Apple refreshes MacBook Pro with six-core processors, 32GB of RAM

16791112

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 236
    anomeanome Posts: 989member
    DuhSesame said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Edit:  
    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 

    Unfortunately for you, gloating only works when you don't make stuff up to do it.

    No one said that "no one needs 32GB of RAM"

    What lot's of people said was "How do you know if if it doesn't work for you if you haven't tried it?"

    And I think the case still stands that most people like to think they need 32GB, but they actually don't.

    It’s better in performance, nonetheless.  We can questioning them why not do that in the first place, but then it’s not important anymore.

    Until 2 weeks from now when everyone starts whining on how they can't live without 64GB of RAM.



    chabig said:
    Damn you Apple. Why did you put in 32GB? What will all the pretend haters who claim they run multiple VMs whine about now?
    It’s 2018 now. Everyone knows a machine can’t be “Pro” unless it ships with 64GB.
    What fools you all are. 128GB is the new PRO standard. Don't mind the 2 hours of battery life!
    EXCUSE me.

    256GB is the actual Pro standard. And don't tell me you're a professional unless you have any processors less than 18 cores and have at least 7 VM instances running 24/7.
    No, EXCUSE ME.  if you find yourself running out of RAM, then you’ll always need more RAM.  There is no such a thing as “Pro” standard memory.
    I think it's disgraceful Apple would limit their OS to addressing 18 Exabytes of RAM. They just don't appreciate the needs of a true professional, like myself.
    Rayz2016Alex1NchiaStrangeDays
  • Reply 162 of 236
    dewmedewme Posts: 1,394member
    melgross said:
    mad102190 said:
    > Maxed out with a 2.6GHz six-core processor, 32GB of RAM, and a 4TB SSD, the 15-inch MacBook Pro retails for $6699. LMAO. Who's gonna pay $7000 for a laptop?
    Look at all the $7,000, and higher priced top line Windows laptops, and you’ll see that there’s a market for it.
     
    Just remember that it’s NOT a $7,000 laptop. That’s with all the upgrades you’re not required to buy.
    Yep, extras cost extra. Not sure why anyone who's every purchased a durable product wouldn't already have encountered this reality. You can buy a new Ford F150 truck for $27K and you can buy a new Ford F150 truck for $65K. 

    No laughing here, but crying may be appropriate if you really wanted the fully optioned-up version but can only afford the base model. 
    ericthehalfbeewilliamlondonAlex1Nchia
  • Reply 163 of 236
    sandorsandor Posts: 439member
    sflocal said:
    Of course, the whiners and Apple-haters are out in full force yet again, with absolutely zero clue what they're talking about.

    I bought a new MBP last October, and when I priced out the same configuration for the new one, the price was about the same for what I paid for back then.

    That 4TB SSD drive which is faster than just about anything out there in the market is what's boosting the price so high.  Find another laptop with the EXACT SAME configuration and specs, and get back to me.

    Haters will put out any kind of garbage propaganda to suit their agenda.
    The speed is less of an issue than the capacity.

    We have kept many of our users on the cheap, slightly upgraded 2012 13" MacBook Pro with SATA drives because we have been able to pop in 4 TB Samsung SSDs for a few years now. 

    Faster will be nice, but the lack of capacity has kept us from upgrading to newer hardware.

    Now we'll probably buy a half dozen or so of the 15" with the 4 TB option. About time.
  • Reply 164 of 236
    KITAKITA Posts: 115member
    Are any of these new "pro" laptops capable of real VR without an external GPU? I ask because they cost twice as much as Windows laptops that are fully VR capable.
    No, from what we understand, the GPUs have remained, for the most part, unchanged (ie. still weaker than a GTX 1050).
    williamlondon
  • Reply 165 of 236
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,236member
    entropys said:
    I have come to believe Cook is a Mac hater. his behaviour implies this is true. The future in Cook world is iOS.  And no doubt to demonstrably ‘prove’ hardly anyone actually wanted 32GB of RAM, he made the upgrade price so egrariously offensive only the most desperate die hard could invent a reason to justify it.
    Certainly Cook doesn’t like the Mac. I can’t see how anyone could question that. The RAM, by the way, is $100 more than its stick variant (commence to arguing about whether the cost of engineering the soldered variant it is that expensive), but that’s also on top of the 16GB price (built into the price of the computer). So call it ~$250 more than a bare system.
    Arron Alex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 166 of 236
    stevenozstevenoz Posts: 197member
    I wish I could buy one for $300 less... without the cost of the Touch Bar. I really dislike that thing. I'm not quite sure why.

