But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
Yes we do. I am a developer and very often I have 3-4-5 VMs running. You are nothing but an uneducated little fool who would buy a MacBook Pro even if it cost $10000. We all like apple and all but you don't have to Xxxxxxxxxx.
Watch the language, please. If you can't find a better way to express yourself, don't do it at all.
"WhoooHooo you're all clear kid let's blow this thing and GO HOME!" - Han Solo, EP IV
No More RAM, APFS File System, 2018-19 rMBP Gen 3 or 4! (maybe even over 1TB of storage, standard? nah we'll get raped still)
And as we all know, the new Macbooks are all powered by Sky Lake procs.
What part of "Paves the way…for future models" from the headline of this article did you not understand?
My understanding is Apple switched the part of the memory system that they can with the current hardware. Optane memory isn't used in the current model. But once it is, presumably in the next update, the rest of the MacBook Pro design is ready for it.
In the meantime, the SSD in this MBP is much faster than the outgoing model.
What is the point to pave the way for future technology in today's product? 2016 MBP don't have any extension port for something from future. Not that it can swap RAM, SSD, GPU or CPU with faster technology. It is not a desktop with pci-e slot. In this cace, future technology is for future generations, period.
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.
Which is why it's nice to know that, for all practical purposes, there will be no difference between RAM and hard storage.
That's what this is about. You can whine about needing more RAM all you want, but if you have storage that's as fast AS RAM (or close to it), forget about your piddling 32 GB; you can buy your laptop with what amounts to TWO TERABYTES of memory.
I thought the armchair engineers had determined that Apple's SSDs cost too much and the RAM was way too limited.
Shocking to imagine that Apple might actually HAVE A PLAN to move the state of the art forward.
This is why I don't engage in the suggestions Apple is 'doing it wrong' with specific hardware choices.
Apple always has a plan. Armchair engineers always think they know better.
But the armchair engineers is talking about their current need and available products from Other companies. Any Apple's plan for future won't affect the 2016 MBP, right? Unless Apple will recall and replace the MBP with more RAM and USB A.
And as we all know, the new Macbooks are all powered by Sky Lake procs.
What part of "Paves the way…for future models" from the headline of this article did you not understand?
My understanding is Apple switched the part of the memory system that they can with the current hardware. Optane memory isn't used in the current model. But once it is, presumably in the next update, the rest of the MacBook Pro design is ready for it.
In the meantime, the SSD in this MBP is much faster than the outgoing model.
What is the point to pave the way for future technology in today's product? 2016 MBP don't have any extension port for something from future. Not that it can swap RAM, SSD, GPU or CPU with faster technology. It is not a desktop with pci-e slot. In this cace, future technology is for future generations, period.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the upgrades in the current MBP enable the high performance SSD in the current model. This same technology will not need to be reengineered when the better SSD tech becomes available.
Moving to the most modern architecture seems smart to me.
Especially if the specs that the nerds want are out of reach this year. I like Apple proactively making upgrades instead of leaving it all until the next upgrade.
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
Yes we do. I am a developer and very often I have 3-4-5 VMs running. You are nothing but an uneducated little fool who would buy a MacBook Pro even if it cost $10000. We all like apple and all but you don't have to Xxxxxxxx.
edited for abusive and obscene language.
melgross
Apple have a Mac Pro that almost cost $10000. But it don't even have TB3.
Furthermore, I feel I commented on another story a few days ago suggesting that perhaps Apple was approaching the RAM-limitation problem from the direction of making the SSD storage fast enough that overflowing physical RAM was no longer such a painful experience.
This reminds me of the old days when you bought a 7200 or 10000 RPM spinning drive for working space. The HDD manufacturers had us spending more to push the spinning technology as far as it could go. Eventually it became worthwhile to pursue a different strategy. Enter the SSD.
Forcing RAM past the limit where problems with power consumption and whatever else manifest is kind of like the old high-RPM HDDS. Ignoring the possibility that the SSD could be sped up to the point where enormous physical RAM chips are no longer necessary and continuing a linear design path without trying new designs is the kind of short-sighted (faux) R&D that I avoid by being an Apple customer.
