5 ms·

I don't care about the touch bar and while I'm miffed about the magsafe I can deal with shelling out extra for accidental damage insurance. Personally my disapp

I don't care about the touch bar and while I'm miffed about the magsafe I can deal with shelling out extra for accidental damage insurance. Personally my disappointment is with the specs which no time with the machine will change. The mac I'm currently using was purchased 3 years with 16GB of RAM and if I replace it I will be stuck with the same capacity. I imagine there are a lot of "Pro" market segments that are well served by 16GB or less though. I'm hoping the next revision gets a >16GB capacity and it's released before I need to replace this one.

muninn_ 10y ago
The ram you were using 3 years ago is a lot slower than the ram they have put into the new MacBook pros. So there is that benefit at least. 32 GB is a lot of ram. What do you do where you need that much ram in a laptop? Is that the limiting factor in performance for you versus another component? Have you considered a desktop/tablet combo or anything like that?
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  To be fair I don't bump up against it daily so this isn't some kind of deal breaker. Just disappointing. Mostly virtualization (server and/or desktop operating systems) but sometimes decent sized datasets (which really aren't too bad from SSD) and occasionally those things combined with software that is... written poorly. I used to use both a desktop and laptop but it was more trouble than it was worth. I might have to revisit but I'll miss having those workloads local. I have no doubt I'm an outlier and I certainly don't expect Apple to change anything. I'm not really resentful, just disappointed.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    I see. I was really just curious because for the longest time I got by with just 4gb on a MacBook Air until I switched to the MacBook and 8gb. I run VMs and other software on it but never really ran into a RAM issue. I think there is hope though. They'll put 32gb of ram in eventually. The explanation was that 32 uses too much power, and of course the rebuttal is "stop making it so thin", which I sympathize with. On the other hand, I do like thin and light computers.
    - brazzledazzle 10y ago
      I'm sure part of the problem is I grow into my available RAM and storage like a goldfish. I'm sure some attention to optimization or constraints would make things less limiting but it's nice not having to think about it and just do stuff. I like thin and light computers too. I have a MacBook Air I use to browse the web and I love it. Sometimes I pine after a career in web dev since it would handle it like a champ.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      IIRC the explanation is really "this is what Intel's stuff is supporting, and we're stuck with what Intel supports", and it would've been potentially another year or more of no MBP refresh if they waited for Intel to get there.
      - mmarx 10y ago
        > IIRC the explanation is really "this is what Intel's stuff is supporting, and we're stuck with what Intel supports" All of the available CPUs support 32 GB; the i7s in the 15" model even support 64 GB. [0] http://ark.intel.com/products/91156/Intel-Core-i5-6360U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/91156/Intel-Core-i5-6360U-Proc... [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Pro...
        stephenr 10y ago
        They support > 16GB if you use DDR4. LPDDR3 is limited to 16GB. Given that Apple maximises for long battery life/power efficiency/thin-ness (where heat = bad), I think they made the right decision. There are very few people who genuinely need more than 16GB of RAM in a laptop computer. Would I get 32GB if it was available? Yes. It would make my work a little easier (multiple VM environments), but it's hardly the end of the world on 16GB.
        muninn_ 10y ago
        Yeah. I mean look, they could design a laptop for the vast majority of their users, or they could design one that is best for <1% if their users. It's a clear choice.
- module0000 10y ago
  There are a lot of use-cases for >16GB of RAM, but I'll share mine specifically. I develop network appliances for a "medium-to-large" enterprise. Specifically, these network appliances provide BGP, stateful packet filtering, and the other network services provided by our company's products. When working on these appliances, I tend to spawn hundreds(close to 1000, but not more on my laptop due to RAM) of VM's, and each VM has between 4 and 48 virtual networks. Then all the appliances begin working, advertising and responding to BGP updates, setting up and tearing down VPN tunnels, and other test scenarios. Right now, when I want to do this for network spec'd above size <N>, I can't use my laptop. I end up having to provision hosts in one of our data centers just to get my work done. If my MBP had 20, 24, or 32GB(best!) of RAM, that wouldn't be the case. Maybe in 4 or 5 years, 32GB wont' be enough either, but right now I'm only concerned with the immediate. If the MBP's had grown in maximum memory(like other laptop vendor's models), this would have been a great improvement to my workflow, and allowed me to keep it local. There are probably tons of more common use-cases for wanting all that RAM out there, but that one in particular is mine.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Yeah I can see that (though keep in mind that this is a very fringe case). But on the other hand I'm not complaining that my MacBook can't run any game available at 60 fps. If I want to do that, I get a desktop. I think that has been a common theme for a long time. Power - desktop. Portability - laptop. We're asking Apple to make laptops as powerful as desktops. It just won't happen, unfortunately.
