aylk

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

zoetmb said:

DuhSesame said:

seankill said:

ericthehalfbee said:

seankill said:

DuhSesame 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. 

Or is because Intel is too slow so it doesn’t worth to wait another year.  DDR4 sounds more like a compromise.

Or is it because Apple wouldn’t design a custom controller (which they do constantly and do a wonderful job at it) and make the computer a little thicker, boosting the whr rating of the battery? 
Or just put the DDR4 in there with a little bigger battery. Sure it’s a compromise, that’s engineering. 
Sure, it’s Intel’s screw up but it can easily be designed out. 

You're right - engineering is always a compromise.

Apples compromise was to limit the RAM to 16GB and not have to put up with the additional battery drain or expense of designing a custom controller when a new Intel processor would soon support 32GB anyway. Who's to say which compromise is better?

The only reason it was a comprise was due to the fact Apple lowered the battery over 20% in the pursuit of thinness. How about go slightly thicker and not comprise on a working machine?

Sigh.

have you listen everything that I said?

But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.

IMO, obsession with thinness and not having any "lines" in the case is the source of many of Apple's design issues.  If they weren't so obsessed with thinness and lines in the case, they could go back to having user-replaceable/upgradable memory, battery and storage as my late-2008 MBP had.   I would trade away thinness in a second to get those other attributes back and it also would have potential to improve battery life.   My late-2016 MBP never came close to getting advertised battery life until the last OS upgrade (currently running 10.13.5). For some reason, after that upgrade, battery life improved substantially.   Before that, I never got more than four hours. 

But using Apple's current design, they can force users to have to buy a new Mac every few years.   Apple was supposed to be better than this.

You seem to be ignoring the speed and performance benefits of using integrated components. They're faster and more reliable, that's a fact. That's what Apple is prioritizing, over DIY tinkering. This is perfect for me as I'm interested in weight and speed for my mobile, and have no interest in DIY tinkering. If you do, get a Dell and stop being an unhappy victim. What's stopping you?

Congratulations on it being perfect for you but that doesn't mean it's perfect for everyone and Apple could just as easily stop prioritizing those aspects in favour of others or offer a solution to both groups.

Whatever they do, your conclusion is condescending. Speed and performance are entirely relative. Yesterday, Apple's fastest laptop option was 'X'. Today it is 'Y' and up to 70% faster. Yesterday they were were selling three year old hardware that didn't have the fastest performance. Clearly there is a proportion of Apple users who are willing to sacrifice speed and performance.

 Complete fabrication. Speed and reliability are real, quantitative, measurable things. Integrated components of the sort Apple went with are better in both. Sorry that offends you.