I would think Apple's goal is to get SSD fast enough and a file system that versions so well that there is never any user data off the drive that isn't a redundant copy.
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.
Which is why it's nice to know that, for all practical purposes, there will be no difference between RAM and hard storage.
That's what this is about. You can whine about needing more RAM all you want, but if you have storage that's as fast AS RAM (or close to it), forget about your piddling 32 GB; you can buy your laptop with what amounts to TWO TERABYTES of memory.
Sit on that.
Some said the new SSD standard is 8x slower, and which bring the spec back to 2010. And SSD is almost always slower. And RAM is always more expensive. Not to mention it is pointless to have super fast SSD that only store cat video.
Well, reading this is very nice, but X-Point drives are expected to be much more expensive than even the fastest SSds for years. It isn't expected that they will be used in consumer products for years. Pro equipment is classified as consumer in this regard. These drives will be for large installations where the cost is less of an issue, and will be less because of the large purchasing those companies do.
it would be interesting to see Apple go this way, but as an option, if they feel they can sell them. But I'm seeing expected pricing of $2,000, or more, for a 1TB drive next year. I don't see how Apple can do that. They would need to charge even more.
Can always start with the Mac Pro, where it will find its greatest use.
I thought the armchair engineers had determined that Apple's SSDs cost too much and the RAM was way too limited.
Shocking to imagine that Apple might actually HAVE A PLAN to move the state of the art forward.
This is why I don't engage in the suggestions Apple is 'doing it wrong' with specific hardware choices.
Apple always has a plan. Armchair engineers always think they know better.
But the armchair engineers is talking about their current need and available products from Other companies. Any Apple's plan for future won't affect the 2016 MBP, right? Unless Apple will recall and replace the MBP with more RAM and USB A.
Hey, if there is another product that fits your needs, you should probably go for it.
In my case MacOS and the Apple ecosystem are my most important current needs. There is no way that a machine with twice the RAM, USB-A or any other specification would pull me away.
If Apple isn't going in the direction you like, it's probably time to move on.
They are doing what they always do.
They probably aren't changing course anytime soon.
Its a great time to leave MacOS. PCs are actually looking somewhat better these days. I'm sure you'd be happy.
And as we all know, the new Macbooks are all powered by Sky Lake procs.
What part of "Paves the way…for future models" from the headline of this article did you not understand?
My understanding is Apple switched the part of the memory system that they can with the current hardware. Optane memory isn't used in the current model. But once it is, presumably in the next update, the rest of the MacBook Pro design is ready for it.
In the meantime, the SSD in this MBP is much faster than the outgoing model.
What is the point to pave the way for future technology in today's product? 2016 MBP don't have any extension port for something from future. Not that it can swap RAM, SSD, GPU or CPU with faster technology. It is not a desktop with pci-e slot. In this cace, future technology is for future generations, period.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the upgrades in the current MBP enable the high performance SSD in the current model. This same technology will not need to be reengineered when the better SSD tech becomes available.
Moving to the most modern architecture seems smart to me.
Especially if the specs that the nerds want are out of reach this year. I like Apple proactively making upgrades instead of leaving it all until the next upgrade.
If you use Apple long enough, they will rather sell you a new MacBook Pro than offer an upgrade version. And the upgrades will remain “theoretically possible.”
And as we all know, the new Macbooks are all powered by Sky Lake procs.
What part of "Paves the way…for future models" from the headline of this article did you not understand?
My understanding is Apple switched the part of the memory system that they can with the current hardware. Optane memory isn't used in the current model. But once it is, presumably in the next update, the rest of the MacBook Pro design is ready for it.
In the meantime, the SSD in this MBP is much faster than the outgoing model.
What is the point to pave the way for future technology in today's product? 2016 MBP don't have any extension port for something from future. Not that it can swap RAM, SSD, GPU or CPU with faster technology. It is not a desktop with pci-e slot. In this cace, future technology is for future generations, period.
If I'm reading the article correctly, the upgrades in the current MBP enable the high performance SSD in the current model. This same technology will not need to be reengineered when the better SSD tech becomes available.
Moving to the most modern architecture seems smart to me.