    I'm presuming Apple has fixed the keyboard. (I hope.) And I also want MagSafe back! There is no excuse; make it happen.



    edited July 12 williamlondon
  • Reply 167 of 236
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,236member
    stevenoz said:
    I really dislike that thing. I'm not quite sure why.
    Same here. Had it been in ADDITION to the function keys, it would be a neat bridge between traditional UI and touchscreens.
    stompyavon b7muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 168 of 236
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 490member
    Soli said:
    MplsP said:
    When the new MacBooks came out everyone was complaining about the lack of a 32GB option - I wonder how many people will actually shell out $6k for a laptop with 32GB of RAM
    That's only if you max out everything. 32 GiB RAM is a $400 up charge and I think available for all 15" configurations.
    Yeah - I just looked at Apple's web site. A 15" MacBook Pro with the slower, 2.6GHz processor and 32GB RAM starts at $3200. That's a big chunk of cash but a far cry from $6700. The 4TB SSD alone adds $3200 to the price! Isn't that what the USB C port was supposed to be for?
  • Reply 169 of 236
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,430member

    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    backstab said:
    Continuation of whining and bitching in ...3 ...2 ...1
    From the people who said Apple using DDR4 RAM in an MBP was unrealistic and was never going to happen?
    I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
    Which is exactly what the "whiners" were asking for, so not unrealistic at all, and it very much has happened.  Certain parts of the "defend Apple at all costs" crowd aren't saying much about their previous insistence that "whiners" didn't know what they were talking about.

    Yes, some people did say that.

    Nobody ever said it “would never!” happen as you claim. Happy to read a link that shows otherwise. People did explain why the 16gb limit existed for LPDDR on that chipset. 

    Have fun with your strawman. Thwack thwack!! Take that, strawman!
    Nobody, you say?  Strawman, you say?

    Oops...
    Soli said:
    cgWerks said:
    macxpress said:
    But I thought everyone hated the new MacBook Pro? Dongle hell! Nobody likes the touch bar! Its overpriced! 
    We do, though maybe the coffee-shop jockeys love them  enough to compensate. Much of the debate argues around whether they are truly 'pro' and/or whether they are as good as the model they replaced... not whether frustrated users are ready to stop replacing them and jump to Dell, etc. quite yet.

    https://marco.org/2017/11/14/best-laptop-ever

    Biggest reason Pros hate it => maximum RAM is 16GB, as opposed to 32GB RAM that Pros would prefer.  As long as Apple keeps using LPDDR RAM, that will be the case until 2019 when Intel will have a chipset that will support 32GB LPDDR RAM. Originally, it was suppose to be late 2018 but according to their latest roadmap, it is now going to be 2019.
    And once 32GiB is an option pros will want 64GiB. So why does this need to be stated, especially when the maximum for the current Intel chips is only 16GiB unless you go to power infeccient RAM, which isn't going to happen. As you state, this is because of Intel, so people shouldn't blame Apple, and if you do work that for some reason requires more than 16GiB RAM than you aren't a Mac notebook user to begin with. It's not 32GiB was an option 2 years ago and then they artificially cut it in half.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3009476/#Comment_3009476
    (bold added by me)

    Have fun with your own strawmen, I check things before I say them.
    williamlondonavon b7
  • Reply 170 of 236
    Damn you Apple. Why did you put in 32GB? What will all the pretend haters who claim they run multiple VMs whine about now?
    Well, I for one my consider buying Apple again. After waiting and waiting I finally ended up buying a PC with 64gb of ram, if these laptops had been available I could have stuck with apples eco system as I have done for the last 15 years. Now I am back in windows land and its suprisingly pretty good compared to when I ditched them for, at the time vastly superior apple offerings. We do run lots of VMs. You may need to recognise that your needs are not othe peoples needs. Complaints about products is not “hating” its this shit does not do whar i need to. There is no emotion attached!

    Good to see some decent machine starting to appear after the dismal piecs of shit apples has released in the last 3-4 years.
  • Reply 171 of 236
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,656member
    MplsP said:
    Soli said:
    MplsP said:
    When the new MacBooks came out everyone was complaining about the lack of a 32GB option - I wonder how many people will actually shell out $6k for a laptop with 32GB of RAM
    That's only if you max out everything. 32 GiB RAM is a $400 up charge and I think available for all 15" configurations.
    Yeah - I just looked at Apple's web site. A 15" MacBook Pro with the slower, 2.6GHz processor and 32GB RAM starts at $3200. That's a big chunk of cash but a far cry from $6700. The 4TB SSD alone adds $3200 to the price! Isn't that what the USB C port was supposed to be for?
    And they start at 256 GB on the 15", and have a range of 128 GB to 2 TB on the 13". I wonder if this is the largest magnitude of Mac storage ever available from Apple for a single product type. Both have a magnitude of 5 over their starting capacity.

