...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...
There are tons of Type-C to DisplayPort, miniDP, HDMI, etc adapters/dongles all over the place, like probably a thousand? And if you wanted absolute reliability you could get the Apple Type-C to Thunderbolt 2, which I think would be FULL Apple Certified miniDP? Just a little confused here...
My problem with the 'new' Late 2016 MacBook Pro is that it is in fact the Late 2015 MacBook Pro 12 months late, and I was wanting the 2016 version. Once upon a time Apple got the silicon from Intel first and shipped high performance Pro MacBooks while the other vendors were still waiting for silicon.
Apple's only chance of making this up to the real Pro users is to release the 'real' 2016 edition in early 2017. And I expect they will.
My problem with the 'new' Late 2016 MacBook Pro is that it is in fact the Late 2015 MacBook Pro 12 months late, and I was wanting the 2016 version. Once upon a time Apple got the silicon from Intel first and shipped high performance Pro MacBooks while the other vendors were still waiting for silicon.
Apple's only chance of making this up to the real Pro users is to release the 'real' 2016 edition in early 2017. And I expect they will.
There are lots of mobile Kaby Lake processors. The ones that are relevant to the MBP are quad-core processors within a certain TDP range, which are so far from being released that they aren't even listed on Wikipedia at this time.
For comparison, take a look at the Skylake page for mobile processors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is YOUR and only YOUR use case. MY use case is different. Ever heard of Virtual Machines? Well, I regularly run 5 or 6 at the same time. these all work together so no, I can't just run one at a time. Currently I have to lug an HP Elitebook with 32Gb ram with me on my travels. I'd love to be able to ditch this and take just one Laptop with me and even better, an Apple laptop. I have a 27in iMac maxed out with 32Gb of RAM + second Display for my work. At the moment, 29.6Gb of RAM is used by VM's. So it is most certainly not overkill for MY use case.
See, we are all different in what we use our kit for. Blanket statements like yours are just plain wrong.
I'd love to see a MacBook Pro++. Sort of like a portable MacPro for those who want the ultimate portable workstation. With more and more people shooting in 4K (including me), RAM and CPU power start to matter.
My problem with the 'new' Late 2016 MacBook Pro is that it is in fact the Late 2015 MacBook Pro 12 months late, and I was wanting the 2016 version. Once upon a time Apple got the silicon from Intel first and shipped high performance Pro MacBooks while the other vendors were still waiting for silicon.
Apple's only chance of making this up to the real Pro users is to release the 'real' 2016 edition in early 2017. And I expect they will.
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.
Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
A Mac is not an iPhone. I understand the obsession of Apple of making iPhones thin, but for Macs it is a different story. Apple is making a decision that I as a professional will have a better computer experience with a thin and light Macbook Pro than with a more bulky Macbook with 32 GB. I do not know about other Pro users, but for my personal situation Apple made the wrong decision and that is sad. I plan to buy a new laptop in 2017 and chances are very big it will be a 32GB Dell XPS (with Ubuntu). My current MBP is using the full 16 GB. The new laptop should be able to cope with (ever growing) requirements until 2020. The new MBP, which is not upgradeable, won't
... 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).
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 am doing software development and I am on the edge of the 16GB usage when doing regression test (using 7 docker containers). But if I buy a new MBP now, it should last for 3 to 4 years. The RAM requirements for software development have been increasing constantly the last years, and I expect them to continue to grow. So the new MBP might run into problems during its anticipated lifespan.
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.
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¡
Some might say Apple is already stealing money from us. Try getting an iPhone with the so called 'touch disease' repaired without paying at least 149 dollars, even though your device shows no sign of abuse and you swear it has never been dropped.
I think that one may backfire on them unless they detail exactly how they can determine a phone has been dropped various times on a hard surface if it shows no visible signs of a drop. Luckily, their argument won't work in the EU if this occurs within six months of purchase and Apple has already come out bruised through brushes with EU consumers' associations so if someone decides to take issue with the 149 dollar fee, we might see the affected model put under the microscope (literally) to determine if there is a design flaw.
It is getting very difficult for Apple to innovate in their physical products because unlike other brands they need to produce hundreds of thousands up to tens of millions of the devices at launch.
Bleeding or even leading edge technology is never going to be able to be produced in such numbers.
That is the price of success. Sure I want an OLED screen in my iPhone 3 years ago but I will probably still be waiting for delivery of that iPhone 5S because no one can make enough OLED screens to meet the number of iPhone 5S sold to date. Same with new memory tech...
... 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).
It's not "a different [RAM] set up," it's a completely different RAM type. Apple's not going to put non-low power RAM in these notebooks. If you're doing SW development on a. Mac that actually needs more than 16GiB RAM then you need to get yourself a Mac Pro or iMac.
I don't think that LPDDR4 RAM is slated to be out for Kaby Lake. I think Cannonlake is the first we can expect more than 16GiB RAM in a Mac with a notebook-grade CPU.
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.
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.
