What exactly do you think is nonsense about the OS being an important factor when determining which type of machine works best for your workflow?
Apple moving to Intel changed that since you no longer had to choose one or the other, but this was very much the case back in the PPC days when Windows was needed for a great number of apps and emulation (not virtualization) software was too slow to be a good solution.
When Apple starts incorporating ARM-based Macs into the lineup you can say that those entry-level machines aren't not good solutions for those that need Windows to run natively or virtualization* and you'll have a good argument for why their Pro machines that are still using Intel's architecture have certain benefits for those that need—or may need—multiple OSes on the same PC.
* Assuming that Apple doesn't offer any native x86_64 virtualization or Boot Camp for Windows RT; both of which I think are unlikely.
The OS can be important for work flow, but making a blanket statement that a device "sucks" because it can't run a particular OS when no use case has been defined, that's just nonsense.
As a general rule, sure. I doubt that StrangeDays would say that macOS is the best solution for running, say, an enterprise server, but let's keep in mind that 1) this is an Apple-focused forum, and 2) you came in here pimping something facepalmingly called the MateBook X Pro and deemed it "undoubtedly superior" after excluding the OS from the equation as if the OS isn't an important consideration. I'd say you stepped into it.
Being an Apple-focused forum doesn't suddenly become an excuse to be unreasonable towards everything non-Apple.
Sure it does, with your hyperbole with the use of everything and unreasonable aside. If I was on Android Central and the topic of a specific Android Oreo bug came up, a reasonable answer isn't to say that everyone should get an iPhone instead.
Frankly it's suspect that you come here looking for any little qualm about an Apple product and then push some other vendor's product as being far and away superior by trying to invalidate the very things that people like about Apple products. You certainly won't fine me stalking Huawei forums so I can badmouth the MateBook X Pro and talk about the many benefits the MBP has over it. I can't wrap my head around that kind of mentality.
Rayz2016 said: But of course, you don't know this for sure, because you have no idea why Mac sales are staying steady or increasing in volume. You say that if Apple did this or that then sales would be even better, but you haven't considered that the reason that Apple, to a certain extent, has bucked the trend with regard to stagnating PC sales is because more people actually want thinner, cooler and lighter laptops.
And you shouldn't ignore the fashion element that makes Mac much cooler than PCs. Most college age or entry level career young adults and even many millennials don't need cutting edge performance. These customers make up a much larger base for Apple than the power users. The year old tech in Macs works just fine for them. They, for the most part aren't using half of the capabilities that the machines offer anyway. Along with the convenient integration with their iPhones, and Apple watches they're making a fashion statement that fits their lifestyle.
Sure it does, with your hyperbole with the use of everything and unreasonable aside. If I was on Android Central and the topic of a specific Android Oreo bug came up, a reasonable answer isn't to say that everyone should get an iPhone instead.
There is never a good excuse for someone to be blatantly unreasonable in that manner.
This article directly compares the MacBook Pro to Windows devices. It is not discussing a 'specific macOS bug' or anything exclusive to macOS in that nature.
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
Battery life is kind of a big deal for the particular market that the MacBookPro is designed to, so yeah, the choice of LPDDR4 memory is an especially relevant technical detail.
More to the point, you seem to be quite happy buying Dells and running Linux, with a mix of MacBookPro's. Why the sad?
And what's the particular market the Macbook Pro is designed for? Would be nice to hear that response from Apple, so people can make the right choice. And still, it's obvious that just one model is not enough to cover all professional users needs. They even lack a discreet GPU in the MBP 13". Compare that to Lenovo and HP mobile workstations, that have a low end (4-core processors, 32GB of RAM, thinner + lighter) and high end models (6-core processors, 64GB of RAM, larger + heavier) . Wouldn't be nice if Apple could do the same?
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
It's not irrelevant. There's a core difference in the power draw between DDR and LPDDR. Apple doesn't use DDR in any of their laptops and to expect that that they should because Dell does is poor thinking. This notion that "Dell does it so Apple should do it" is as foolish as looking at a 10lb gaming laptop with a desktop-grade CPU and 1 hour battery life and saying "Alienware does it so Apple should do it."
As it's been shown repeatedly macOS is more efficient when it comes to managing RAM and the use cases for needing more than 16 GiB of RAM at the expense of battery life are fringe cases. It may very well be what think you need, but don't claim that it's what Apple needs to do because WinPC vendors are throwing shit at a wall.