Especially if the specs that the nerds want are out of reach this year. I like Apple proactively making upgrades instead of leaving it all until the next upgrade.
If you use Apple long enough, they will rather sell you a new MacBook Pro than offer an upgrade version. And the upgrades will remain “theoretically possible.”
I think you misunderstand my use of "upgrade".
I do not mean Apple intends to make an after-market upgrade for any MBP.
The upgrade I refer to is next year's MPB model.
I am not interested in any such after-market upgrade.
I understand that I need to buy a new MBP if I want to upgrade it.
I thought the armchair engineers had determined that Apple's SSDs cost too much and the RAM was way too limited.
Shocking to imagine that Apple might actually HAVE A PLAN to move the state of the art forward.
This is why I don't engage in the suggestions Apple is 'doing it wrong' with specific hardware choices.
Apple always has a plan. Armchair engineers always think they know better.
I haven't seen a single complaint about the technical side of the SSDs on the new MBPs.
The criticism has been about the SSD base storage capacity, the pricing and the lack of upgradeability. No SSD engineering aspects have even been mentioned AFAIK.
Apple has a plan, yes. It's difficult to imagine them without one. It would seem that part of that plan is to leave the Mini, iMac, iPad, Mac Pro void of updates going into Apple's most important quarter of the year. Not sure if this has ever happened before, if the shareholders will like it or if consumers will hold off until they get updated or just spend their money elsewhere (the 'deadline' of Christmas has that effect). Whichever way you see things, this situation is not normal.
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.
This same argument gets really tiring. The fact a MacBook Pro can rival a desktop in performance, it's still a laptop first. Get over it. There are compromises to be made in terms of portability and performance. If you want to run VM's on it, accept that LAPTOPS have limitations and move on. I don't care that it costs $3K, it's still a laptop. Are the reasons so simple that makes it so hard to grasp?
I run VM's on my MacBook all the time. I accept the limitations of running multiple VM's because it is a laptop. I run up to four VM's on my 5K iMac with 64GB and have zero issues because it is a desktop machine and I expect it to.
You can't physically use more than 16GB on a laptop due to Intel. Get over it.
You can spend $3K on a WinTel laptop using a desktop CPU, then immediately complain why it overheats, plastic bends, crashes, etc... go ahead and buy one of those. You want a laptop that really can run like a desktop? Buy an iMac, remove the stand and duct-tape a carrying handle on top. Either way, Apple will not decide to address the <1%'ers like you because you feel your needs represent all "professionals".
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.
Maybe you need a more efficient workflow. Running 3-4 computers off of a laptop is a terrible idea and yes, I have done it for years too. (until I'd ditched Windows development) What are you running in VM that really needs 8 GB in development environment? Why wouldn't you run this in the cloud or use containers instead of whole virtualized operating systems? Again, just seems inefficient even if you had a 32GB option.
But, but, but, I need more than 16GB of RAM. (whining, crying baby emoticon)
On a $3000 machine that people may hope to keep for 4-5 yrs, it's not very future proof. Especially if you use a virtual machine, like many professionals do, which effectively can cut your available RAM in half.
Maybe you need a more efficient workflow. Running 3-4 computers off of a laptop is a terrible idea and yes, I have done it for years too. (until I'd ditched Windows development) What are you running in VM that really needs 8 GB in development environment? Why wouldn't you run this in the cloud or use containers instead of whole virtualized operating systems? Again, just seems inefficient even if you had a 32GB option.
I was actually wondering the same thing. I am also a developer but in my case the I at most would only maximum need 2 VMs -- which could fit in a 16GB machine (even if tight) -- but I only use 1 at a time (usually Linux with an Oracle Enterprise DBMS).
Yes, Apple "could" make a heavier laptop with less battery life and 32GB of memory, but it would be such a small segment .... it really is not worth pushing that forward before it is ready (I am guessing the low power RAM chipset will be available some time next year allowing for 32GB...). The thing is people are complaining about they cannot do their work because of it.... but then.... if that is the case the person would NOT be able to use the current generation laptop (that is being replaced)... which makes me think a small segment of the community has gone completely insane over what amounts to nothing. Maybe it is just the neglect on the Mac Pro line or the Mac mini line that has caused this -- I don't know. There is a point where you have to draw a line and say -- this is only meant to be a portable laptop.... not a full top of the line workstation.
