Has any professional used a MacBook Pro and run into any issues with 16 GB? I've seen a review where the reviewer opened every Pro app he has (and then some) and didn't run into issues while using them.
I'm still running my Macbook Pro (Mid-2012) with 16GB of RAM as my primary work computer.
I've never quite worked out if I an technically a "Pro", but I do Software Systems Implementations and Development and run various Virtual Machines in the process. To that end I will get close to using most of the RAM depending on the VM (and where I sourced it - one department issued a VM that needs 32GB to run but I can launch portions of it on my current one.)
I do have 32GB on my iMac so I can run the bigger ones there when required.
I have been quite puzzled by the various reactions, it's not as if Apple had a 32GB Macbook Pro last year and this year they don't.
And it's not as if the laptop being thin was some new concept they applied to this years model for the first time.
And it's not as they have never dropped a port before.
Personally, I'm still contemplating the purchase but then again I'm in no rush given how old the current one is and it doesn't feel like it's going to have issues anytime soon (knock on wood).
Intel can't get its act together - and Apple has to take the shXt for Intel's product (fab process) delays, antiquated specs, lousy integrated graphics, and power hungry designs. Apple was counting on the new designs from Intel, and Intel dropped the ball causing Apple engineers to scramble to launch a new product with the older 6th gen chips. The '7th' generation is marketing fraud - the only available chip is dual core - not quad at same die size! The 'real' processor we are all waiting for is the 10nm Cannonlake -- now scheduled for 2nd half 2017 ... if Intel doesn't screw up again.
Here we go again....needless 32GB debate Round 2!!!!
Yup.
Anyone who actually buys this years model of MacBook Pro is going to be disappointed when next years model will likely get 32GB ram and has better battery life.
That said, most people don't need 16GB, let alone 8GB.
Like, right now on my Windows 10 Desktop PC which had 32GB of ram, only 16GB of ram is ever really utilized. I have like 40 tabs open between three web browsers, and 70 tabs open in a text editor. For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
Now what actually uses 16GB? Well first of all only 64bit applications can use it, which means that web browsers (which aren't completely 64-bit aware, nor are they multi-threaded) don't ever make use of more RAM even when it's available. The only application I have that is native 64-bit is Photoshop. Everything else doesn't have much or any advantage to being compiled 64-bit. 64-bit apps wind up a bit faster due to simply not having to go through the WoW32 layer.
A Mac with 32GB or 64GB is overkill and unless you're dealing with Final Cut Pro with 4K videos (including editing videos from an iPhone 6S or 7) you're still not likely to be able to utilize it.
Now, the fact that the RAM is soldered onto the MacBook Pro, means that you should buy the model with the most RAM because you will not be upgrading it. So if you need 32GB, wait for next years model, or don't use a MacBook Pro.
Most people aren't professionals or content creators. So is this machine aimed at professionals or not? Sounds like it's not. So why are they calling it a "pro" then?
As for software not using more than 16GB RAM... There's definitely more software out there that's native 64-bit. But that's not the issue. 32-bit applications had an issue with >4GB RAM. We aren't talking about >4GB any more. We're talking about >16GB now.
Please dont tell me you really believe the average/typical/majority of MBP user(s) are "professionals".. who somehow need 32GB of RAM in OSX.
I run 32GB of RAM in my dedicated Windows PC.. and the only reason I did it was for shit and giggles. I cant think of a single task I'd do where that much RAM is needed.
As the previous poster said.. if you really need that much RAM in a MBP.. just put your money where your mouth is when Intel introduces MacBook compatible Kaby Lake CPU's next year. Because thats the RAM limitations of SkyLake are the only reason why Apple maxed out at 16GB. I cant wait to see how many of these internet "professionals" snatch up those $2000 32GB MacBooks next year.
They'll find something else to complain about. If not the ports or the keyboard, it will be something else. Some people are just incapable of being happy.
The problem is not the new MBP, or Apple's decision for thin and light over other options. I received my new 15" and it is fantastic. If I have one criticism so far it is that keyboard, while nice to type on, is really a bit noisy. I used mine in the library today and got some annoyed looks.
