cjones

About

Username
cjones
Joined
Visits
0
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
-5
Badges
0
Posts
3

Reactions

4Like0Informative

  • Phil Schiller again defends Touch Bar MacBook Pro's 16GB RAM limitation

    cjonescjones

    The issue isn't your RAM capacity, it's your abject stupidity in running Chrome and Opera (at the same time, no less!), which share a common code base, and are renowned for being pigs with RAM. 
    BTW, nice meme image, bro.
     













    Did you get a nosebleed from your knee-jerk?

    Your assumptions are incorrect. Opera 12 does not share a common code base with Chrome—though my Chromium instance certainly does (a fact that you inscrutably overlooked). Furthermore, I use different browsers for different tasks, as one might guess from the simultaneous use of Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Safari, and Firefox.

    Notwithstanding your opinion to the contrary, my use case is valid and demonstrates the utility of additional RAM for me.
    larryaavon b7

  • Phil Schiller again defends Touch Bar MacBook Pro's 16GB RAM limitation

    cjonescjones
    misa said:
    A Mac with 32GB or 64GB is overkill
    For you, maybe. I'm currently using a MBP Retina (Late 2013) with 16 GB of RAM and it's definitely RAM-limited when it comes to my non-professional usage. Let's see... I currently have several browsers open (lots of tabs), Preview, TextEdit, various Terminals, and a few other inconsequential apps. Glancing at my Activity Monitor I can see that it's currently using 14.00 GB of RAM, with 1.46 GB of cached files... oh, and 16.3 *GB* of swap (sic). I haven't even fired up any of my virtual machines!

    So, yes, clearly my SSD (and my system performance) would appreciate the extra RAM. Lord knows what this would be like if I were doing something serious with the machine, such as software development.
    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.
    ...you haven't disabled swap on Mac OS, I'm guessing. Quick test: do you even know how to do that in Mac OS? On Windows accomplishing that goal is done with a few, user friendly clicks in the GUI; on the Mac it requires arcane invocations within Terminal. Anyhow, last time I disabled swap (on Snow Leopard) it was "amusing" to see how poorly Mac OS handled out-of-memory conditions compared to Windows or Linux. Maybe it's gotten better since then, but it's inconvenient having Mac OS develop spinning beach balls of death that require power-cycling the machine, so I haven't tried it lately. Windows handles this scenario especially gracefully, first by warning of impending memory exhaustion, then by slaying a RAM heavy app if the limit is exceeded.
    strells said:
    jorgie said:
    Yeah because there's no way you could make the device thicker and give it a bigger battery.
    And why stop with these notebook-grade components. They should put desktop-grade components in there because professionals don't care about portability or battery life¡
    The lack of 32 GB in a laptop would be less of an issue if Apple would get their act together and release a new new Mac Pro, rather than keeping the 1000+ day old current "new" version on the market. I'd prefer to buy a trash can Mac Pro, but I'm not dropping thousands of dollars on a brand new machine that's already several generations out of date.
    pulseimagesnetmage