    The iMac Pro, for example, only has a magnitude of 2 with a range of 1 TB to 4 TB SSDs. Both the iMac Pro and the 15" MBP have the same maximum storage capacity. That might be a first, too.

    PS: Can I use magnitude to mean doubling here?
    edited July 12 Alex1N
  • Reply 172 of 236
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,656member
    crowley said:

    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    backstab said:
    Continuation of whining and bitching in ...3 ...2 ...1
    From the people who said Apple using DDR4 RAM in an MBP was unrealistic and was never going to happen?
    I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
    Which is exactly what the "whiners" were asking for, so not unrealistic at all, and it very much has happened.  Certain parts of the "defend Apple at all costs" crowd aren't saying much about their previous insistence that "whiners" didn't know what they were talking about.

    Yes, some people did say that.

    Nobody ever said it “would never!” happen as you claim. Happy to read a link that shows otherwise. People did explain why the 16gb limit existed for LPDDR on that chipset. 

    Have fun with your strawman. Thwack thwack!! Take that, strawman!
    Nobody, you say?  Strawman, you say?

    Oops...
    Soli said:
    cgWerks said:
    macxpress said:
    But I thought everyone hated the new MacBook Pro? Dongle hell! Nobody likes the touch bar! Its overpriced! 
    We do, though maybe the coffee-shop jockeys love them  enough to compensate. Much of the debate argues around whether they are truly 'pro' and/or whether they are as good as the model they replaced... not whether frustrated users are ready to stop replacing them and jump to Dell, etc. quite yet.

    https://marco.org/2017/11/14/best-laptop-ever

    Biggest reason Pros hate it => maximum RAM is 16GB, as opposed to 32GB RAM that Pros would prefer.  As long as Apple keeps using LPDDR RAM, that will be the case until 2019 when Intel will have a chipset that will support 32GB LPDDR RAM. Originally, it was suppose to be late 2018 but according to their latest roadmap, it is now going to be 2019.
    And once 32GiB is an option pros will want 64GiB. So why does this need to be stated, especially when the maximum for the current Intel chips is only 16GiB unless you go to power infeccient RAM, which isn't going to happen. As you state, this is because of Intel, so people shouldn't blame Apple, and if you do work that for some reason requires more than 16GiB RAM than you aren't a Mac notebook user to begin with. It's not 32GiB was an option 2 years ago and then they artificially cut it in half.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3009476/#Comment_3009476
    (bold added by me)

    Have fun with your own strawmen, I check things before I say them.
    I did say it wasn't going to happen when I should've written likely due to low odds from a lack of precedence, as I stated in countless other comments. I was incorrect in that post, but I was also under the incorrect assumption that Intel would've released updated mobile chips that support 32 GiB LPDDR4 in 2018 instead of pushing them back to 2019. Interesting omission of the 2017 date of that post.

    More recently, I even speculated on how Apple could do it with a larger battery and/or better power efficiency in other parts of the system, but I don't see you acknowledging those comments as it affects your narrative.
    edited July 14 StrangeDaysAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 173 of 236
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,430member
    Soli said:
    crowley said:

    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    backstab said:
    Continuation of whining and bitching in ...3 ...2 ...1
    From the people who said Apple using DDR4 RAM in an MBP was unrealistic and was never going to happen?
    I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
    Which is exactly what the "whiners" were asking for, so not unrealistic at all, and it very much has happened.  Certain parts of the "defend Apple at all costs" crowd aren't saying much about their previous insistence that "whiners" didn't know what they were talking about.

    Yes, some people did say that.

    Nobody ever said it “would never!” happen as you claim. Happy to read a link that shows otherwise. People did explain why the 16gb limit existed for LPDDR on that chipset. 

    Have fun with your strawman. Thwack thwack!! Take that, strawman!
    Nobody, you say?  Strawman, you say?