The problem truly is that there is no other option, unless you want to change the OS. Dell and HP both make machines having the same weight and CPUs and UHD displays and better graphics (like GTX960M, which really helps with Adobe apps) and do support 32 GB DDR4 LV, while being only slightly thicker. Battery life is indeed not the same, but very close (XPS 15 with 32 GB achieves over 8 hrs while running 13 VMs in Hyper-V). The point is that they give you that option, and Apple, likely selling more $3-$4k laptops than Dell and HP combined, does not. Giving the creative user base (people depending on more RAM and technologies like CUDA) on the go at least one single model would not hurt Apple in the least and make many people happy.
I see absolutely no point in criticising people for needing something different.
For you, maybe. I'm currently using a MBP Retina (Late 2013) with 16 GB of RAM and it's definitely RAM-limited when it comes to my non-professional usage. Let's see... I currently have several browsers open (lots of tabs), Preview, TextEdit, various Terminals, and a few other inconsequential apps. Glancing at my Activity Monitor I can see that it's currently using 14.00 GB of RAM, with 1.46 GB of cached files... oh, and 16.3 *GB* of swap (sic). I haven't even fired up any of my virtual machines!
So, yes, clearly my SSD (and my system performance) would appreciate the extra RAM. Lord knows what this would be like if I were doing something serious with the machine, such as software development.
For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
...you haven't disabled swap on Mac OS, I'm guessing. Quick test: do you even know how to do that in Mac OS? On Windows accomplishing that goal is done with a few, user friendly clicks in the GUI; on the Mac it requires arcane invocations within Terminal. Anyhow, last time I disabled swap (on Snow Leopard) it was "amusing" to see how poorly Mac OS handled out-of-memory conditions compared to Windows or Linux. Maybe it's gotten better since then, but it's inconvenient having Mac OS develop spinning beach balls of death that require power-cycling the machine, so I haven't tried it lately. Windows handles this scenario especially gracefully, first by warning of impending memory exhaustion, then by slaying a RAM heavy app if the limit is exceeded.
Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
And why stop with these notebook-grade components. They should put desktop-grade components in there because professionals don't care about portability or battery life¡
The lack of 32 GB in a laptop would be less of an issue if Apple would get their act together and release a new new Mac Pro, rather than keeping the 1000+ day old current "new" version on the market. I'd prefer to buy a trash can Mac Pro, but I'm not dropping thousands of dollars on a brand new machine that's already several generations out of date.
For you, maybe. I'm currently using a MBP Retina (Late 2013) with 16 GB of RAM and it's definitely RAM-limited when it comes to my non-professional desktop usage. Let's see... I currently have several browsers open (lots of tabs), Preview, TextEdit, various Terminals, and a few other inconsequential apps. Glancing at my Activity Monitor I can see that it's currently using 14.00 GB of RAM, with 1.46 GB of cached files... oh, and 16.3 *GB* of swap (sic). I haven't even fired up any of my virtual machines!
So, yes, clearly my SSD (and my system performance) would appreciate the extra RAM. Lord knows what this would be like if I were doing something serious with the machine, such as software development.
For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
...you haven't disabled swap on Mac OS, I'm guessing. Quick test: do you even know how to do that in Mac OS? On Windows accomplishing that goal is done with a few, user friendly clicks in the GUI; on the Mac it requires arcane invocations within Terminal. Anyhow, last time I disabled swap (on Snow Leopard) it was "amusing" to see how poorly Mac OS handled out-of-memory conditions compared to Windows or Linux. Maybe it's gotten better since then, but it's inconvenient having Mac OS develop spinning beach balls of death that require power-cycling the machine so I haven't tried it lately. Windows handles this scenario especially gracefully, first by warning of impending memory exhaustion, then by slaying a RAM heavy app if the limit is exceeded.
Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
And why stop with these notebook-grade components. They should put desktop-grade components in there because professionals don't care about portability or battery life¡
The lack of 32 GB in a laptop would be less of an issue if Apple would get their act together and release a new new Mac Pro, rather than keeping the 1000+ day old current "new" version on the market. I'd prefer to buy a trash can Mac Pro, but I'm not dropping thousands of dollars on a brand new machine that's already several generations out of date.