josephg 10y ago
I've spent the last 4 years doing development from a 2012 macbook air with 8 gigs of ram. Its been totally fine, except when I've got a million chrome tabs open. (Declaring bankrupcy and closing them all at once feels great though.) The posted article is about a mac version of visual studio. Coincidentally, visual studio only runs in 32 bit mode and hence can only make use of 4 gigs of ram total: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2015/12/29/revisiting-64-bit-ness-in-visual-studio-and-elsewhere/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2015/12/29/revisiting... The article is worth reading. They (correctly) have kept asking "why does VS need more ram than that?" and just optimize the code when the footprint grows bigger. And I'm genuinely confused by all these people complaining about 16 gigs of ram not being enough. If you have a laptop today with 16 gigs of ram, have a look. Do you actually run out of ram while working? (And if so, what on earth are you running?). It looks like its genuinely hard to fill 16 gigs without chrome or slack running. Look at all the stuff you can fit in that much ram: https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355 https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355 I'm also a big fan of pushing app developers to fix their cruft. Maybe in 2016 its not ok to have apps that suck up as much ram as possible. Maybe app developers shouldn't write super inefficient software just because next year we'll have bigger computers anyway. Maybe if you're writing software (any kind of software) that really does need more than 16 gigs of ram to work effectively you should fix your shitty code instead of demanding everyone buy new computers. The atari 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, and played all sorts of cool games. The original X-Box had 64MB of ram and ran Halo. Maybe its not apple's fault that your fancy 3d graphics program can't work properly in 'only' 16 gigabytes of ram. (Especially given there's 2 gigabytes/second of SSD bandwidth available on those new machines. Yummy!) I love the fact that the new machines are small and portable. The hardware is more than capable of doing everything I need it to do. The only barrier to all day battery life now is crappy software.
- static_noise 10y ago
  I, too, miss the good old days of splitting bytes into nibbles. Sometimes I program a microcontroller just to feel the walls moving in. Software today is designed the way it is because developer time matters more than hardware specs. Getting the software to run and onto market is much more important than memory footprint. Very few companies worry about hiring an assembly programmer to quench out 10% performance. They don't even use C/C++ because it's that irrelevant. Before those programmers even finish the market has moved on and the product is obsolete. People want the RAM because it is cheap and they can put it to good use for their data mining, video editing, virtual machines or whatever.
bardworx 10y ago
Lately, my main machine has been a mid-2014 mbp with 16GB of RAM and I recently purchased the new mbp with 8GB of RAM. Comparing them side by side is a very strange experience. _Technically_ it should be slower but it doesn't "feel" slower. However, at times, there is a bit of shutter that I can't put my finger on - am I just looking for an excuse to say its slow or was the loading time on opening this project always so slow? In the end, I believe the 8GB variant is suitable for most folks while I myself will upgrade the the 16GB version. However, I've opened up plenty of large projects on the new laptop and have tested speed comparison of every day tasks: transcoding videos, opening million (maybe an over exaggeration) row excel docs and web dev work with 2 VMs running. Overall, performance is fairly up to par with my old machine. All of that being said, I do believe the machine is a touch expensive. I ordered mine from Amazon when they had some ridiculous pricing and won out so I don't feel bad offloading on craigslist to get the 16GB version.
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  Thanks, that's a helpful review. It has me wondering if it might benefit from the hardware improvements enough that swapping would be noticeably faster.
  - bardworx 10y ago
    I'm thinking along the same lines. If you're interested in other tests/simulations and I can run them side by side and report back. Today I've ran 2 VMs, about 20 tabs, a large project loaded into an IDE and two shell sessions without any noticeable slowdown.
    - brazzledazzle 10y ago
      I appreciate the offer, thanks. If you have a desktop VM (Windows or OS X) laying around I'd be interested in how responsive they are with enough of them running to make things interesting. They tend to be the most demanding/least tolerant VMs I have to deal with. But don't bother unless you're really into it.