HP and Lenovo have mobile workstations with 32GB of RAM, and have excellent battery life.
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
It is when using a *mobile* computer, like a notebook. If you need power *at all costs* then what you want is a desktop.
Just as Apple had the 17" 'mobile computers' (that most who ever owned one absolutely adored btw) despite the bulkiness that 17" brought, if you need 32GB of RAM AND mobility, it can be done. To be specific, I think Dell has had 32GB capable mobile computers for many years now.
Yes, 32GB will eventually filter down into more lightweight, and even more energy efficient machines but as cropr clearly stated, the option is out there if you need that RAM (for whatever the reason). The Dells are also rugged specced too, I believe.
There is no technical reason Apple couldn't do it. Throwing out the 'but it isn't low power RAM' counter, doesn't cut it. First, the machine would have been designed with battery life in mind and second, ALL potential buyers of such a machine would be perfectly well aware of why it didn't have the form factor of an ultrabook.
That is a design philosophy not a technical one.
The 2016/17 MBPs were designed to be thin. That was clearly a design goal. There were rumours of dissenting voices within Apple on that issue. No doubt the details will float to the surface at some point.
Your point that a laptop 'sucks' if it doesn't run macOS is strange in a world that is so cloud connected and moving evermore in that direction. You seem to think that cropr must have got half his business strategy wrong by using Dells.
I have never ever used Windows myself as a day to day machine but general consensus seems to be that Windows 10 has got a lot right. I have no idea but if I could get a MateBook X Pro for US pricing I would seriously consider getting one instead of paying what Apple is asking.
For the record, the original MacBookPro was the prototypical Ultrabook; Ie, everybody else copied the MacBookPro form factor and build. This is not in dispute.
In the scheme of things, the puck is going to be at high performance , high efficiency, CPU's that support 32 GB of memory anyway next year, barring yet more delays at Intel. Then, Apple is going to look smart for not creating a new design just to be able to use 32 GB of DDR4 or DDR5 memory. Profit!
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
Also, your knockoff notebook still sucks — doesn’t run macOS.
Jumping in here. Saying something "sucks" because it doesn't run macOS is just nonsense. It can run Windows and Linux, both are perfectly capable operating systems with vast ecosystems.
Even putting the OS aside, as a piece of hardware, the MateBook X Pro is undoubtedly superior to the 13inch MacBook Pro. It's better is almost every way.
Nope. It's perfectly valid to say "Your laptop which can't run macOS sucks for it". Hardware is half of the equation, software is the other. If you can't run macOS, it sucks. I can run the suckier Windows on my Mac, so that's another plus for it over a Windows knockoff notebook, which can't run macOS.
Interesting how those architectural and engineering firms are running Revit, AutoCAD and Microstation, among others, in the "suckier" Windows to create million / billion dollar buildings. You know what, maybe the issue of "suckier" Windows it's because you are running it on a Mac. Try a Thinkpad, you'll have a better experience.
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
Battery life is kind of a big deal for the particular market that the MacBookPro is designed to, so yeah, the choice of LPDDR4 memory is an especially relevant technical detail.
More to the point, you seem to be quite happy buying Dells and running Linux, with a mix of MacBookPro's. Why the sad?
And what's the particular market the Macbook Pro is designed for?
1) What market do you think a laptop is marketed toward? If the term mobile user isn't come up right away then we're so far away from being on the same page that we're not even in the same library.
2) Even on this tech-focused forum understanding what LP means in relation to RAM is oddly limited so Apple having an entirely new design of notebooks where the average customer has to choose between DDR4 and LPDDR4 doesn't seem like a good idea. Too much choice is bad for business. The Good-Better-Best model is solid strategy, and the fact that you (and many others) are still bitching about this years later when there's now no chance of this happening with mobile Intel chips supporting LPDDR4 being on the horizon. Two years ago, your argument had a lot more foundation, but now it's now like pointing out 8 years later that you can still buy a laptop with a Blu-ray player and wanting to know why Apple doesn't offer this, too. It's not going to happen and if you don't understand why Apple will never not only not offer a built-in BRD or bring back the ODD then you're out of your depth.
Wouldn't be nice if Apple could do the same?
Where does this notion that Apple couldn't do the same come from? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to ask why Apple wouldn't do the the same, but since this topic has been covered countless fucking times I'm not sure I can extend that logic to anyone that is still asking that question.