The issue isn't your RAM capacity, it's your abject stupidity in running Chrome and Opera (at the same time, no less!), which share a common code base, and are renowned for being pigs with RAM.
For you, maybe. I'm currently using a MBP Retina (Late 2013) with 16 GB of RAM and it's definitely RAM-limited when it comes to my non-professional desktop usage. Let's see... I currently have several browsers open (lots of tabs), Preview, TextEdit, various Terminals, and a few other inconsequential apps. Glancing at my Activity Monitor I can see that it's currently using 14.00 GB of RAM, with 1.46 GB of cached files... oh, and 16.3 *GB* of swap (sic). I haven't even fired up any of my virtual machines!
So, yes, clearly my SSD (and my system performance) would appreciate the extra RAM. Lord knows what this would be like if I were doing something serious with the machine, such as software development.
For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
...you haven't disabled swap on Mac OS, I'm guessing. Quick test: do you even know how to do that in Mac OS? On Windows accomplishing that goal is done with a few, user friendly clicks in the GUI; on the Mac it requires arcane invocations within Terminal. Anyhow, last time I disabled swap (on Snow Leopard) it was "amusing" to see how poorly Mac OS handled out-of-memory conditions compared to Windows or Linux. Maybe it's gotten better since then, but it's inconvenient having Mac OS develop spinning beach balls of death that require power-cycling the machine so I haven't tried it lately. Windows handles this scenario especially gracefully, first by warning of impending memory exhaustion, then by slaying a RAM heavy app if the limit is exceeded.
Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
And why stop with these notebook-grade components. They should put desktop-grade components in there because professionals don't care about portability or battery life¡
The lack of 32 GB in a laptop would be less of an issue if Apple would get their act together and release a new new Mac Pro, rather than keeping the 1000+ day old current "new" version on the market. I'd prefer to buy a trash can Mac Pro, but I'm not dropping thousands of dollars on a brand new machine that's already several generations out of date.
The issue isn't your RAM capacity, it's your abject stupidity in running Chrome and Opera (at the same time, no less!), which share a common code base, and are renowned for being pigs with RAM.
Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
This.
The thin and light design requirement is the problem, not the technology. Trust me, I honestly want one of these machines, but I don't care if it weighs an extra pound and is a little bit thicker due to a bigger battery that can power more RAM. I'm sure most pros don't care as well.
Well, in a couple of years, you won't have to sacrifice weight or battery life, since by that time (knock on wood) the MBP will utilize Intel's Cannon Lake CPU / architecture which will support 32GB of LPDDR4 RAM.
Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
This.
The thin and light design requirement is the problem, not the technology. Trust me, I honestly want one of these machines, but I don't care if it weighs an extra pound and is a little bit thicker due to a bigger battery that can power more RAM. I'm sure most pros don't care as well.
Well, in a couple of years, you won't have to sacrifice weight or battery life, since by that time (knock on wood) the MBP will utilize Intel's Cannon Lake CPU / architecture which will support 32GB of LPDDR4 RAM.
But Apple should double the RAM every year¡ If they don't they are just stealing money from us loyal customers¡
Here we go again....needless 32GB debate Round 2!!!!
Yup.
Anyone who actually buys this years model of MacBook Pro is going to be disappointed when next years model will likely get 32GB ram and has better battery life.
That said, most people don't need 16GB, let alone 8GB.
Like, right now on my Windows 10 Desktop PC which had 32GB of ram, only 16GB of ram is ever really utilized. I have like 40 tabs open between three web browsers, and 70 tabs open in a text editor. For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
Now what actually uses 16GB? Well first of all only 64bit applications can use it, which means that web browsers (which aren't completely 64-bit aware, nor are they multi-threaded) don't ever make use of more RAM even when it's available. The only application I have that is native 64-bit is Photoshop. Everything else doesn't have much or any advantage to being compiled 64-bit. 64-bit apps wind up a bit faster due to simply not having to go through the WoW32 layer.
