...well I bought one, and am still hunting for a solution to possible DisplayPort connectivity... The screen is beautiful, and it is lighter, and faster, and the control strip is elegant, if incidental. Weight & battery are less issues for me, vs 17" & 1980x1200+, needing more a portable desktop (aka pro?) The potential for up to 4 displays seemed compelling, yet the inflexibility in monitors (no displayport), future ram and drive options seem nagging. MacOS memory management is remarkable given the limits, yet if I cannot find a reliable DisplayPort solution this may be going back. If I could buy Apple TB Displays then maybe (discontinued), but I don't feel I should have to, and I have no interest in plastic LG displays... Unfortunately when Apple chooses for us, the way they seem to do, there always seems to be something...
I just bought some USB-C to displayport cables. Finished. Not a problem at all.
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.
On the one hand you state the obvious by saying not all pros are video editors but on the other hand you ignore the reason these Macs are are called 'Pro' in the first place! And we both know they weren't specced for doctors, lawyers, writers etc. The Pro, in this context, is a designation for users (Ironically Pro or not) who have spec hungry requirements.
Actually they were specced for a wide range of professionals. Doctors (especially surgeons) need large screens in a light weight frame. Programmers are less mobile, but a lot more mobile than they used to be. It's all very well saying that they should have packed a desktop into a larger chassis, but that only helps one class of professional, and how much it helps them is still up for debate:
The pro is indeed a designation of users, but not one particular type of user. Apple did not build a laptop just for video editors.
And again, people are just picking one aspect of the machine (the memory) without actually considering how the other components work with it.
As I said, it has more to do with spec requirements and if you believe Apple, these machines are aimed at those users.
That said, you lost me completely with your claim that surgeons need big screens in a lightweight frame. That isn't actually correct. Surgeons can make do with any modern screen, even a small one if necessary. I am currently working with three surgeons (general, digestive tract and traumatology). They have desktops connected to the networks of the clinics/hospitals where they work for access to medical records and viewing of image diagnostics etc. In their private consultancies they have desktops too. Of the three, only one has a Mac. An old 13"' MBP.
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 $2000 32GB MacBooks next year.
I'll be one of them on day one.
I like the the new MBP. A LOT.
But the 16 GB RAM ceiling is unacceptable for me.
So ill unfortunately have have to wait.
But wait I will. Apple has done well by me since 2005 when I bought my first Mac.
Ive got a 32 GB iMac 5k now and it handles business, but I'm constantly using >24 GB.
SO 16 on my mobile isn't going to cut it when I'm finally able to take my work on the road.
Intel is the main problem. Intel can't design and build advanced processors quickly enough. They are so slow, 5 year old computers are nearly as fast as current computers.
Apple can't help it if Intel limits its capabilities. Intel was slow with Thunderbolt 1, 2, and 3. Intel was slow with USB 2 and 3. Intel is slow in supporting fast energy saving RAM. Intel is slow in developing GPUs. etc.
I run into the 16 GB limit all the time on my MacBook Pro 15" Retina. I'm a professional - a physician. And I run 32 apps at the same time including 4 simultaneous backup apps, three web browers with tons of tabs, etc. If not monitored and managed my apps can saturate the file system and literally freeze the user interface. I have thousands of memory page-outs - which means the Mac is wasting time transferring information from RAM back and forth with the SSD. Having 32 or 64 GB RAM would be great.
As for software not using more than 16GB RAM... There's definitely more software out there that's native 64-bit. But that's not the issue. 32-bit applications had an issue with >4GB RAM. We aren't talking about >4GB any more. We're talking about >16GB now.
Well it is easier to argue the price hike because a "Pro" machine deserves a higher price tag. Looking at the MBP without the touch bar you get a slightly souped up MBA from last year with a price increase of 300-400$. So it has to be a "Pro" machine now.
The original MacBook Air started at $1,799, had a single USB port, and wasn't a Pro machine.
I thought he was comparing prices to recent Airs, not the original. You are right that it wasn't a Pro machine but I fail to see why that is relevant. He said the new low-end MBP is like a 'souped up Air'.
I agree with the gist of that and still think the biggest impediment to sales are the starting prices.
I'm eager to see if they get discounted for Black Friday or not.
Bought my rMBP January this year with 16GB RAM. I worked heavily with Photoshop. Right now I am working on a 823.1MB PSB file on Photoshop (75% of my RAM is allocated to PS), but I can still run Affinity Designer (with a 141MB artwork) with it along with iTunes, Safari, Keynote, Tweetbot, etc. and never seem to run out of RAM. My only complain with this new MacBook Pro is that I can't afford it.