Avon b7 said: …if you need 32GB of RAM AND mobility, it can be done.
[…]
There is no technical reason Apple couldn't do it
Speaking of nonsense, who the fuck said it can't be done? Who the fuck said it's not within Apple's technical capabilities? Your fallacy is suggesting that because Apple could do it they should do it when every bit of information is that they have no intention of going with non-LP RAM, desktop-class CPUs, re-adding ODDs, making a laptop with a 21" display, or anything else Apple could do in a laptop if they wanted.
You eliminated the context from my reply. Rewind, read the earlier posts up to Strange Days saying:
"It is when using a *mobile* computer, like a notebook. If you need power *at all costs* then what you want is a desktop".
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
Battery life is kind of a big deal for the particular market that the MacBookPro is designed to, so yeah, the choice of LPDDR4 memory is an especially relevant technical detail.
More to the point, you seem to be quite happy buying Dells and running Linux, with a mix of MacBookPro's. Why the sad?
And what's the particular market the Macbook Pro is designed for? Would be nice to hear that response from Apple, so people can make the right choice. And still, it's obvious that just one model is not enough to cover all professional users needs. They even lack a discreet GPU in the MBP 13". Compare that to Lenovo and HP mobile workstations, that have a low end (4-core processors, 32GB of RAM, thinner + lighter) and high end models (6-core processors, 64GB of RAM, larger + heavier) . Wouldn't be nice if Apple could do the same?
Easy.
It's the market niche that makes the bulk of the profit in the PC business.
Hence, why MS is so keen to compete against Apple with it's Surface product line; that's where the money is.
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
It is when using a *mobile* computer, like a notebook. If you need power *at all costs* then what you want is a desktop.
You can go with a desktop, or with a high end mobile workstation, like the HP ZBook 15 or the Lenovo P52. Too bad Apple do not have a high end mobile workstation.
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
It is when using a *mobile* computer, like a notebook. If you need power *at all costs* then what you want is a desktop.
Just as Apple had the 17" 'mobile computers' (that most who ever owned one absolutely adored btw) despite the bulkiness that 17" brought, if you need 32GB of RAM AND mobility, it can be done. To be specific, I think Dell has had 32GB capable mobile computers for many years now.
Yes, 32GB will eventually filter down into more lightweight, and even more energy efficient machines but as cropr clearly stated, the option is out there if you need that RAM (for whatever the reason). The Dells are also rugged specced too, I believe.
There is no technical reason Apple couldn't do it. Throwing out the 'but it isn't low power RAM' counter, doesn't cut it. First, the machine would have been designed with battery life in mind and second, ALL potential buyers of such a machine would be perfectly well aware of why it didn't have the form factor of an ultrabook.
That is a design philosophy not a technical one.
The 2016/17 MBPs were designed to be thin. That was clearly a design goal. There were rumours of dissenting voices within Apple on that issue. No doubt the details will float to the surface at some point.
Your point that a laptop 'sucks' if it doesn't run macOS is strange in a world that is so cloud connected and moving evermore in that direction. You seem to think that cropr must have got half his business strategy wrong by using Dells.
I have never ever used Windows myself as a day to day machine but general consensus seems to be that Windows 10 has got a lot right. I have no idea but if I could get a MateBook X Pro for US pricing I would seriously consider getting one instead of paying what Apple is asking.
For the record, the original MacBookPro was the prototypical Ultrabook; Ie, everybody else copied the MacBookPro form factor and build. This is not in dispute.
I'd dispute it. I'd say the MacBook Air with the CULV that Apple requested Intel to dust of the shelf and put into production was the basis for the Ultrabook that became the most popular laptop category, not the MacBook Pro which launched in Early-2006.
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
It is when using a *mobile* computer, like a notebook. If you need power *at all costs* then what you want is a desktop.
Just as Apple had the 17" 'mobile computers' (that most who ever owned one absolutely adored btw) despite the bulkiness that 17" brought, if you need 32GB of RAM AND mobility, it can be done. To be specific, I think Dell has had 32GB capable mobile computers for many years now.
Yes, 32GB will eventually filter down into more lightweight, and even more energy efficient machines but as cropr clearly stated, the option is out there if you need that RAM (for whatever the reason). The Dells are also rugged specced too, I believe.