That is YOUR and only YOUR use case. MY use case is different. Ever heard of Virtual Machines? Well, I regularly run 5 or 6 at the same time. these all work together so no, I can't just run one at a time. Currently I have to lug an HP Elitebook with 32Gb ram with me on my travels. I'd love to be able to ditch this and take just one Laptop with me and even better, an Apple laptop. I have a 27in iMac maxed out with 32Gb of RAM + second Display for my work. At the moment, 29.6Gb of RAM is used by VM's. So it is most certainly not overkill for MY use case.
See, we are all different in what we use our kit for. Blanket statements like yours are just plain wrong.
I'd love to see a MacBook Pro++. Sort of like a portable MacPro for those who want the ultimate portable workstation. With more and more people shooting in 4K (including me), RAM and CPU power start to matter.
The reason you're 'lugging' the HP Elitebook around is because it has 32GB of RAM. IF Apple made your MacBook Pro++, it would need the same components such as desktop memory, chassis and cooling… so you'd still be lugging it around.
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.
So, I know its not exactly the same, but the days when it was RAM vs hard disk drive access are in the past. Designing a laptop with long term storage on a HDD meant that having to swap files from a spinning HDD to RAM for use was a much greater bottleneck to speed. Much faster SSD changes the trade off considerably. The new MacBooks have much faster SSD, and the trade off is smaller. For someone trying to edit video or running many virtual machines each performing tasks at the same time,this might be a significant factor. For many of us, this is not the case. Sure, all else being equal, I would like to be able to have more RAM. But all else is not equal, and the trade off of speed and battery life for a lower limit on maximum ram is one of those design decisions that had to be made, and I am glad the new MacBook Pro have at least the battery life that they do have. Less battery life would have been a much bigger issue for me than the current limit on RAM. I think a lot us are thinking of the days when it was RAM vs much slower HDD for permanent storage was what computers were designed around, and so having significant RAM was very important. It is not unimportant today, but much much less so.
... 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).
Interesting that seemingly no one read the source article.
EVEN WITH MAXING OUT THE BATTERY (100WH) they would have LESS batterylife with DDR4 according to the calculations based on REAL data.
Comments
The mobile Kaby Lake variants are shipping today, the desktop/workstation due Jan 2017:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaby_Lake
My problem with the 'new' Late 2016 MacBook Pro is that it is in fact the Late 2015 MacBook Pro 12 months late, and I was wanting the 2016 version. Once upon a time Apple got the silicon from Intel first and shipped high performance Pro MacBooks while the other vendors were still waiting for silicon.
Apple's only chance of making this up to the real Pro users is to release the 'real' 2016 edition in early 2017. And I expect they will.
For comparison, take a look at the Skylake page for mobile processors.
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.
MY use case is different. Ever heard of Virtual Machines? Well, I regularly run 5 or 6 at the same time. these all work together so no, I can't just run one at a time.
Currently I have to lug an HP Elitebook with 32Gb ram with me on my travels. I'd love to be able to ditch this and take just one Laptop with me and even better, an Apple laptop.
I have a 27in iMac maxed out with 32Gb of RAM + second Display for my work. At the moment, 29.6Gb of RAM is used by VM's. So it is most certainly not overkill for MY use case.
See, we are all different in what we use our kit for. Blanket statements like yours are just plain wrong.
I'd love to see a MacBook Pro++. Sort of like a portable MacPro for those who want the ultimate portable workstation. With more and more people shooting in 4K (including me), RAM and CPU power start to matter.
Mmmm.
https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/intel-kaby-lake-7th-gen-core-processors-faq-update/
I do not know about other Pro users, but for my personal situation Apple made the wrong decision and that is sad. I plan to buy a new laptop in 2017 and chances are very big it will be a 32GB Dell XPS (with Ubuntu). My current MBP is using the full 16 GB. The new laptop should be able to cope with (ever growing) requirements until 2020. The new MBP, which is not upgradeable, won't
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).
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.
I think that one may backfire on them unless they detail exactly how they can determine a phone has been dropped various times on a hard surface if it shows no visible signs of a drop. Luckily, their argument won't work in the EU if this occurs within six months of purchase and Apple has already come out bruised through brushes with EU consumers' associations so if someone decides to take issue with the 149 dollar fee, we might see the affected model put under the microscope (literally) to determine if there is a design flaw.
Bleeding or even leading edge technology is never going to be able to be produced in such numbers.
That is the price of success. Sure I want an OLED screen in my iPhone 3 years ago but I will probably still be waiting for delivery of that iPhone 5S because no one can make enough OLED screens to meet the number of iPhone 5S sold to date. Same with new memory tech...
I don't think that LPDDR4 RAM is slated to be out for Kaby Lake. I think Cannonlake is the first we can expect more than 16GiB RAM in a Mac with a notebook-grade CPU.
The reason you're 'lugging' the HP Elitebook around is because it has 32GB of RAM. IF Apple made your MacBook Pro++, it would need the same components such as desktop memory, chassis and cooling… so you'd still be lugging it around.
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?