Apple limits 2016 MacBook Pro models to 16GB of RAM to maximize battery life

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 179
    holyoneholyone Posts: 391member
    1983 said:
    Considering even laptops remain plugged into the wall the vast majority of the time (most are desktop replacements nowadays anyway and have been for years!) a 32GB option should at least be offered, with the disclaimer saying such an upgrade could considerably reduce battery life, so people would know what they're getting into, that way Apple would be off the hook.
    Yeah as if that'll stop the never ending bitchin' , they'd just say "well such and such a laptop by such and such last for 2 weeks with 128G RAM and 15T SSD, why can Apple's ? I mean who needs a less heavy laptop ?" not that it's necessary but it's Apple that's kinda what they do, people always act surprised when it happens even though they are well aware of it coming long before it does. The iPhone' success has been both a blessing and a curse the danm thing makes too much money for it not to be the senter of the universe at Apple allowing us all to have great iPhones every year like clock work but that has to have its costs
    ration al
  • Reply 62 of 179
    macplusplus said:

    SSD makes this discussion pointless. One would prefer swapping, because RAM draws power continuously, even when idle, larger RAM draws more power, obviously. More RAM was a requirement of the spinning-plate hard disk era, because swapping on these disks is slow. Even with desktop machines, a PC dealer would suggest a faster hard disk before suggesting RAM upgrade. Upgradable RAM is no longer a solution, because RAM also affects the very delicate thermal balance of the system and some (mostly undocumented) thermal specifics must be considered, which is beyond the capabilities of even the most experienced users. Apple has always been very strict on these issues, including the amount of RAM in iOS devices.
    You would think so, but that's not how it actually works out in real life. I used to have "only" 24 GB on my computer. But there where times when I had a lot open because of the work I do. (Cross platform database development.) When that happened, everything would stall for several minutes at a time as I tried to go back and forth between applications. This was a problem even though I'm running a fast SSD for my primary drive. (The data drive is a RAID.) Once I figured out that it was starved for RAM, I upgraded to 48 GB and the stalls went away.

    To give you an idea of how starved it was, I reproduced my heaviest use scenario. Total usage was 36 to 38 GB. That is a lot of data to be swapping back and forth.

    (Note: I pointed this out before and someone "disliked" it. How the heck can someone "dislike" a simple statement of fact about a real life usage case? That makes no sense.)
    baconstang
  • Reply 63 of 179

    jkichline said:

    It seems like most people who need gobs of RAM have made some mention of running multiple VMs. I guess I need to ask th question... why? It seems like a terribly inefficient way to run your laptop. I guess I don't have a need to run Windows or Linux when on my Mac or can virtualize that in the cloud. May I ask what is the use case of running two VMs simultaneously that's not a server configuration? Do they need to be using 6 GB at a clip?
    I do cross platform database development. That means I have to be running the same OS my clients are using. In some cases there is software I'm interfacing with which only exists on one platform. In every case, I use additional applications such as email, word processing, outlining, graphics tools, and the like, where I need to switch between applications instantly to be productive. Using two separate machines is highly inefficient.

    For someone needing to do multiple platform work and using a notebook, RAM limitations preventing the use of a virtual machine configuration means you must either carry two different laptops, or simply not work on multiple platforms.

    Wait… could that be why Apple is making thinness and light weight such an all encompassing priority? So you can carry two notebook computers (and all the dongles and adapters necessary) instead of just one Apple made computer? </sarc>
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 64 of 179

    jkichline said:

    Based on the specs and benchmarks, I don't think they've made compromises concerning performance. Maybe software manufacturers ought to use RAM more effectively and learn to code properly. 16 GB with superfast SSD should give you the tools you need to create a performant app.
    Stable code, fast (less costly) development, efficient code. Pick any two.

    I'm sure we could create the exact same capabilities we have in computers today using 1/4 the memory if everyone wrote solely in assembly language. It would also execute faster using less resources. We could even make it bug free. But the next edition of Super Z Word Processing using this approach won't be out until 2050 and it will cost $15,000.