There is no technical reason Apple couldn't do it. Throwing out the 'but it isn't low power RAM' counter, doesn't cut it. First, the machine would have been designed with battery life in mind and second, ALL potential buyers of such a machine would be perfectly well aware of why it didn't have the form factor of an ultrabook.
That is a design philosophy not a technical one.
The 2016/17 MBPs were designed to be thin. That was clearly a design goal. There were rumours of dissenting voices within Apple on that issue. No doubt the details will float to the surface at some point.
Your point that a laptop 'sucks' if it doesn't run macOS is strange in a world that is so cloud connected and moving evermore in that direction. You seem to think that cropr must have got half his business strategy wrong by using Dells.
I have never ever used Windows myself as a day to day machine but general consensus seems to be that Windows 10 has got a lot right. I have no idea but if I could get a MateBook X Pro for US pricing I would seriously consider getting one instead of paying what Apple is asking.
For the record, the original MacBookPro was the prototypical Ultrabook; Ie, everybody else copied the MacBookPro form factor and build. This is not in dispute.
In the scheme of things, the puck is going to be at high performance , high efficiency, CPU's that support 32 GB of memory anyway next year, barring yet more delays at Intel. Then, Apple is going to look smart for not creating a new design just to be able to use 32 GB of DDR4 or DDR5 memory. Profit!
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
I largely agree with that. I definitely have no need for it. Although the 'smart' bit seems out of place when Dell has had these machines since at least 2010 so there has always been a market there (and profit), perhaps just not a largely macOS software market up until recently. Or maybe not.
In all fairness, the lack of 32GB on any model and 4-Cores on the 13" are squarely on Intel. They have a low-power 4-core chip perfect for the 13" but that just arrived this year. This cannot go on much longer. I'd really like to have something new by this time next year or sooner, preferably before Xmas.
If the 32GB is purely the fault of Intel, how does Dell manage to have 32GB in some of the XPS configurations ?
Those laptops weren't using LPDDR4 RAM.
That is a totally irrelevant technical detail, when one needs a lot of RAM
It is when using a *mobile* computer, like a notebook. If you need power *at all costs* then what you want is a desktop.
Just as Apple had the 17" 'mobile computers' (that most who ever owned one absolutely adored btw) despite the bulkiness that 17" brought, if you need 32GB of RAM AND mobility, it can be done. To be specific, I think Dell has had 32GB capable mobile computers for many years now.
Yes, 32GB will eventually filter down into more lightweight, and even more energy efficient machines but as cropr clearly stated, the option is out there if you need that RAM (for whatever the reason). The Dells are also rugged specced too, I believe.
There is no technical reason Apple couldn't do it. Throwing out the 'but it isn't low power RAM' counter, doesn't cut it. First, the machine would have been designed with battery life in mind and second, ALL potential buyers of such a machine would be perfectly well aware of why it didn't have the form factor of an ultrabook.
That is a design philosophy not a technical one.
The 2016/17 MBPs were designed to be thin. That was clearly a design goal. There were rumours of dissenting voices within Apple on that issue. No doubt the details will float to the surface at some point.
Your point that a laptop 'sucks' if it doesn't run macOS is strange in a world that is so cloud connected and moving evermore in that direction. You seem to think that cropr must have got half his business strategy wrong by using Dells.
I have never ever used Windows myself as a day to day machine but general consensus seems to be that Windows 10 has got a lot right. I have no idea but if I could get a MateBook X Pro for US pricing I would seriously consider getting one instead of paying what Apple is asking.
For the record, the original MacBookPro was the prototypical Ultrabook; Ie, everybody else copied the MacBookPro form factor and build. This is not in dispute.
I'd dispute it. I'd say the MacBook Air with the CULV that Apple requested Intel to dust of the shelf and put into production was the basis for the Ultrabook that became the most popular laptop category, not the MacBook Pro which launched in Early-2006.
Point taken, forgive me, I'm old, and I acknowledge that you are correct with this link;
The MacBook Air was released on January 29, 2008 and the unibody MBP was released on October 14, 2008, so that would mean that even the MBP followed the MBA design language.
Rayz2016 said: But of course, you don't know this for sure, because you have no idea why Mac sales are staying steady or increasing in volume. You say that if Apple did this or that then sales would be even better, but you haven't considered that the reason that Apple, to a certain extent, has bucked the trend with regard to stagnating PC sales is because more people actually want thinner, cooler and lighter laptops.
