5 ms·

While I do agree with most things, there will be a need to upgrade something in the future. When I bought my MacBook, 4GB of Ram were plenty but it is not anym

While I do agree with most things, there will be a need to upgrade something in the future. When I bought my MacBook, 4GB of Ram were plenty but it is not anymore. Chrome takes to much ram and with 16GB, I don't have to worry about anything. Furthermore, apples new laptops are all dual core (until you buy the bigger one). This is also dealbreaker for me – quad cores are really awesome when using VMs. Sure a CPU cannot be updated on most laptops (and certainly not on apples but I can't blame really). My point is that I'm afraid apples pro series has drifted into a state where their lifespan will shorten while the prices go up. And apple's OS performs really good until you use third party applications that expect better performance then your sad 5-year-old MacBook.

gaius 10y ago
The question is why the software takes up so much more. Firefox is the pain point for me on my 2008 Macbook, for everything else, it's perfectly snappy. I block ads, don't play games or look at animation heavy sites, but even doing nothing but displaying pages, it sits at 2.5G RAM (out of 4) and 100% of one of my two CPU cores. I'd run an old version if it wasn't for the security updates. Utterly ridiculous.
- astrange 10y ago
  Check about:memory. It's probably not Firefox but the websites.
csydas 10y ago
Oh I'm not suggesting that it will never peak higher than what Apple offers; again, I do agree that it would be nice if the Pro line offered a little more to users looking for more oomph. It's just that, again, by and large with everything with the Mac line up right now, you throw something at it and you're good to go. Even my 2012' Air can do moderately advanced video editing in Premiere, the only real bottlenecks being local storage and the CPU taking a bit to render video. The current line up is not a perfect solution for absolutely everything, and Apple's power option in the Mac Pro line is just unacceptable for most people, even if it does bring a lot to the table. But in most cases, Apple's line ups do extremely well for a large majority of things you'd want to use a computer for. I too would enjoy a quad core in the Air/Pro line, or at least the Pro line, though I suspect the issue is heat, and as I said earlier, I'd happily take a bit of thickness to accommodate a heftier processor. I certainly don't endorse letting Apple tell me what hardware I need; I also don't have too many complaints with what they've given. Price exaggerations aside, I find the price tag for the Macbook Air/Pro lines appropriate for the base models, and comparable to other 13" sized machines with similar specs and amenities (for lack of a better word). Such is sort of the nature with Apple and being a long time user - there's a lot Apple does that bugs you, but at the same time, there is a lot of good you get with the hardware and the OS.
- gaius 10y ago
  I too would enjoy a quad core in the Air/Pro line, or at least the Pro line The 15" Macbook Pros are quad-core http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/specs-retina/ http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/specs-retina/

gaius 10y ago

The question is why the software takes up so much more. Firefox is the pain point for me on my 2008 Macbook, for everything else, it's perfectly snappy. I block ads, don't play games or look at animation heavy sites, but even doing nothing but displaying pages, it sits at 2.5G RAM (out of 4) and 100% of one of my two CPU cores. I'd run an old version if it wasn't for the security updates. Utterly ridiculous.

astrange 10y ago
Check about:memory. It's probably not Firefox but the websites.

csydas 10y ago

Oh I'm not suggesting that it will never peak higher than what Apple offers; again, I do agree that it would be nice if the Pro line offered a little more to users looking for more oomph. It's just that, again, by and large with everything with the Mac line up right now, you throw something at it and you're good to go. Even my 2012' Air can do moderately advanced video editing in Premiere, the only real bottlenecks being local storage and the CPU taking a bit to render video. The current line up is not a perfect solution for absolutely everything, and Apple's power option in the Mac Pro line is just unacceptable for most people, even if it does bring a lot to the table. But in most cases, Apple's line ups do extremely well for a large majority of things you'd want to use a computer for. I too would enjoy a quad core in the Air/Pro line, or at least the Pro line, though I suspect the issue is heat, and as I said earlier, I'd happily take a bit of thickness to accommodate a heftier processor. I certainly don't endorse letting Apple tell me what hardware I need; I also don't have too many complaints with what they've given. Price exaggerations aside, I find the price tag for the Macbook Air/Pro lines appropriate for the base models, and comparable to other 13" sized machines with similar specs and amenities (for lack of a better word). Such is sort of the nature with Apple and being a long time user - there's a lot Apple does that bugs you, but at the same time, there is a lot of good you get with the hardware and the OS.

gaius 10y ago
I too would enjoy a quad core in the Air/Pro line, or at least the Pro line The 15" Macbook Pros are quad-core http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/specs-retina/ http://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/specs-retina/