    RAM is cheap. It lets us give priority to the first two tradeoffs without really losing out on performance. In other words, loading up on RAM lets us have our software development cake and eat it too.
  • Reply 65 of 179
    I will most certainly wait for the 2018 iteration of this.

    Seems like a fine product now, but there's not much there that makes me go "must have". 
    Solibaconstanghmm
  • Reply 66 of 179

    (Note: I pointed this out before and someone "disliked" it. How the heck can someone "dislike" a simple statement of fact about a real life usage case? That makes no sense.)
    Because a lot of the 'dislikes' are just just stupid, lazy responses. (Btw, disliking the 'dislike' button usually generates a lot of dislikes). 
    Solicurt12hmm
  • Reply 67 of 179
    Apple - Have it our way!
    edited October 2016 singularity
  • Reply 68 of 179
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,271member
    jkichline said:
    Soli said:
    mazda 3s said:
    And who's fault is that?

    2015 15-inch MacBook Pro: 99.5 WHr battery
    2016 15-inch MacBook Pro: 76 WHr battery

    2015 13-inch MacBook Pro: 74.9 WHr battery
    2016 13-inch MacBook Pro: 54.5 WHr battery
    2016 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar: 49 WHr battery

    The quest for thinness in a "Pro" machine is bringing out the causalities. 
    What about usable battery life of these machines? Is it lower or has Apple decided that they can maintain a realistic battery life per charging cycle while reducing the battery size and making it thinner and lighter?

    Personally, I would have loved to see a 32GiB option, not cared if it only a little less heavier and thicker, and had a longer batter life, to boot, but we need to remember that our specific needs are not what Apple wants as we are not the target market. We are simply individual buyers. If we don't like it we can not by not buying it.

    I do wonder about his comments about affecting battery life and hope this can be tested. If doubling the RAM to 32GiB caused the machine to lose 30 minutes of run time from that 10 hour claim I think I would have gone for it, but if it lost 2 hours, I doubt I would have. I do think they are losing some up-sales from not offering it, but they also know that so we have to ask ourselves why they aren't offering it if they are leaving money on the table. In any regard, all we can do is speculate so no one should be getting emotional about it.
    The memory controller needs to be closely integrated with the processor for the level of performance it is driving as well as power efficiency. If the memory controller available on the chipset only supports 16 GB, then supporting more would necessitate an additional memory controller. These take up space, power, and likely incurs a performance hit.

    The other thing to consider is it's possible the SSD which is three times faster than before, will offset any limitation in physical RAM. Keep in mind also that macOS has the ability to compress RAM contents and dynamically expand it to make more efficient use of RAM. Having "only" 16 GB of RAM is either a very small segment of the market or not an actual issue.
    I agree with all that. Still, I am curious to know what kind of battery life hit would be incurred since Schiller brought it up.
  • Reply 69 of 179
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,271member
    jkichline said:
    dk49 said:

    It sucks that you can't opt for 16gb ram on 13 inch pro. Going for 15 inch pro just for more ram doesn't make sense. That is too heavy and big for me. I was expecting that pros will start at 16gb this year. 8gb just doesn't cut it for professional work now. And you can't even add more ram down the years when softwares get more heavy. Absolutely sucks.

    Wrong. The base models start at 8 GB but you can upgrade to 16 GB when you customize.
    I've seen a lot of this with this release. Why aren't people going to Apple's website to verify what can or can't be configured. What is this all of 20–30 seconds? Certainly the time frame it took them to write their post, and then you (and others) have to correct them. Are these people trolling?
    ericthehalfbeepscooter63
  • Reply 70 of 179
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,271member

    dk49 said:
    jkichline said:
    dk49 said:

    It sucks that you can't opt for 16gb ram on 13 inch pro. Going for 15 inch pro just for more ram doesn't make sense. That is too heavy and big for me. I was expecting that pros will start at 16gb this year. 8gb just doesn't cut it for professional work now. And you can't even add more ram down the years when softwares get more heavy. Absolutely sucks.

    Wrong. The base models start at 8 GB but you can upgrade to 16 GB when you customize.
    You can configure it in USA, but not in the country I live in. Here, you only get 8gb on 13 inch model.
    What country do you live in?
  • Reply 71 of 179
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,271member
    I will most certainly wait for the 2018 iteration of this.