    Oops...
    Soli said:
    cgWerks said:
    macxpress said:
    But I thought everyone hated the new MacBook Pro? Dongle hell! Nobody likes the touch bar! Its overpriced! 
    We do, though maybe the coffee-shop jockeys love them  enough to compensate. Much of the debate argues around whether they are truly 'pro' and/or whether they are as good as the model they replaced... not whether frustrated users are ready to stop replacing them and jump to Dell, etc. quite yet.

    https://marco.org/2017/11/14/best-laptop-ever

    Biggest reason Pros hate it => maximum RAM is 16GB, as opposed to 32GB RAM that Pros would prefer.  As long as Apple keeps using LPDDR RAM, that will be the case until 2019 when Intel will have a chipset that will support 32GB LPDDR RAM. Originally, it was suppose to be late 2018 but according to their latest roadmap, it is now going to be 2019.
    And once 32GiB is an option pros will want 64GiB. So why does this need to be stated, especially when the maximum for the current Intel chips is only 16GiB unless you go to power infeccient RAM, which isn't going to happen. As you state, this is because of Intel, so people shouldn't blame Apple, and if you do work that for some reason requires more than 16GiB RAM than you aren't a Mac notebook user to begin with. It's not 32GiB was an option 2 years ago and then they artificially cut it in half.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3009476/#Comment_3009476
    (bold added by me)

    Have fun with your own strawmen, I check things before I say them.
    I did say it wasn't going to happen when I should've written likely due to low odds from a lack of precedence, as I said in countless I other comments. I was wrong, but I was also under the assumption that Intel would've released updated mobile chips that support 32 GiB LPDDR4 in 2018 instead of pushing them back to 2019. Interesting omission of the 2017 date of that post.

    More recently, I even speculated on how Apple could do it with a larger battery and/or better power efficiency in other parts of the system, but you won't acknowledge those comments. I hope that was a good use of your day, Mr. Gish.
    Omission?  I linked to the post!  The date is right there when you follow the link!  Moreover, nothing about the conversation is related to the time period - is 2017 good/bad/early/late, I have no idea, people interested can check the post. 

    Another scummy insinuation by the master of disingenuous worming.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 174 of 236
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,656member
    crowley said:
    Soli said:
    crowley said:

    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    backstab said:
    Continuation of whining and bitching in ...3 ...2 ...1
    From the people who said Apple using DDR4 RAM in an MBP was unrealistic and was never going to happen?
    I don't recall anyone saying that -- but I do recall people explaining why the 16GB limit was there, and it was due to the low-power RAM being selected. Now they're selecting non-LP... What the reasoning is, I don't know -- maybe they improved power efficiency elsewhere to recoup the battery affects, or maybe they just tossed their hands in the air.
    Which is exactly what the "whiners" were asking for, so not unrealistic at all, and it very much has happened.  Certain parts of the "defend Apple at all costs" crowd aren't saying much about their previous insistence that "whiners" didn't know what they were talking about.

    Yes, some people did say that.

    Nobody ever said it “would never!” happen as you claim. Happy to read a link that shows otherwise. People did explain why the 16gb limit existed for LPDDR on that chipset. 

    Have fun with your strawman. Thwack thwack!! Take that, strawman!
    Nobody, you say?  Strawman, you say?

    Oops...
    Soli said:
    cgWerks said:
    macxpress said:
    But I thought everyone hated the new MacBook Pro? Dongle hell! Nobody likes the touch bar! Its overpriced! 
    We do, though maybe the coffee-shop jockeys love them  enough to compensate. Much of the debate argues around whether they are truly 'pro' and/or whether they are as good as the model they replaced... not whether frustrated users are ready to stop replacing them and jump to Dell, etc. quite yet.

    https://marco.org/2017/11/14/best-laptop-ever

    Biggest reason Pros hate it => maximum RAM is 16GB, as opposed to 32GB RAM that Pros would prefer.  As long as Apple keeps using LPDDR RAM, that will be the case until 2019 when Intel will have a chipset that will support 32GB LPDDR RAM. Originally, it was suppose to be late 2018 but according to their latest roadmap, it is now going to be 2019.
    And once 32GiB is an option pros will want 64GiB. So why does this need to be stated, especially when the maximum for the current Intel chips is only 16GiB unless you go to power infeccient RAM, which isn't going to happen. As you state, this is because of Intel, so people shouldn't blame Apple, and if you do work that for some reason requires more than 16GiB RAM than you aren't a Mac notebook user to begin with. It's not 32GiB was an option 2 years ago and then they artificially cut it in half.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3009476/#Comment_3009476
    (bold added by me)

    Have fun with your own strawmen, I check things before I say them.
    I did say it wasn't going to happen when I should've written likely due to low odds from a lack of precedence, as I said in countless I other comments. I was wrong, but I was also under the assumption that Intel would've released updated mobile chips that support 32 GiB LPDDR4 in 2018 instead of pushing them back to 2019. Interesting omission of the 2017 date of that post.

    More recently, I even speculated on how Apple could do it with a larger battery and/or better power efficiency in other parts of the system, but you won't acknowledge those comments. I hope that was a good use of your day, Mr. Gish.
    Omission?  I linked to the post!  The date is right there when you follow the link!  Moreover, nothing about the conversation is related to the time period - is 2017 good/bad/early/late, I have no idea, people interested can check the post. 

