avon b7 said: A fair review but this machine doesn't go past three stars in my book.
A 'fair review' meaning everyone is required to hold the same values as you. Uh huh.
I don't understand how you got that from what Avon b7 wrote. I read "the reviewer perceives these changes differently than do I, but he did a good job of describing the machine." What's wrong with that?
I am still concerned about RAID 0 and in any case, I want such information disclosed, not hidden as SanDisk does. Customers have the right to know what they purchase.
Heres an alternative way of viewing this:
I want my storage to be fast and reliable. HOW Apple achieves those goals doesn't matter to me.
[...] when KABY Lake finally appears in the MBP, Apple will certainly add a 32GB RAM option, and then all the excuses made for why 16GB is all one every needs (akin to Bill Gate's "nobody needs more than 640k") will fade into oblivion where they belong.
I agree that the "that's all you need" arguments are totally off the mark (I can think of LOTS of ways my work would benefit from more), but the apologists are probably right that it's all MOST people will ever need, and the benefits Apple was able to offer by staying at 16GB outweigh those provided by more RAM. And it's important to note that it is only apologists who are saying that, not Apple. I'm sure Apple would love to offer more RAM at enormous margins, but not if it means sacrificing other design considerations that they (and probably the vast majority of users) consider more important.
As someone else pointed out, we may not even get 32GB with Kaby Lake, so to me it makes sense to just get to work with whatever I can get now, and look at upgrading whenever a version with more RAM becomes available. The wait might be longer than we'd like.
[...] when KABY Lake finally appears in the MBP, Apple will certainly add a 32GB RAM option, and then all the excuses made for why 16GB is all one every needs (akin to Bill Gate's "nobody needs more than 640k") will fade into oblivion where they belong.
I agree that the "that's all you need" arguments are totally off the mark (I can think of LOTS of ways my work would benefit from more), but the apologists are probably right that it's all MOST people will ever need, and the benefits Apple was able to offer by staying at 16GB outweigh those provided by more RAM.
It's not "totally off the mark" to state that 16GB is sufficient for many pros so the whining that these aren't "pro" machines is BS. For many pros the limitation has been IO speed and faster SSDs are more important to their workflow than moar RAM.
[...] when KABY Lake finally appears in the MBP, Apple will certainly add a 32GB RAM option, and then all the excuses made for why 16GB is all one every needs (akin to Bill Gate's "nobody needs more than 640k") will fade into oblivion where they belong.
I agree that the "that's all you need" arguments are totally off the mark (I can think of LOTS of ways my work would benefit from more), but the apologists are probably right that it's all MOST people will ever need, and the benefits Apple was able to offer by staying at 16GB outweigh those provided by more RAM.
It's not "totally off the mark" to state that 16GB is sufficient for many pros so the whining that these aren't "pro" machines is BS. For many pros the limitation has been IO speed and faster SSDs are more important to their workflow than moar RAM.
I'm sure if you read my comment in context instead of slicing out a few words in isolation you'll see that my comments were not intended to address the subject you raise and were in support of Apple's choices given the variables involved in this particular case.
I meant only exactly what I wrote: There are lots of good reasons to want more than 16GB of RAM. I happen to think the limitations RAM may impose on my work are less severe than those associated with the things I'd have to compromise to get more (size, weight, heat, noise, reliability), but that doesn't mean it's true for anyone else.
May someone help me if this machine it is ok to run softwares like Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator?
Thank you.
Yes and it depends. Open up your largest photoshop file and look at document size. If it exceeds 1 GB then you may want a machine that has 32 or 64 GB RAM.
Note that someone was trying this out on the Photoshop forums and 12 GB handled a 8'x4' canvas at 300 dpi or around 415M pixels which was a document size of 1.67GB smoothly for the operations they tried. I forgot how many layers they had.
Comments
I want my storage to be fast and reliable. HOW Apple achieves those goals doesn't matter to me.
As someone else pointed out, we may not even get 32GB with Kaby Lake, so to me it makes sense to just get to work with whatever I can get now, and look at upgrading whenever a version with more RAM becomes available. The wait might be longer than we'd like.
I meant only exactly what I wrote: There are lots of good reasons to want more than 16GB of RAM. I happen to think the limitations RAM may impose on my work are less severe than those associated with the things I'd have to compromise to get more (size, weight, heat, noise, reliability), but that doesn't mean it's true for anyone else.
Thank you.
Note that someone was trying this out on the Photoshop forums and 12 GB handled a 8'x4' canvas at 300 dpi or around 415M pixels which was a document size of 1.67GB smoothly for the operations they tried. I forgot how many layers they had.