muninn_ 10y ago

The ram you were using 3 years ago is a lot slower than the ram they have put into the new MacBook pros. So there is that benefit at least. 32 GB is a lot of ram. What do you do where you need that much ram in a laptop? Is that the limiting factor in performance for you versus another component? Have you considered a desktop/tablet combo or anything like that?

brazzledazzle 10y ago
To be fair I don't bump up against it daily so this isn't some kind of deal breaker. Just disappointing. Mostly virtualization (server and/or desktop operating systems) but sometimes decent sized datasets (which really aren't too bad from SSD) and occasionally those things combined with software that is... written poorly. I used to use both a desktop and laptop but it was more trouble than it was worth. I might have to revisit but I'll miss having those workloads local. I have no doubt I'm an outlier and I certainly don't expect Apple to change anything. I'm not really resentful, just disappointed.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  I see. I was really just curious because for the longest time I got by with just 4gb on a MacBook Air until I switched to the MacBook and 8gb. I run VMs and other software on it but never really ran into a RAM issue. I think there is hope though. They'll put 32gb of ram in eventually. The explanation was that 32 uses too much power, and of course the rebuttal is "stop making it so thin", which I sympathize with. On the other hand, I do like thin and light computers.
  - brazzledazzle 10y ago
    I'm sure part of the problem is I grow into my available RAM and storage like a goldfish. I'm sure some attention to optimization or constraints would make things less limiting but it's nice not having to think about it and just do stuff. I like thin and light computers too. I have a MacBook Air I use to browse the web and I love it. Sometimes I pine after a career in web dev since it would handle it like a champ.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    IIRC the explanation is really "this is what Intel's stuff is supporting, and we're stuck with what Intel supports", and it would've been potentially another year or more of no MBP refresh if they waited for Intel to get there.
    - mmarx 10y ago
      > IIRC the explanation is really "this is what Intel's stuff is supporting, and we're stuck with what Intel supports" All of the available CPUs support 32 GB; the i7s in the 15" model even support 64 GB. [0] http://ark.intel.com/products/91156/Intel-Core-i5-6360U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/91156/Intel-Core-i5-6360U-Proc... [1] http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Pro...
      - stephenr 10y ago
        They support > 16GB if you use DDR4. LPDDR3 is limited to 16GB. Given that Apple maximises for long battery life/power efficiency/thin-ness (where heat = bad), I think they made the right decision. There are very few people who genuinely need more than 16GB of RAM in a laptop computer. Would I get 32GB if it was available? Yes. It would make my work a little easier (multiple VM environments), but it's hardly the end of the world on 16GB.
        muninn_ 10y ago
        Yeah. I mean look, they could design a laptop for the vast majority of their users, or they could design one that is best for <1% if their users. It's a clear choice.
module0000 10y ago
There are a lot of use-cases for >16GB of RAM, but I'll share mine specifically. I develop network appliances for a "medium-to-large" enterprise. Specifically, these network appliances provide BGP, stateful packet filtering, and the other network services provided by our company's products. When working on these appliances, I tend to spawn hundreds(close to 1000, but not more on my laptop due to RAM) of VM's, and each VM has between 4 and 48 virtual networks. Then all the appliances begin working, advertising and responding to BGP updates, setting up and tearing down VPN tunnels, and other test scenarios. Right now, when I want to do this for network spec'd above size <N>, I can't use my laptop. I end up having to provision hosts in one of our data centers just to get my work done. If my MBP had 20, 24, or 32GB(best!) of RAM, that wouldn't be the case. Maybe in 4 or 5 years, 32GB wont' be enough either, but right now I'm only concerned with the immediate. If the MBP's had grown in maximum memory(like other laptop vendor's models), this would have been a great improvement to my workflow, and allowed me to keep it local. There are probably tons of more common use-cases for wanting all that RAM out there, but that one in particular is mine.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Yeah I can see that (though keep in mind that this is a very fringe case). But on the other hand I'm not complaining that my MacBook can't run any game available at 60 fps. If I want to do that, I get a desktop. I think that has been a common theme for a long time. Power - desktop. Portability - laptop. We're asking Apple to make laptops as powerful as desktops. It just won't happen, unfortunately.