A Mac with 32GB or 64GB is overkill and unless you're dealing with Final Cut Pro with 4K videos (including editing videos from an iPhone 6S or 7) you're still not likely to be able to utilize it.
Now, the fact that the RAM is soldered onto the MacBook Pro, means that you should buy the model with the most RAM because you will not be upgrading it. So if you need 32GB, wait for next years model, or don't use a MacBook Pro.
These are MacBook Pros, not MacBooks. Professionals are not holding back their disappointment over the compromises Apple made because the engineering compromises do not seem to be to the benefit of making the product more capable and with the users needs in mind.
Here we go again....needless 32GB debate Round 2!!!!
Yup.
Anyone who actually buys this years model of MacBook Pro is going to be disappointed when next years model will likely get 32GB ram and has better battery life.
That said, most people don't need 16GB, let alone 8GB.
Like, right now on my Windows 10 Desktop PC which had 32GB of ram, only 16GB of ram is ever really utilized. I have like 40 tabs open between three web browsers, and 70 tabs open in a text editor. For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
Now what actually uses 16GB? Well first of all only 64bit applications can use it, which means that web browsers (which aren't completely 64-bit aware, nor are they multi-threaded) don't ever make use of more RAM even when it's available. The only application I have that is native 64-bit is Photoshop. Everything else doesn't have much or any advantage to being compiled 64-bit. 64-bit apps wind up a bit faster due to simply not having to go through the WoW32 layer.
A Mac with 32GB or 64GB is overkill and unless you're dealing with Final Cut Pro with 4K videos (including editing videos from an iPhone 6S or 7) you're still not likely to be able to utilize it.
Now, the fact that the RAM is soldered onto the MacBook Pro, means that you should buy the model with the most RAM because you will not be upgrading it. So if you need 32GB, wait for next years model, or don't use a MacBook Pro.
Most people aren't professionals or content creators. So is this machine aimed at professionals or not? Sounds like it's not. So why are they calling it a "pro" then?
As for software not using more than 16GB RAM... There's definitely more software out there that's native 64-bit. But that's not the issue. 32-bit applications had an issue with >4GB RAM. We aren't talking about >4GB any more. We're talking about >16GB now.
Because 'professional' doesn't just mean video editor; it also means doctor, lawyer, programmer… Professional isn't defined by the individual parts; it's actually the sum of the parts.
The issue isn't your RAM capacity, it's your abject stupidity in running Chrome and Opera (at the same time, no less!), which share a common code base, and are renowned for being pigs with RAM.
BTW, nice meme image, bro.
Did you get a nosebleed from your knee-jerk?
Your assumptions are incorrect. Opera 12 does not share a common code base with Chrome—though my Chromium instance certainly does (a fact that you inscrutably overlooked). Furthermore, I use different browsers for different tasks, as one might guess from the simultaneous use of Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Safari, and Firefox.
Notwithstanding your opinion to the contrary, my use case is valid and demonstrates the utility of additional RAM for me.
Here we go again....needless 32GB debate Round 2!!!!
Yup.
Anyone who actually buys this years model of MacBook Pro is going to be disappointed when next years model will likely get 32GB ram and has better battery life.
That said, most people don't need 16GB, let alone 8GB.
Like, right now on my Windows 10 Desktop PC which had 32GB of ram, only 16GB of ram is ever really utilized. I have like 40 tabs open between three web browsers, and 70 tabs open in a text editor. For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
Now what actually uses 16GB? Well first of all only 64bit applications can use it, which means that web browsers (which aren't completely 64-bit aware, nor are they multi-threaded) don't ever make use of more RAM even when it's available. The only application I have that is native 64-bit is Photoshop. Everything else doesn't have much or any advantage to being compiled 64-bit. 64-bit apps wind up a bit faster due to simply not having to go through the WoW32 layer.
A Mac with 32GB or 64GB is overkill and unless you're dealing with Final Cut Pro with 4K videos (including editing videos from an iPhone 6S or 7) you're still not likely to be able to utilize it.
