6 ms·

I'm a full time iOS developer and I think the new MBP will meet my needs. I'm looking forward to buying one and trying it out. I'm disappointed it won't be con

by ash_gti 10y ago

I'm a full time iOS developer and I think the new MBP will meet my needs. I'm looking forward to buying one and trying it out. I'm disappointed it won't be configurable with more than 16 GB of RAM but that appears to be an Intel issue (I know you can argue they could choose a different CPU, but it is a mobile device and low power CPUs make sense in that regard). I would love to hear from Apple what their plan is for the Mac Pro, but I'm planning on buying a new MBP soon.

lucaspiller 10y ago
What do you mean it's an Intel issue? There are other Skylake laptops with more than 16GB, e.g. the Dell XPS 15. Edit: The Dell can have the same CPU i7-6700HQ with 32GB RAM.
- alcari 10y ago
  The CPUs in question support up to 16 GB of LPDDR3 or 32 GB of DDR4, but do not support LPDDR4. Apple needs the LPDDR* variant to meet their power budget.
  - OJFord 10y ago
    So... because the CPU that Apple chose doesn't support >16GB RAM in a way that's convenient for Apple to meet an Apple-imposed specification, it's Intel's problem?
    - ash_gti 10y ago
      It was a design trade off Apple made. They could sacrifice power efficiency for additional memory (LPDDR4 on the CPU is limited to 16 GB, DDR4 can go up to 32 GB). I'm pretty confident if Intel's CPU supported more RAM they would of made it a configurable option. Apple still has configurable graphics cards, hard disk sizes and CPU speeds. RAM could of easily been another configuration they could of offered. Like I said previously, the MacBook Pro is a mobile device so making a trade off for power efficiency makes perfect sense to me.
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      A largely Apple-customer imposed specification, and one which I, for one, welcome.
      - OJFord 10y ago
        Sure, so am I. My Air has 4GB RAM and it's mostly fine - I was hoping to see an upgrade in October, but 8GB would suffice. My only point was that this really isn't something that Intel does or even should care about, it's the result of Apple's decisions; isn't even necessarily their "problem".
        mpweiher 10y ago
        Well, it kinda is, because low-power/long battery life is a reasonable requirement for a laptop, and it is a limitation of the Intel chipset that doesn't allow more than 16GB of low-power memory. Or in other words, how could Apple solve the requirement of low-power/long battery life together with 32GB RAM without Intel? Also, if low-power, long battery life and low weight are not your requirements, maybe you're not in the market for a laptop?
- ropiku 10y ago
  Intel only supports LPDDR3 and DDR4, not the lower power variants of DDR4. Switching from low power uses a lot more battery (idle usage is especially low in LP).
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    How on earth is that an Intel issue when it was Apple that decided to put even less battery in the thing than the previous model? Engineering is about finding a balance among opposing constraints; Apple clearly decided that a svelter profile was more important than larger memory sizes for its market.
    - reacharavindh 10y ago
      Don't know why your comment is getting down voted. I think that's the core issue here. Everybody loves that Apple provides high quality hardware, and a neat operating system that is very dev friendly (unixy). It is the choice of sacrificing compatibility for thinner and svelte that pisses some of us off. The best would've been for them to choose DDR4 instead here and add more battery with the same size MBP as earlier versions. I'd have been perfectly happy. Again, that's just me. Looks like there are several others perfectly content with Apple's choices.
fpoling 10y ago
Is it really necessary to have over 16GB on a developer's machine? I know 16GB is not enough when one is into heavy data mining, but to write a code even if that requires to run several VMs? For example, I do occasional development on MacBook and 8GB is very OK.
- grzm 10y ago
  Whether or not someone needs it depends on their circumstances. You may argue that a dev shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that some do. Whether or not Apple produces a laptop with more than 16GB is up to them and what tradeoffs they make.
- ricw 10y ago
  Easily done if you have a couple of VMs, a couple of IDEs with big projects, a SQL editor, 50 chrome tabs as well as the standard suite of programs (audio, calendar, email etc). That's what I'm using right now. 16GB may be just about fine for this, but in a couple of years it would be nice to have 32GB just to be on the safe side..
- ryanbertrand 10y ago
  Have you ever ran Xcode? :)
  - coo1k 10y ago
    I have macbook air 13" with 4 gb RAM. I use it for app development using XCode.
    - fgpwd 10y ago
      Me too.
    - cableshaft 10y ago
      I've heard that the SSD drive makes it the XCode experience more tolerable when it has to hit the swap disk. Personally on my iMac without an SSD and 4GB it was unbearably slow, but it improved a lot when I upgraded to 20GB of RAM and no longer had to hit the swap disk.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by ash_gti 10y ago

lucaspiller 10y ago

What do you mean it's an Intel issue? There are other Skylake laptops with more than 16GB, e.g. the Dell XPS 15. Edit: The Dell can have the same CPU i7-6700HQ with 32GB RAM.

