- Last Active
StrangeDays said:avon b7 said:StrangeDays said:zoetmb said:DuhSesame said:ericthehalfbee said:DuhSesame 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 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?
have you listen everything that I said?
But then, if you just wanna blaming on thiness for blaming on thiness, go ahead.
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.
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.