Now, the fact that the RAM is soldered onto the MacBook Pro, means that you should buy the model with the most RAM because you will not be upgrading it. So if you need 32GB, wait for next years model, or don't use a MacBook Pro.
Most people aren't professionals or content creators. So is this machine aimed at professionals or not? Sounds like it's not. So why are they calling it a "pro" then?
As for software not using more than 16GB RAM... There's definitely more software out there that's native 64-bit. But that's not the issue. 32-bit applications had an issue with >4GB RAM. We aren't talking about >4GB any more. We're talking about >16GB now.
Please dont tell me you really believe the average/typical/majority of MBP user(s) are "professionals".. who somehow need 32GB of RAM in OSX.
I run 32GB of RAM in my dedicated Windows PC.. and the only reason I did it was for shit and giggles. I cant think of a single task I'd do where that much RAM is needed.
As the previous poster said.. if you really need that much RAM in a MBP.. just put your money where your mouth is when Intel introduces MacBook compatible Kaby Lake CPU's next year. Because thats the RAM limitations of SkyLake are the only reason why Apple maxed out at 16GB. I cant wait to see how many of these internet "professionals" snatch up those $2000 32GB MacBooks next year.
Oh, they'll have something else to complain about then, especially if Apple has to make the laptop thicker due to thermal issues.
Has any professional used a MacBook Pro and run into any issues with 16 GB? I've seen a review where the reviewer opened every Pro app he has (and then some) and didn't run into issues while using them.
If you want to launch multiple large VMs you can run out. But docker containers typically aren't large and VMs for browser testing can be 2-4 GB ram. If you really need 3x8GB VMs you're better off just kicking them off on AWS and ssh'ing in. Especially if your Devops has preloaded AMIs with your deployment configuration ready to go. Then it's just check in your code, push it to the build server and watch as it auto deploys and do your automated testing as you surf Apple Insider.
So, no not really except for 4K editing and higher end users of CC with multiple apps open. If you want premier pro and after effects and resolve open, yeah...128GB RAM sounds pretty good. 32 GB likely tight.
Here we go again....needless 32GB debate Round 2!!!!
Yup.
Anyone who actually buys this years model of MacBook Pro is going to be disappointed when next years model will likely get 32GB ram and has better battery life.
That said, most people don't need 16GB, let alone 8GB.
Like, right now on my Windows 10 Desktop PC which had 32GB of ram, only 16GB of ram is ever really utilized. I have like 40 tabs open between three web browsers, and 70 tabs open in a text editor. For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
Now what actually uses 16GB? Well first of all only 64bit applications can use it, which means that web browsers (which aren't completely 64-bit aware, nor are they multi-threaded) don't ever make use of more RAM even when it's available. The only application I have that is native 64-bit is Photoshop. Everything else doesn't have much or any advantage to being compiled 64-bit. 64-bit apps wind up a bit faster due to simply not having to go through the WoW32 layer.
A Mac with 32GB or 64GB is overkill and unless you're dealing with Final Cut Pro with 4K videos (including editing videos from an iPhone 6S or 7) you're still not likely to be able to utilize it.
Now, the fact that the RAM is soldered onto the MacBook Pro, means that you should buy the model with the most RAM because you will not be upgrading it. So if you need 32GB, wait for next years model, or don't use a MacBook Pro.
Four 32-bit processes would benefit from >16GB RAM. Not all of the RAM has to be addressable from a single process.
For you, maybe. I'm currently using a MBP Retina (Late 2013) with 16 GB of RAM and it's definitely RAM-limited when it comes to my non-professional desktop usage. Let's see... I currently have several browsers open (lots of tabs), Preview, TextEdit, various Terminals, and a few other inconsequential apps. Glancing at my Activity Monitor I can see that it's currently using 14.00 GB of RAM, with 1.46 GB of cached files... oh, and 16.3 *GB* of swap (sic). I haven't even fired up any of my virtual machines!
So, yes, clearly my SSD (and my system performance) would appreciate the extra RAM. Lord knows what this would be like if I were doing something serious with the machine, such as software development.
