3 ms·

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 r

by 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.

by muninn_ 10y ago

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.