And you shouldn't ignore the fashion element that makes Mac much cooler than PCs. Most college age or entry level career young adults and even many millennials don't need cutting edge performance. These customers make up a much larger base for Apple than the power users. The year old tech in Macs works just fine for them. They, for the most part aren't using half of the capabilities that the machines offer anyway. Along with the convenient integration with their iPhones, and Apple watches they're making a fashion statement that fits their lifestyle.
Who gets to decide what level of computing performance most college age / career starters need? I'm in neither of those categories but I can tell you for sure "who" makes that decision for me if I'm footing the bill - my wallet.
All of the usual caveats about making assumptions about other people's needs (wants or desires too) apply. I see 7 year olds carrying iPhones that put mine to shame.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
Cool story, bro. — Sent from my 2011 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
Cool story, bro. — Sent from my 2011 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
How does "Cool story bro" work when his comment says that it can support 16 GiB of RAM? Surely you don't begrudge tmay for not knowing the technical specs from a 7yo laptop. He did due diligence by researching the data pertaining to your MBP model.
Comments
Frankly it's suspect that you come here looking for any little qualm about an Apple product and then push some other vendor's product as being far and away superior by trying to invalidate the very things that people like about Apple products. You certainly won't fine me stalking Huawei forums so I can badmouth the MateBook X Pro and talk about the many benefits the MBP has over it. I can't wrap my head around that kind of mentality.
This article directly compares the MacBook Pro to Windows devices. It is not discussing a 'specific macOS bug' or anything exclusive to macOS in that nature.
In the scheme of things, the puck is going to be at high performance , high efficiency, CPU's that support 32 GB of memory anyway next year, barring yet more delays at Intel. Then, Apple is going to look smart for not creating a new design just to be able to use 32 GB of DDR4 or DDR5 memory. Profit!
More to the point, I wonder how many MacBookPro users are actually impacted by lack of 32 GB memory. You certainly have no use for it if you are currently using a 2011 MBP maxing out at 8GB. For you, it's just another day of bench racing.
2) Even on this tech-focused forum understanding what LP means in relation to RAM is oddly limited so Apple having an entirely new design of notebooks where the average customer has to choose between DDR4 and LPDDR4 doesn't seem like a good idea. Too much choice is bad for business. The Good-Better-Best model is solid strategy, and the fact that you (and many others) are still bitching about this years later when there's now no chance of this happening with mobile Intel chips supporting LPDDR4 being on the horizon. Two years ago, your argument had a lot more foundation, but now it's now like pointing out 8 years later that you can still buy a laptop with a Blu-ray player and wanting to know why Apple doesn't offer this, too. It's not going to happen and if you don't understand why Apple will never not only not offer a built-in BRD or bring back the ODD then you're out of your depth.
Where does this notion that Apple couldn't do the same come from? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to ask why Apple wouldn't do the the same, but since this topic has been covered countless fucking times I'm not sure I can extend that logic to anyone that is still asking that question.
"It is when using a *mobile* computer, like a notebook. If you need power *at all costs* then what you want is a desktop".
You should have seen that as I quoted it.
Perhaps you were simply being pedantic.
It's the market niche that makes the bulk of the profit in the PC business.
Hence, why MS is so keen to compete against Apple with it's Surface product line; that's where the money is.
https://www.cultofmac.com/108575/surprise-acers-new-ultrabook-is-a-shoddy-ripoff-of-the-macbook-air/
and this link;
https://www.theverge.com/2012/5/9/3009501/hp-envy-spectre-xt-macbook-air-similarities;
and this link;
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/computers/tips-and-solutions/ultrabook-vs-macbook
If it looks like a duck...
The MacBook Air was released on January 29, 2008 and the unibody MBP was released on October 14, 2008, so that would mean that even the MBP followed the MBA design language.
All of the usual caveats about making assumptions about other people's needs (wants or desires too) apply. I see 7 year olds carrying iPhones that put mine to shame.
Configure to order
- 750GB (5400-rpm) hard drive
- 500GB (7200-rpm) hard drive
- 128GB, 256GB, or 512GB solid-state drive
- Up to 8GB of 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
That's the official spec for the early 2011 MacBookPro.https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook-pro-core-i7-2.2-15-late-2011-unibody-thunderbolt-specs.html
4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.
*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.