't perfect. There will be plenty of times that unread mail notifications will disappear when read on another device, but the app badge still remain until Mail is opened and closed.
I think they are phasing out 3rd party GPUs because the power draw and temperatures will be much easier to lower with a single chip. A Broadwell MBP could run at 35-45W and stay much cooler than the old one.
I hope not. Given that Intel have just let them down on Broadwell, it might not be a good idea to put GPU advancements in their hands too. If they want to go the single chip, low power route then just go all the way and switch the Mac to ARM.
I’m to understand from an Intel insider that the company is making Apple a custom GPU to be used within the next few years.
This was a little while ago, however, so things may have changed.
From my friends at Intel, they know they aren't gaining business with Apple, beyond new Macs. And if they keep screwing up their fab issues they'll lose out more to Samsung, GloFo and TSMC.
Apple wouldn't hesitate to branch out to AMD by 2016 with the new direction they are headed having the talent they now have back at AMD.
Have you heard anything about Intel starting up an ARM fab at all?
Both mavericks and Yosemite need more than 4G. The number of system processes is exploding.
My Mavericks machine is using 4.1 GB of RAM in an idle state -- i.e. no foreground apps running at all, with only a few third-party background processes (Adobe CC stuff) -- so I guess you're right, 4 isn't enough anymore.
My Mavericks 2008 iMac is using 521MB wired, 1.54GB active, 1.52GB inactive and 30MB free. I have fourteen apps open full screen in their own spaces. Speed is fine. I guess 4GB is enough for me. Perhaps buying the top of the range specced-out iMac helped.
Total bollox geek-speak! I've never found a problem with 4 GB. The MBA runs like a beach-ball-free dream on Mavericks and that includes having Chem Office and MS Office open on Win 7 in a virtual machine, while several applications are open in MacOS.
That's just because the SSD in the MBA is fast enough that you're not noticing the paging as badly. My SO had a MBP with 4 GB and a hard drive, and all she had open was Word, Chrome, Preview, and Mail, and it would page so badly that it would take approximately a minute each time she switched apps. Opening new applications was a nightmare, even if it was something small like System Preferences. Upgrading to 8 GB, of course, fixed it.
Technology marches on, and by now it's marched past 4 GB. Mavericks helps, but really you ought to have more RAM than that.
A little off topic, but since we're talking about memory usage, how do those of you running Yosemite find it compares? Does it seem faster than Mavericks? I have a 2009 13" MacBook Pro running Mavericks and it seriously lags on certain tasks (I still only have the standard 2GB RAM) and would love to be able to update without having to worry about crippling my system... although I might just finally upgrade since it's been 5 years.
Why don't you just upgrade it? You can bring your MBP up to 8 GB, and Yosemite should run fine on that.
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/compatible-memory-for/Apple/macbook-pro-(13-inch,-mid-2009)
I would say that it was Word that was hogging your SO's MacBook. Word is appallingly inefficient. She should delete all evidence of Word and use Pages; the increase in overall snappiness of her MacBook will be immediate.