But if I haven't upgraded this year, I probably would have bought this one instead but I was working on a big project early this year and my 2011 iMac wouldn't cut it anymore.
It's actually quite easy for a "pro" to reach 16GB's. I'm using Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat throughout the day, with Word, Mail and Safari open at all times, and even after opening about 4 Illustrator files with packaging designs in them, and 2 hires (50x30cm at 300dpi) Photoshop files, simply copy-pasting an artwork file makes Activity Monitor show a total of 14GB in use (In use and in cache added up together). And that's when I just started my computer. After a day of working, at the end of the day I'll see an easy 16GB+ of memory use.
Yes, I can understand the limitations of the used Intel chip. And yes, I can understand that regular DDR4 memory will affect the batterylife of a laptop. But in that case make the laptop a few millimeters thicker. I'm having the same dillema here: I need to buy a MacBook Pro because I'm about to start my own business and will absolutely need it, but the 16GB of ram is definitely a very realistic limitation, and a hard limit I'm going to hit on a daily basis. And I'm not even doing thát much heavy work compared to render-artists.
I currently still work at a design agency, on an iMac with 32GB of ram. I don't currently use all of the 32GB's, but topping 16GB isn't really hard to do. I can't even imagine how much more memory our designers are using with all their Illustrator artboards and constant switching between Photoshop and Illustrator.
Thin elegance and power for the MacBook. Complete Utility and a weird, heavy duty no apologies, plug in anything 64GB RAM, code crushing Monster Truck for the MacBook Pro. I truly believe Jony has gone too far.
It's actually quite easy for a "pro" to reach 16GB's. I'm using Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat throughout the day, with Word, Mail and Safari open at all times, and even after opening about 4 Illustrator files with packaging designs in them, and 2 hires (50x30cm at 300dpi) Photoshop files, simply copy-pasting an artwork file makes Activity Monitor show a total of 14GB in use (In use and in cache added up together). And that's when I just started my computer. After a day of working, at the end of the day I'll see an easy 16GB+ of memory use.
Yes, I can understand the limitations of the used Intel chip. And yes, I can understand that regular DDR4 memory will affect the batterylife of a laptop. But in that case make the laptop a few millimeters thicker. I'm having the same dillema here: I need to buy a MacBook Pro because I'm about to start my own business and will absolutely need it, but the 16GB of ram is definitely a very realistic limitation, and a hard limit I'm going to hit on a daily basis. And I'm not even doing thát much heavy work compared to render-artists.
I currently still work at a design agency, on an iMac with 32GB of ram. I don't currently use all of the 32GB's, but topping 16GB isn't really hard to do. I can't even imagine how much more memory our designers are using with all their Illustrator artboards and constant switching between Photoshop and Illustrator.
You sound like you don't understand memory management.
Free memory is a sign of inefficient resource management. You WANT all apps and OS to use whatever is available: It speeds up the machine.
That screenshot above shows zero swap, which means your machine is nowhere near "using up" the RAM. The more interesting bit is to the right and left of that screenshot: RAM pressure and how much memory is compressed.
I might indeed be mistaken. But as I said, that screenshot is from an iMac with 32GB of ram which I'm indeed not using all.
Here's a screenshot of all 3 fields like you mentioned. If you'd consider the MacBook Pro having only 16GB of RAM, that would mean that one would be hitting that limit a lot faster compared to the screenshot below right?
... 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. ...
Technically that ist not true. You can put more than 16GB of RAM in a SkyLake equipped computer, it just needs a different set up. It is not possible under the limitation that Apple set for the MPB - being thinner without losing to much battery life. Apple is distracting the views from the correct reasons Apple could not implement more than 16GB - "Thinness is King". A classic Function follows Form situation. I don't know who really needs 32GB but here Apple is forcing Form over Functionality (possibly a functionality very few people need).
Yes. Schiller said as much. They would basically have had to redesign the logic board and make things slightly heavier thicker.
I would have preferred that option (they could have included some of the ports removed from the new model and even not include the Touch bar/ID).
Two very different models for different needs.
I wonder which would have sold more?
So basically what you and BKennedy want, is this:
The 2012 15" MacBook Pro, which is thicker, heavier just to suit your supposed 32GB of RAM needs? Why doesn't Apple just keep using the old designs with newer internals? Then people would be bitching up a storm because Apple never changes anything. Just keeps releasing the same ole thing year after year. They can't innovate!