    Seems like a fine product now, but there's not much there that makes me go "must have". 
    1) That's a perfectly reasonable post. Why can't other people say they aren't interested in buying. a new product without being a-holes about it?

    2) For me, with my 2013 MBP—the longest I've held onto a Mac as my primary machine—this update is amazing. My longtime desire has been for the glass trackpad to be am OLED display (and I still think that could be viable), but this Touch Bar is such a better idea. And we're finally moving to USB-C across the board. This is the universal port-interface I've been waiting for for decades. I can't wait for the rest of the PC world to catch on. I've already bought extra cables and accessories from Monoprice—they have 1260 inexpensive USB-C cable and adapter options last time I checked.
    lorin schultzration alpscooter63
  • Reply 72 of 179
    Adding more than 16GB of memory to MacBook Pro is technically feasible, but Apple is not supporting it. So that makes it a business decision. That means the incremental value of extra memory to a limited number of users does not justify the number of customers (profits) lost by adding costly hardware that most users would find superfluous.
    “Hey, let’s make our RAM upgrades hundreds of dollars more than they need to be!”
    “Okay… people don’t seem to be upgrading, though.”
    “So let’s just stop offering the upgrades.”
    “That worked out, I guess.”
    “Now let’s make it impossible to upgrade at all.”
    “Hang on, people hate this.”
    “Why?”
    “Seems they were just upgrading third party because ours were so expensive and always wanted more RAM.”
    “Well, too late now, suckers.”
    singularity
  • Reply 73 of 179
    macplusplus said:

    SSD makes this discussion pointless. One would prefer swapping, because RAM draws power continuously, even when idle, larger RAM draws more power, obviously. More RAM was a requirement of the spinning-plate hard disk era, because swapping on these disks is slow. Even with desktop machines, a PC dealer would suggest a faster hard disk before suggesting RAM upgrade. Upgradable RAM is no longer a solution, because RAM also affects the very delicate thermal balance of the system and some (mostly undocumented) thermal specifics must be considered, which is beyond the capabilities of even the most experienced users. Apple has always been very strict on these issues, including the amount of RAM in iOS devices.
    You would think so, but that's not how it actually works out in real life. I used to have "only" 24 GB on my computer. But there where times when I had a lot open because of the work I do. (Cross platform database development.) When that happened, everything would stall for several minutes at a time as I tried to go back and forth between applications. This was a problem even though I'm running a fast SSD for my primary drive. (The data drive is a RAID.) Once I figured out that it was starved for RAM, I upgraded to 48 GB and the stalls went away.

    To give you an idea of how starved it was, I reproduced my heaviest use scenario. Total usage was 36 to 38 GB. That is a lot of data to be swapping back and forth.

    (Note: I pointed this out before and someone "disliked" it. How the heck can someone "dislike" a simple statement of fact about a real life usage case? That makes no sense.)
    Incredible numbers ! What database is that ? Which loads all the tables and indexes into memory !!! Apparently this is a very bad database, doing so, or some preload parameter is badly configured. You cannot sell much projects to your customers if you request so much memory from them. 24 GB is pretty good for heavy desktop work. Your case is a very extreme one even for a desktop machine, we're talking about a laptop here.
    ration al
  • Reply 74 of 179
    So for all the people whining about not having 32GB, I have a question.

    What are you using currently? Do you have an older model MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM?
    ration alpscooter63
  • Reply 75 of 179

    The Information ran a piece yesterday about people inside Apple saying under Tim Cook the company is run by sales and operations. I'm actually inclined to believe it. I doubt not allowing a BTO option for 32GB RAM is coming from the engineering or design teams. I doubt they made the decision to no longer include the extension cord for the power adapter in the box. And I doubt they set prices on these machines.


    That may be true regarding management and may well be the subject of another thread, but the optimum amount of RAM in a laptop is a purely technical issue. It is not the same thing as removing the extension cord. The marketing would like to sell BTO RAM instead of a cheap cord, of course.

