6 ms·

Whatever you're using it for, clearly it's the 1%. Expecting Apple to completely gimp the macbook for the average pro user (dev, photoshop, video editing) to sa

Whatever you're using it for, clearly it's the 1%. Expecting Apple to completely gimp the macbook for the average pro user (dev, photoshop, video editing) to satisfy your computing needs is unreasonable. They can't cover all use cases, but they can cover most. For your use case I recommend buying a spec'd up PC, such as a gaming laptop or desktop replacement laptop.

uabstraction 10y ago
Except no one's asking them to "gimp" the available models. People are asking for more options in the high performance space. If Apple doesn't make it, you can't simply go to HP and get it there. You have no choice. It's either run out of memory, or abandon your whole OS and software stack. Apple is forcing a segment of it's customers to abandon it's ecosystem to continue getting their work done . Their lack of reassuring response insinuates that macOS is a non-scalable toy platform. I have no horses in this race myself, but if I had hundreds+ invested in Mac software and accessories, with no machines available on the market to handle my workload, I would be pretty bent.
- josteink 10y ago
  > It's either run out of memory, or abandon your whole OS and software stack. Considering how all the tools you mentioned were written for and runs best on Linux, I don't buy your argument. You'll have to leave a DE behind. Big deal.
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    What's your setup for doing native iOS builds, code signing, and debugging (including shaders, opengl context setup, etc.) from Linux? I'd love to have a viable alternative to XCode.
    - josteink 10y ago
      Running VNC into a $200 Mac Mini stored in a server-cabinet.
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        I guess if you get the 2012 model you can even get that with 4 cores and 16GB RAM.
y4mi 10y ago
urm, isnt the hole point of having a 'pro' version of your product that it can handle workloads the previous poster mentioned? i'm pretty sure his problem is only that the new mbp has the specs of a budged laptop, at best. Which is perfectly fine for most usecases, hardware has gotten pretty good over the last few years. still, shouldn't qualify as a 'professional' version.
- nihonde 10y ago
  "Pro" is not some standard measurement. In fact, it's marketing above all else. They could call it Plus or Extra or Super. It's not required to fit your notion of what a professional does. For example, I'm both a professional developer and a professional lawyer. The new MBP meets both of my pro requirement sets.
pavanky 10y ago
> Whatever you're using it for, clearly it's the 1% Dude, are you seriously suggesting a laptop marketed for developers not be used by people writing and compiling code? Seriously any project of decent size written in a systems language just consumes all the ram you can throw at. If you think this only happens to 1% of the developers, you need to step out of your echo chamber and see what other developers are doing.
- gaius 10y ago
  Dude, are you seriously suggesting a laptop marketed for developers not be used by people writing and compiling code? I know right - it's like everyone has forgotten that Pro means "for professionals". And also forgot that the booming sales of the iPhone and iPad owe everything to the ecosystem of apps and content created on Macs. People doing 3D, engineering simulations, computational bio and chem, financial modelling, yadda yadda, there are loads of people who can make use of every byte of RAM and every core for Real Work. So some guy can make websites adequately on a smaller machine - he or she needs to look up and realize that that's a tiny corner of what computing is about...
  - sjwright 10y ago
    Nobody for whom absolute CPU power is paramount is crunching on a laptop anyway. The sorts of examples you cite are better off implemented on a grunty workstation or even cloud computing. If portable access is needed, remoting in is the answer.
    - gaius 10y ago
      For many people these days their laptop is their only computer and they value the ability to work without cheap, fast connectivity, while traveling say. You know, the entire use case for portable computers existing at all.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
MaulingMonkey 10y ago
> Whatever you're using it for, clearly it's the 1%. This was on a small - fairly certain <1MLOC - codebase. I'm small fry. The only unusual thing would perhaps be having small enough compilation times (due to e.g. incremental compiles and small changes not rebuilding the world) for linking of multiple projects to overlap. Boost and the Linux Kernel, noodling in at closer to ~20MLOC, or VS2012's ~50MLOC, might spend more time compiling in their typical edit cycles. > Expecting Apple to completely gimp the macbook for the average pro user (dev, photoshop, video editing) I suppose I'm having difficulty here seeing how a small weight and size increase for more DDR chips, or a larger battery, is going to "completely gimp" the macbook. Since I already touched on dev - I'll let someone else touch on video editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJtrQ5CcCN0&feature=youtu.be&t=124 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJtrQ5CcCN0&feature=youtu.be... . Things will only get worse on that front as 4K becomes popular. > They can't cover all use cases, but they can cover most. Agreed. I'm just not sure they have covered most "pro" users.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  Maybe the problem isn't Apple's hardware, but 20-50MLOC code bases? Xerox PARC had, effectively, a simple version of what we consider "Personal Computing": word-processing, E-Mail, laser printers, software development, proto-Internet. Alan Kay claims it was less than 20KLOC, and that's a plausible figure considering the Alto had 128K RAM and a 2.5MB disk pack. MS Office alone is >400MLOC. That's 20000x the code, or 20KLOC^2. There is no way it is 20000 times better or more useful. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is 100x better/more useful (something I'd consider dubious, but it's a good upper bound). That still leaves a factor 200x unaccounted for. Or 99.5% of the code. TBL's first web-browser was ~5KLOC, took him a couple of months to write, in his spare time IIRC. It included editing. NCSA Mosaic took a team of five one year to complete, was 100KLOC and did not include editing. The current (last time I checked) version of Firefox is 13MLOC. Is it 2500x better? And if you think compile-times are the biggest problem with multi-MLOC code-bases, you're not paying attention.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

uabstraction 10y ago

Except no one's asking them to "gimp" the available models. People are asking for more options in the high performance space. If Apple doesn't make it, you can't simply go to HP and get it there. You have no choice. It's either run out of memory, or abandon your whole OS and software stack. Apple is forcing a segment of it's customers to abandon it's ecosystem to continue getting their work done . Their lack of reassuring response insinuates that macOS is a non-scalable toy platform. I have no horses in this race myself, but if I had hundreds+ invested in Mac software and accessories, with no machines available on the market to handle my workload, I would be pretty bent.