For the sake of not destroying a SSD quickly, more RAM is preferred because it means the page file is rarely used. In fact I have it set to 0MB on my system.
...you haven't disabled swap on Mac OS, I'm guessing. Quick test: do you even know how to do that in Mac OS? On Windows accomplishing that goal is done with a few, user friendly clicks in the GUI; on the Mac it requires arcane invocations within Terminal. Anyhow, last time I disabled swap (on Snow Leopard) it was "amusing" to see how poorly Mac OS handled out-of-memory conditions compared to Windows or Linux. Maybe it's gotten better since then, but it's inconvenient having Mac OS develop spinning beach balls of death that require power-cycling the machine so I haven't tried it lately. Windows handles this scenario especially gracefully, first by warning of impending memory exhaustion, then by slaying a RAM heavy app if the limit is exceeded.
Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
And why stop with these notebook-grade components. They should put desktop-grade components in there because professionals don't care about portability or battery life¡
The lack of 32 GB in a laptop would be less of an issue if Apple would get their act together and release a new new Mac Pro, rather than keeping the 1000+ day old current "new" version on the market. I'd prefer to buy a trash can Mac Pro, but I'm not dropping thousands of dollars on a brand new machine that's already several generations out of date.
The issue isn't your RAM capacity, it's your abject stupidity in running Chrome and Opera (at the same time, no less!), which share a common code base, and are renowned for being pigs with RAM.
1) Don't forget Chromium.
2) LOL at that image.
Someone once said that the entire Opera user base is made up of developers testing for Opera compatibility.
I was cursing my MacBook Air's lack of a dedicated Ethernet port today as I was troubleshooting network issues. I have 5 or 6 different Ethernet dongles (home, office, vacation home, suitcase, grab-bag/briefcase, and maybe another one on a shelf...). They are all named "Thunderbolt Ethernet Adapter n". I tried to change the names, but it gets even more confusing.
My challenge is the one for the office is configured for 4 different VLANs, and undoing that (especially with 5 duplicate devices) can really be a pain in the ass.
Comments
I've never quite worked out if I an technically a "Pro", but I do Software Systems Implementations and Development and run various Virtual Machines in the process. To that end I will get close to using most of the RAM depending on the VM (and where I sourced it - one department issued a VM that needs 32GB to run but I can launch portions of it on my current one.)
I do have 32GB on my iMac so I can run the bigger ones there when required.
I have been quite puzzled by the various reactions, it's not as if Apple had a 32GB Macbook Pro last year and this year they don't.
And it's not as if the laptop being thin was some new concept they applied to this years model for the first time.
And it's not as they have never dropped a port before.
Personally, I'm still contemplating the purchase but then again I'm in no rush given how old the current one is and it doesn't feel like it's going to have issues anytime soon (knock on wood).
They'll find something else to complain about. If not the ports or the keyboard, it will be something else. Some people are just incapable of being happy.
So, yes, clearly my SSD (and my system performance) would appreciate the extra RAM. Lord knows what this would be like if I were doing something serious with the machine, such as software development.
The issue isn't your RAM capacity, it's your abject stupidity in running Chrome and Opera (at the same time, no less!), which share a common code base, and are renowned for being pigs with RAM.
2) LOL at that image.
Did you get a nosebleed from your knee-jerk?
Your assumptions are incorrect. Opera 12 does not share a common code base with Chrome—though my Chromium instance certainly does (a fact that you inscrutably overlooked). Furthermore, I use different browsers for different tasks, as one might guess from the simultaneous use of Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Safari, and Firefox.
Notwithstanding your opinion to the contrary, my use case is valid and demonstrates the utility of additional RAM for me.
Oh, they'll have something else to complain about then, especially if Apple has to make the laptop thicker due to thermal issues.
2) Did he load Windows via Boot Camp to play those games?
Someone once said that the entire Opera user base is made up of developers testing for Opera compatibility.
My challenge is the one for the office is configured for 4 different VLANs, and undoing that (especially with 5 duplicate devices) can really be a pain in the ass.
Next laptop will have a built-in Ethernet port.