    I stopped using the extension cord many years ago, by the way. The charger goes directly into the wall socket. The extension cord is totally unnecessary.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 76 of 179
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,283member
    Where the hell are the new Mac Pro computers not limited by portability??
    pulseimagesration al
  • Reply 77 of 179
    EloyEloy Posts: 2member
    WHERE IS 32GB RAM?

    I am a live musician using a laptop on stage. Modern sample libraries (strings,horns,complex sounds) require more ram.
    A pro laptop with 32GB is needed to process modern samples - it is that simple. Thinness,battery life and GPU are secondary issues.

    Will Apple be a partner for the Pro musician?

    tallest skilbaconstang
  • Reply 78 of 179
    VSzulcVSzulc Posts: 32unconfirmed, member
    As an Apple owner and enthusiast, it's sad to see what Tim Cook has done with the legacy that Steve Jobs left him

    On top of almost abandoning the Mac and creative professionals, very little actual innovation has been seen lately from Apple. 

    Without passion and good ideas, Cook & co. are forced to resort to the old thinner and lighter when introducing new products.

    And the result is a "pro" MacBook, that most professionals can't use. Either because they need more than 16GB RAM, or because the quest a for 2mm thinner laptop cost the ports that they need, and adapters aren't a solution.

    Sad.
    baconstangpulseimages
  • Reply 79 of 179
    Soli said:
    It's like they don't' want pros to purchase these. Holding back the notebook to push iPad or something. I don't know.
    Do you know how arrogant you sound by suggesting that Apple drop the MBP in favor of the iPad because they don't offer a 32GiB option? How the hell does iOS on an iPad with 3GiB RAM equate to a 15" MBP with a 2TB SSD, 16GiB RAM, 2.9GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz, with 8MB shared L3 cache, Radeon Pro 460 with 4GB of GDDR5 memory, with 4 USB-C/TB ports capable of running 2x4K or 1x5K displays?
    Do you know how foolish you sound in trying to say the complete freaking opposite of what I just said?

    READING COMPREHENSION. LEARN THIS TERM.

    I was lamenting the strange feeling that Apple seems to be holding back the laptop instead of pushing it forward, say like the iPad Pro (which I own - and it comes nowhere near fulfilling what an MBP does).

    I could do without an iOS device. But I would hate computing life without a real Mac.

    I have been painfully waiting on a new MBP with 32GB of RAM and was certain it was now. But nope. It's just a boneheaded, stupid decision and Apple can still reverse it in a quiet update.

    Pay attention for crying out loud.
    evilution said:
    Oh good, the pointless return of the "I'm not buying it until that number doubles" crew. We haven't heard from them since the 16gb iPhone was dropped.

    Seriously, if you really need more than 16gb of RAM (need, not want) then you are a heavy user and you should be using a desktop computer.
    I agree but can you take the time how I take my 27in iMac with my when I travel on business?
    The continuing 16Gb limit imposed by Apple means that I have to take my HP Elitebook 8770 with me when I travel. IT has 32Gb of RAM, 3.5TB off SSD and I can run all my VM's on it. It is a loggable rather than a Laptop class machine and I'd really like to be able to leave it at home once and for all. It also runs FCP very, very well which is something my 2015 MBP can't do anywhere near as well.
    My iMac is maxed out with RAM and storage and the 5K screen is gorgeous.
    I won't be spending a bent dime with Apple until they kick intel's ass into the gutter and offer a laptop with 32Gb of RAM. It might be moot because I'll probably be long retired by then.
    I have to say it but, Apple Senior management need to gat a huge kick up the Ass and get out of their White Towers and into the field and see for real the issues we, the users have. But they won't so my wallet is staying firmly shut.


    You can buy this to transport your 27" iMac 5K while on business http://www.tenba.com/products/transport-air-case-for-computer-equipment-27-apple-imac-w-wheels.aspx
    ration al
  • Reply 80 of 179
    So for all the people whining about not having 32GB, I have a question.

    What are you using currently? Do you have an older model MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM?
    I'm curious to know the answer to this is well. Did the previous rMBP have a 32GB BTO option?
    pulseimagesration al
Sign In or Register to comment.