It doesn't matter what Apple releases, people will always find something to bitch about because they think Apple should design and engineer a Mac specifically for their needs as if just because they need it and 2 co-workers that everyone needs it. It happens after every release, even when Steve Jobs was running Apple. Its nothing new and I think sometimes people forget (or simply don't know) what it was like to participate in Apple forums back in the late 90's-mid-2000's. Its really no different folks. People were always complaining about something after a Mac announcement.
I might indeed be mistaken. But as I said, that screenshot is from an iMac with 32GB of ram which I'm indeed not using all.
Here's a screenshot of all 3 fields like you mentioned. If you'd consider the MacBook Pro having only 16GB of RAM, that would mean that one would be hitting that limit a lot faster compared to the screenshot below right?
Something is seriously wrong if its not running anything and you're using over 8GB of RAM. Thats not normal. Here is mine with only Safari open:
OS X is also very good at managing RAM. Lets not forget this. Apple has worked pretty hard on this in recent releases and in the past.
... 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. ...
Technically that ist not true. You can put more than 16GB of RAM in a SkyLake equipped computer, it just needs a different set up. It is not possible under the limitation that Apple set for the MPB - being thinner without losing to much battery life. Apple is distracting the views from the correct reasons Apple could not implement more than 16GB - "Thinness is King". A classic Function follows Form situation. I don't know who really needs 32GB but here Apple is forcing Form over Functionality (possibly a functionality very few people need).
Yes. Schiller said as much. They would basically have had to redesign the logic board and make things slightly heavier thicker.
I would have preferred that option (they could have included some of the ports removed from the new model and even not include the Touch bar/ID).
Two very different models for different needs.
I wonder which would have sold more?
So basically what you and BKennedy want, is this:
The 2012 15" MacBook Pro, which is thicker, heavier just to suit your supposed 32GB of RAM needs? Why doesn't Apple just keep using the old designs with newer internals? Then people would be bitching up a storm because Apple never changes anything. Just keeps releasing the same ole thing year after year. They can't innovate!
'Just to suit....'
Nope. And you know that isn't the case but if you can just ignore the rest, that's ok, right?
But that is besides the point. Do you doubt that demand for a slightly thicker/heavier MBP with two USB-C ports plus the so-called 'legacy' ports and non-soldered on RAM/SSD, keyboard with decent travel etc would be higher than for Touch Bar/ID, larger trackpad MBPs.That is the question.
Given the choice, how many would opt for thinner/lighter with compromises over thicker/heavier but without the compromises?
So I am ordering a MacBook Pro 15" with touch because we need a new computer. Even though my current position does not require me to work on video, 16GB is sufficient but I can sympathize with video editors. The software they use depends heavily a lot of RAM. Video files alone are 2+Gigs each, and they have dozens of them in a single project. They also run Photoshop, AfterEffects, audio editing, and perhaps Illustrator. All of which are memory hungry.
Almost ALL professional editors use FireWire or Thunderbolt for external storage, and the SD as an internal library. To just expect everyone to hang dongles out of their external gear, as well as for their iPhone and its headset is enraging, as you can see from this forum. It feels like the obnoxiously arrogant Apple of the early 90's all over again.
The TouchBar is really not worth an entire keynote, and what a waste of valuable corporate history to name it "Hello Again!".
After spending an hour in my local Apple store on a TouchBar MacBook, I instinctively went on to touching the screen, countless times. This experience alone put a big question mark on Apple's direction for not adopting touch screens. I still think they shouldn't, but I'm more skeptical now than I was before.
Can someone please define what it is to be a professional that is worthy of these missing features? I would like to know if I make the cut so I can start being angry that my perfectly awesome MBP has left me in some way jilted.
Seriously, what are the criteria? So far it seems that the definition is arbitrary and individualized.
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.
Okay, two use cases: professional video editors and professional forum surfers...
Comments
That said, you lost me completely with your claim that surgeons need big screens in a lightweight frame. That isn't actually correct. Surgeons can make do with any modern screen, even a small one if necessary. I am currently working with three surgeons (general, digestive tract and traumatology). They have desktops connected to the networks of the clinics/hospitals where they work for access to medical records and viewing of image diagnostics etc. In their private consultancies they have desktops too. Of the three, only one has a Mac. An old 13"' MBP.
I like the the new MBP. A LOT.
But the 16 GB RAM ceiling is unacceptable for me.
So ill unfortunately have have to wait.
But wait I will. Apple has done well by me since 2005 when I bought my first Mac.
Ive got a 32 GB iMac 5k now and it handles business, but I'm constantly using >24 GB.