josephg 10y ago

I've spent the last 4 years doing development from a 2012 macbook air with 8 gigs of ram. Its been totally fine, except when I've got a million chrome tabs open. (Declaring bankrupcy and closing them all at once feels great though.) The posted article is about a mac version of visual studio. Coincidentally, visual studio only runs in 32 bit mode and hence can only make use of 4 gigs of ram total: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2015/12/29/revisiting-64-bit-ness-in-visual-studio-and-elsewhere/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ricom/2015/12/29/revisiting... The article is worth reading. They (correctly) have kept asking "why does VS need more ram than that?" and just optimize the code when the footprint grows bigger. And I'm genuinely confused by all these people complaining about 16 gigs of ram not being enough. If you have a laptop today with 16 gigs of ram, have a look. Do you actually run out of ram while working? (And if so, what on earth are you running?). It looks like its genuinely hard to fill 16 gigs without chrome or slack running. Look at all the stuff you can fit in that much ram: https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355 https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355 I'm also a big fan of pushing app developers to fix their cruft. Maybe in 2016 its not ok to have apps that suck up as much ram as possible. Maybe app developers shouldn't write super inefficient software just because next year we'll have bigger computers anyway. Maybe if you're writing software (any kind of software) that really does need more than 16 gigs of ram to work effectively you should fix your shitty code instead of demanding everyone buy new computers. The atari 2600 had 128 bytes of RAM, and played all sorts of cool games. The original X-Box had 64MB of ram and ran Halo. Maybe its not apple's fault that your fancy 3d graphics program can't work properly in 'only' 16 gigabytes of ram. (Especially given there's 2 gigabytes/second of SSD bandwidth available on those new machines. Yummy!) I love the fact that the new machines are small and portable. The hardware is more than capable of doing everything I need it to do. The only barrier to all day battery life now is crappy software.

static_noise 10y ago
I, too, miss the good old days of splitting bytes into nibbles. Sometimes I program a microcontroller just to feel the walls moving in. Software today is designed the way it is because developer time matters more than hardware specs. Getting the software to run and onto market is much more important than memory footprint. Very few companies worry about hiring an assembly programmer to quench out 10% performance. They don't even use C/C++ because it's that irrelevant. Before those programmers even finish the market has moved on and the product is obsolete. People want the RAM because it is cheap and they can put it to good use for their data mining, video editing, virtual machines or whatever.

bardworx 10y ago

Lately, my main machine has been a mid-2014 mbp with 16GB of RAM and I recently purchased the new mbp with 8GB of RAM. Comparing them side by side is a very strange experience. _Technically_ it should be slower but it doesn't "feel" slower. However, at times, there is a bit of shutter that I can't put my finger on - am I just looking for an excuse to say its slow or was the loading time on opening this project always so slow? In the end, I believe the 8GB variant is suitable for most folks while I myself will upgrade the the 16GB version. However, I've opened up plenty of large projects on the new laptop and have tested speed comparison of every day tasks: transcoding videos, opening million (maybe an over exaggeration) row excel docs and web dev work with 2 VMs running. Overall, performance is fairly up to par with my old machine. All of that being said, I do believe the machine is a touch expensive. I ordered mine from Amazon when they had some ridiculous pricing and won out so I don't feel bad offloading on craigslist to get the 16GB version.

brazzledazzle 10y ago
Thanks, that's a helpful review. It has me wondering if it might benefit from the hardware improvements enough that swapping would be noticeably faster.
- bardworx 10y ago
  I'm thinking along the same lines. If you're interested in other tests/simulations and I can run them side by side and report back. Today I've ran 2 VMs, about 20 tabs, a large project loaded into an IDE and two shell sessions without any noticeable slowdown.
  - brazzledazzle 10y ago
    I appreciate the offer, thanks. If you have a desktop VM (Windows or OS X) laying around I'd be interested in how responsive they are with enough of them running to make things interesting. They tend to be the most demanding/least tolerant VMs I have to deal with. But don't bother unless you're really into it.