alcari 10y ago
The CPUs in question support up to 16 GB of LPDDR3 or 32 GB of DDR4, but do not support LPDDR4. Apple needs the LPDDR* variant to meet their power budget.
- OJFord 10y ago
  So... because the CPU that Apple chose doesn't support >16GB RAM in a way that's convenient for Apple to meet an Apple-imposed specification, it's Intel's problem?
  - ash_gti 10y ago
    It was a design trade off Apple made. They could sacrifice power efficiency for additional memory (LPDDR4 on the CPU is limited to 16 GB, DDR4 can go up to 32 GB). I'm pretty confident if Intel's CPU supported more RAM they would of made it a configurable option. Apple still has configurable graphics cards, hard disk sizes and CPU speeds. RAM could of easily been another configuration they could of offered. Like I said previously, the MacBook Pro is a mobile device so making a trade off for power efficiency makes perfect sense to me.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    A largely Apple-customer imposed specification, and one which I, for one, welcome.
    - OJFord 10y ago
      Sure, so am I. My Air has 4GB RAM and it's mostly fine - I was hoping to see an upgrade in October, but 8GB would suffice. My only point was that this really isn't something that Intel does or even should care about, it's the result of Apple's decisions; isn't even necessarily their "problem".
      - mpweiher 10y ago
        Well, it kinda is, because low-power/long battery life is a reasonable requirement for a laptop, and it is a limitation of the Intel chipset that doesn't allow more than 16GB of low-power memory. Or in other words, how could Apple solve the requirement of low-power/long battery life together with 32GB RAM without Intel? Also, if low-power, long battery life and low weight are not your requirements, maybe you're not in the market for a laptop?
ropiku 10y ago
Intel only supports LPDDR3 and DDR4, not the lower power variants of DDR4. Switching from low power uses a lot more battery (idle usage is especially low in LP).
- sangnoir 10y ago
  How on earth is that an Intel issue when it was Apple that decided to put even less battery in the thing than the previous model? Engineering is about finding a balance among opposing constraints; Apple clearly decided that a svelter profile was more important than larger memory sizes for its market.
  - reacharavindh 10y ago
    Don't know why your comment is getting down voted. I think that's the core issue here. Everybody loves that Apple provides high quality hardware, and a neat operating system that is very dev friendly (unixy). It is the choice of sacrificing compatibility for thinner and svelte that pisses some of us off. The best would've been for them to choose DDR4 instead here and add more battery with the same size MBP as earlier versions. I'd have been perfectly happy. Again, that's just me. Looks like there are several others perfectly content with Apple's choices.

fpoling 10y ago

Is it really necessary to have over 16GB on a developer's machine? I know 16GB is not enough when one is into heavy data mining, but to write a code even if that requires to run several VMs? For example, I do occasional development on MacBook and 8GB is very OK.

grzm 10y ago
Whether or not someone needs it depends on their circumstances. You may argue that a dev shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that some do. Whether or not Apple produces a laptop with more than 16GB is up to them and what tradeoffs they make.
ricw 10y ago
Easily done if you have a couple of VMs, a couple of IDEs with big projects, a SQL editor, 50 chrome tabs as well as the standard suite of programs (audio, calendar, email etc). That's what I'm using right now. 16GB may be just about fine for this, but in a couple of years it would be nice to have 32GB just to be on the safe side..
ryanbertrand 10y ago
Have you ever ran Xcode? :)
- coo1k 10y ago
  I have macbook air 13" with 4 gb RAM. I use it for app development using XCode.
  - fgpwd 10y ago
    Me too.
  - cableshaft 10y ago
    I've heard that the SSD drive makes it the XCode experience more tolerable when it has to hit the swap disk. Personally on my iMac without an SSD and 4GB it was unbearably slow, but it improved a lot when I upgraded to 20GB of RAM and no longer had to hit the swap disk.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]