SO 16 on my mobile isn't going to cut it when I'm finally able to take my work on the road.
Hopefully kaby lake gets here pronto.
Unfortunately, that's not happening until Coffee Lake - in early 2018!
their primary function is portability!
Form IS function.
If you prioritise power over portability, do what those pros do who can't compromise and buy a Pelican case for your iMac, end of story.
Apple can't help it if Intel limits its capabilities. Intel was slow with Thunderbolt 1, 2, and 3. Intel was slow with USB 2 and 3. Intel is slow in supporting fast energy saving RAM. Intel is slow in developing GPUs. etc.
I run into the 16 GB limit all the time on my MacBook Pro 15" Retina. I'm a professional - a physician. And I run 32 apps at the same time including 4 simultaneous backup apps, three web browers with tons of tabs, etc. If not monitored and managed my apps can saturate the file system and literally freeze the user interface. I have thousands of memory page-outs - which means the Mac is wasting time transferring information from RAM back and forth with the SSD. Having 32 or 64 GB RAM would be great.
But Intel drags its feet.
I agree with the gist of that and still think the biggest impediment to sales are the starting prices.
I'm eager to see if they get discounted for Black Friday or not.
But if I haven't upgraded this year, I probably would have bought this one instead but I was working on a big project early this year and my 2011 iMac wouldn't cut it anymore.
Yes, I can understand the limitations of the used Intel chip. And yes, I can understand that regular DDR4 memory will affect the batterylife of a laptop. But in that case make the laptop a few millimeters thicker. I'm having the same dillema here: I need to buy a MacBook Pro because I'm about to start my own business and will absolutely need it, but the 16GB of ram is definitely a very realistic limitation, and a hard limit I'm going to hit on a daily basis. And I'm not even doing thát much heavy work compared to render-artists.
I currently still work at a design agency, on an iMac with 32GB of ram. I don't currently use all of the 32GB's, but topping 16GB isn't really hard to do. I can't even imagine how much more memory our designers are using with all their Illustrator artboards and constant switching between Photoshop and Illustrator.
Free memory is a sign of inefficient resource management. You WANT all apps and OS to use whatever is available: It speeds up the machine.
That screenshot above shows zero swap, which means your machine is nowhere near "using up" the RAM. The more interesting bit is to the right and left of that screenshot: RAM pressure and how much memory is compressed.
Here's a screenshot of all 3 fields like you mentioned. If you'd consider the MacBook Pro having only 16GB of RAM, that would mean that one would be hitting that limit a lot faster compared to the screenshot below right?
The 2012 15" MacBook Pro, which is thicker, heavier just to suit your supposed 32GB of RAM needs? Why doesn't Apple just keep using the old designs with newer internals? Then people would be bitching up a storm because Apple never changes anything. Just keeps releasing the same ole thing year after year. They can't innovate!
It doesn't matter what Apple releases, people will always find something to bitch about because they think Apple should design and engineer a Mac specifically for their needs as if just because they need it and 2 co-workers that everyone needs it. It happens after every release, even when Steve Jobs was running Apple. Its nothing new and I think sometimes people forget (or simply don't know) what it was like to participate in Apple forums back in the late 90's-mid-2000's. Its really no different folks. People were always complaining about something after a Mac announcement.
OS X is also very good at managing RAM. Lets not forget this. Apple has worked pretty hard on this in recent releases and in the past.
Nope. And you know that isn't the case but if you can just ignore the rest, that's ok, right?
But that is besides the point. Do you doubt that demand for a slightly thicker/heavier MBP with two USB-C ports plus the so-called 'legacy' ports and non-soldered on RAM/SSD, keyboard with decent travel etc would be higher than for Touch Bar/ID, larger trackpad MBPs.That is the question.
Given the choice, how many would opt for thinner/lighter with compromises over thicker/heavier but without the compromises?
Almost ALL professional editors use FireWire or Thunderbolt for external storage, and the SD as an internal library. To just expect everyone to hang dongles out of their external gear, as well as for their iPhone and its headset is enraging, as you can see from this forum. It feels like the obnoxiously arrogant Apple of the early 90's all over again.
The TouchBar is really not worth an entire keynote, and what a waste of valuable corporate history to name it "Hello Again!".
After spending an hour in my local Apple store on a TouchBar MacBook, I instinctively went on to touching the screen, countless times. This experience alone put a big question mark on Apple's direction for not adopting touch screens. I still think they shouldn't, but I'm more skeptical now than I was before.
Seriously, what are the criteria? So far it seems that the definition is arbitrary and individualized.