If you are spending money on "future-proofing" a laptop so that it is still your primary machine 5+ years in the future..... you are more than likely just wasting money now..... The battery is going to be depleted if not dead, the computer is nearing vintage and potentially soon to be considered obsolete.... you might not be able to upgrade the operating system anymore..... and there are probably other advances that you feel like your missing out on....
Comments
That's what this is about. You can whine about needing more RAM all you want, but if you have storage that's as fast AS RAM (or close to it), forget about your piddling 32 GB; you can buy your laptop with what amounts to TWO TERABYTES of memory.
Sit on that.
Moving to the most modern architecture seems smart to me.
Especially if the specs that the nerds want are out of reach this year. I like Apple proactively making upgrades instead of leaving it all until the next upgrade.
Apple have a Mac Pro that almost cost $10000. But it don't even have TB3.
In my case MacOS and the Apple ecosystem are my most important current needs. There is no way that a machine with twice the RAM, USB-A or any other specification would pull me away.
If Apple isn't going in the direction you like, it's probably time to move on.
They are doing what they always do.
They probably aren't changing course anytime soon.
Its a great time to leave MacOS. PCs are actually looking somewhat better these days. I'm sure you'd be happy.
I hope you feel better soon.
If you use Apple long enough, they will rather sell you a new MacBook Pro than offer an upgrade version. And the upgrades will remain “theoretically possible.”
I do not mean Apple intends to make an after-market upgrade for any MBP.
The upgrade I refer to is next year's MPB model.
I am not interested in any such after-market upgrade.
I understand that I need to buy a new MBP if I want to upgrade it.
I'm okay with that.
The criticism has been about the SSD base storage capacity, the pricing and the lack of upgradeability. No SSD engineering aspects have even been mentioned AFAIK.
Apple has a plan, yes. It's difficult to imagine them without one. It would seem that part of that plan is to leave the Mini, iMac, iPad, Mac Pro void of updates going into Apple's most important quarter of the year. Not sure if this has ever happened before, if the shareholders will like it or if consumers will hold off until they get updated or just spend their money elsewhere (the 'deadline' of Christmas has that effect). Whichever way you see things, this situation is not normal.
I run VM's on my MacBook all the time. I accept the limitations of running multiple VM's because it is a laptop. I run up to four VM's on my 5K iMac with 64GB and have zero issues because it is a desktop machine and I expect it to.
You can't physically use more than 16GB on a laptop due to Intel. Get over it.
You want a laptop that really can run like a desktop? Buy an iMac, remove the stand and duct-tape a carrying handle on top. Either way, Apple will not decide to address the <1%'ers like you because you feel your needs represent all "professionals".
The comparison is unfair. 2017 SSD should be compared with 2017 RAM. LPDDR3 is a 2013 technology.
RAM speed will increase too, all the "RAM will disappear" arguments are pointless.
People complaining for more primary memory are here to stay, for ever and ever.
Yes, Apple "could" make a heavier laptop with less battery life and 32GB of memory, but it would be such a small segment .... it really is not worth pushing that forward before it is ready (I am guessing the low power RAM chipset will be available some time next year allowing for 32GB...). The thing is people are complaining about they cannot do their work because of it.... but then.... if that is the case the person would NOT be able to use the current generation laptop (that is being replaced)... which makes me think a small segment of the community has gone completely insane over what amounts to nothing. Maybe it is just the neglect on the Mac Pro line or the Mac mini line that has caused this -- I don't know. There is a point where you have to draw a line and say -- this is only meant to be a portable laptop.... not a full top of the line workstation.
If you are spending money on "future-proofing" a laptop so that it is still your primary machine 5+ years in the future..... you are more than likely just wasting money now..... The battery is going to be depleted if not dead, the computer is nearing vintage and potentially soon to be considered obsolete.... you might not be able to upgrade the operating system anymore..... and there are probably other advances that you feel like your missing out on....