    Another scummy insinuation by the master of disingenuous worming.
    I find it hard to believe you don't comprehend why the date is important with a post about Intel mobile CPUs that support more than 16 GiB LPDDR4 RAM and Intel repeatedly pushing back the launch date of said CPUs. What exactly is vexing about it?

    Do you really think Apple would've launched these MBPs today with DDR4 RAM had Intel's launch dates been kept which allowed for LPDDR4 RAM? I'd love to hear that reasoning.
    edited July 12 Alex1N
  • Reply 175 of 236
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,915member
    anome said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    DuhSesame said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    seankill said:
    Where’s the “no one needs 32GB of RAM” crowd? 
    Clearly Apple thinks the customers need it........... 

    The market demanded it, Apple listened. 

    Edit:  
    Nevermind, they are already downplaying the fact they were wrong. 

    Unfortunately for you, gloating only works when you don't make stuff up to do it.

    No one said that "no one needs 32GB of RAM"

    What lot's of people said was "How do you know if if it doesn't work for you if you haven't tried it?"

    And I think the case still stands that most people like to think they need 32GB, but they actually don't.

    It’s better in performance, nonetheless.  We can questioning them why not do that in the first place, but then it’s not important anymore.

    Until 2 weeks from now when everyone starts whining on how they can't live without 64GB of RAM.



    chabig said:
    Damn you Apple. Why did you put in 32GB? What will all the pretend haters who claim they run multiple VMs whine about now?
    It’s 2018 now. Everyone knows a machine can’t be “Pro” unless it ships with 64GB.
    What fools you all are. 128GB is the new PRO standard. Don't mind the 2 hours of battery life!
    EXCUSE me.

    256GB is the actual Pro standard. And don't tell me you're a professional unless you have any processors less than 18 cores and have at least 7 VM instances running 24/7.
    No, EXCUSE ME.  if you find yourself running out of RAM, then you’ll always need more RAM.  There is no such a thing as “Pro” standard memory.
    I think it's disgraceful Apple would limit their OS to addressing 18 Exabytes of RAM. They just don't appreciate the needs of a true professional, like myself.
    Why, it's outrageous!
    anomeAlex1N
  • Reply 176 of 236
    Oh again, No USB, No Magsafe, No SD card???????? Can't upgrade

    Arron
  • Reply 177 of 236
    chasmchasm Posts: 627member
    It's a pity it wasn't possible to note in the headline that only one model (the top 15-inch) supports the 32GB of RAM. A lot of people don't read past the headline (sadly) anymore -- but thanks for putting the word "option" in on the sub-head, that should help avoid too much confusion.
  • Reply 178 of 236
    lkrupp said:
    rhinotuff said:
    Awesome!  Now bring on the Mac Mini refresh!
    It’s coming but you won’t like it.
    Well if it comes with 8th gen Intel 16 GB RAM and "4 usb-c ports" I'll take it...
  • Reply 179 of 236
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,022member
    johnbear said:
    Oh again, No USB, No Magsafe, No SD card???????? Can't upgrade

    Not again! This theme is getting so old.

    The machine has FOUR USB ports! Or four Thunderbolt ports! Or four Firewire ports! Or Four HDMI ports! Or four ethernet ports! Or any combination of those and others! Or four places to connect a multiport adapter that allows me to connect my iLok, Eucon, power, and external monitor with ONE reversible connector! Why on Earth would anyone want to go back to the old paradigm of only one function per port?

    As for Magsafe, you don't need it! If the power cord gets yanked, as mine does repeatedly by excited dogs tearing around the house, the connector pops out just like the old Magsafe did, but I get the advantages of choosing where it connects, varied sources of power, and transitioning towards a universal standard for powering ALL my devices! Plus if the connector frays, I replace a cheap cable instead of an expensive power supply. Plus plus if you really want a magnetic connector for some reason, you can BUY one!

    It obviously doesn't matter to me whether you choose to buy the current iteration or not, but please stop complaining that your sweetie done did you wrong. The inconvenience of replacing a few cables and carrying a single USB-A-to-C adapter for a while is absolutely trivial compared to the flexibility and utility we gain.
    SolinetroxAlex1Nmuthuk_vanalingambrucemcStrangeDaysanome
  • Reply 180 of 236
    chasmchasm Posts: 627member
    The minimum price for a 32GB MBP is $2799.

    That should separate the "pros" from the pros ...
    Alex1N
Sign In or Register to comment.