3 ms·
I know quite a few people who require >16GB, and not one of them is a power user nor do they use a VM. What they do is edit large amounts of 4K video in FCP, a
by dvtv75 10y ago
I know quite a few people who require >16GB, and not one of them is a power user nor do they use a VM. What they do is edit large amounts of 4K video in FCP, and they're rather screwed without an actual MacBook Pro.
No, there are no cloud options for them, they need the RAM for the video. No, the Mac Pro isn't a viable option for them at that price, nor is it portable.
I'm pretty sure they don't give a damn about battery life, either. They do their editing at a desk, and then take the MBP with them.
So, for now, they're stuck with old models until there's a better one, or they spend a fair amount of money building a new pipeline and purchasing new software.
- cSoze 10y agoSo their old MBPs have 32 GB? Have they just been unable to get anything done these past 40 years? The tech just isn't quite there yet. Next year.
- comex 10y agoWhat old models? As far as I know there aren't any older MacBooks that support more than 16GB of RAM either. If you're going to compare to desktops, start with the iMac, which is "only" a year old at this point, unlike the Mac Pro which is several :(. The iMac with 5K display starts at $1,800 and is configurable to 32GB RAM, while the MacBook Pro 15" starts at $2,400, and then you probably want an external display too. (That doesn't include the rather high price of actually configuring the iMac for 32GB, but its RAM is [still] user-upgradeable, so better to buy it somewhere else.) Actually, considering that the Mac Pro starts at $3,000, which is not that much more than $2,400, I'm not sure why you think the price puts it out of range... But I definitely understand why you'd want it in a laptop.
- FireBeyond 10y agoWell, the 32GB MBP price is "unknown", but the Mac Pro at 32GB is $3,500, not $3,000.