josteink 10y ago
> It's either run out of memory, or abandon your whole OS and software stack. Considering how all the tools you mentioned were written for and runs best on Linux, I don't buy your argument. You'll have to leave a DE behind. Big deal.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  What's your setup for doing native iOS builds, code signing, and debugging (including shaders, opengl context setup, etc.) from Linux? I'd love to have a viable alternative to XCode.
  - josteink 10y ago
    Running VNC into a $200 Mac Mini stored in a server-cabinet.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      I guess if you get the 2012 model you can even get that with 4 cores and 16GB RAM.

y4mi 10y ago

urm, isnt the hole point of having a 'pro' version of your product that it can handle workloads the previous poster mentioned? i'm pretty sure his problem is only that the new mbp has the specs of a budged laptop, at best. Which is perfectly fine for most usecases, hardware has gotten pretty good over the last few years. still, shouldn't qualify as a 'professional' version.

nihonde 10y ago
"Pro" is not some standard measurement. In fact, it's marketing above all else. They could call it Plus or Extra or Super. It's not required to fit your notion of what a professional does. For example, I'm both a professional developer and a professional lawyer. The new MBP meets both of my pro requirement sets.

pavanky 10y ago

> Whatever you're using it for, clearly it's the 1% Dude, are you seriously suggesting a laptop marketed for developers not be used by people writing and compiling code? Seriously any project of decent size written in a systems language just consumes all the ram you can throw at. If you think this only happens to 1% of the developers, you need to step out of your echo chamber and see what other developers are doing.

gaius 10y ago
Dude, are you seriously suggesting a laptop marketed for developers not be used by people writing and compiling code? I know right - it's like everyone has forgotten that Pro means "for professionals". And also forgot that the booming sales of the iPhone and iPad owe everything to the ecosystem of apps and content created on Macs. People doing 3D, engineering simulations, computational bio and chem, financial modelling, yadda yadda, there are loads of people who can make use of every byte of RAM and every core for Real Work. So some guy can make websites adequately on a smaller machine - he or she needs to look up and realize that that's a tiny corner of what computing is about...
- sjwright 10y ago
  Nobody for whom absolute CPU power is paramount is crunching on a laptop anyway. The sorts of examples you cite are better off implemented on a grunty workstation or even cloud computing. If portable access is needed, remoting in is the answer.
  - gaius 10y ago
    For many people these days their laptop is their only computer and they value the ability to work without cheap, fast connectivity, while traveling say. You know, the entire use case for portable computers existing at all.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

MaulingMonkey 10y ago

> Whatever you're using it for, clearly it's the 1%. This was on a small - fairly certain <1MLOC - codebase. I'm small fry. The only unusual thing would perhaps be having small enough compilation times (due to e.g. incremental compiles and small changes not rebuilding the world) for linking of multiple projects to overlap. Boost and the Linux Kernel, noodling in at closer to ~20MLOC, or VS2012's ~50MLOC, might spend more time compiling in their typical edit cycles. > Expecting Apple to completely gimp the macbook for the average pro user (dev, photoshop, video editing) I suppose I'm having difficulty here seeing how a small weight and size increase for more DDR chips, or a larger battery, is going to "completely gimp" the macbook. Since I already touched on dev - I'll let someone else touch on video editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJtrQ5CcCN0&feature=youtu.be&t=124 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJtrQ5CcCN0&feature=youtu.be... . Things will only get worse on that front as 4K becomes popular. > They can't cover all use cases, but they can cover most. Agreed. I'm just not sure they have covered most "pro" users.

mpweiher 10y ago
Maybe the problem isn't Apple's hardware, but 20-50MLOC code bases? Xerox PARC had, effectively, a simple version of what we consider "Personal Computing": word-processing, E-Mail, laser printers, software development, proto-Internet. Alan Kay claims it was less than 20KLOC, and that's a plausible figure considering the Alto had 128K RAM and a 2.5MB disk pack. MS Office alone is >400MLOC. That's 20000x the code, or 20KLOC^2. There is no way it is 20000 times better or more useful. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is 100x better/more useful (something I'd consider dubious, but it's a good upper bound). That still leaves a factor 200x unaccounted for. Or 99.5% of the code. TBL's first web-browser was ~5KLOC, took him a couple of months to write, in his spare time IIRC. It included editing. NCSA Mosaic took a team of five one year to complete, was 100KLOC and did not include editing. The current (last time I checked) version of Firefox is 13MLOC. Is it 2500x better? And if you think compile-times are the biggest problem with multi-MLOC code-bases, you're not paying attention.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]