32GB RAM MacBook Pro release - when?

[Msivyparrot]

My personal experience is of 2 macbook pro laptops, 1 in 32bit mode and 1 in 64GB mode, and what I could do in 32bit, run final cut studio, parallels for desktop, itunes, web pages at the same time, and nothing froze.

Now a decade later, I can barely have 3 web pages open on a 64bit machine before the laptop has enough and stops working...What ever the space ship is doing to the operating system, I would pay for this hunk of junk to be downgraded back to 32bit, as far as I can see, 64bit is a pile of dog eggs...

I have tried to use FCPX, as Apple assure me 8GB is enough, see the website, if you can find it, they have hidden the fcpx section, not sure why...But the point is, FCPX is hopeless with any video over 1080p...

2GB/4GB really not the issue, the point is 32bit, you had failsafe sandboxed apps, you knew you had limits, 64bit and this stupid memory management system built into HS is a joke, Apple simply have no idea what they are doing...

 

[EugW]

I wonder if anyone has tested this theory in the real world.

It makes sense on paper... but what exactly are we talking about?

Instead of a claimed 10 hours of battery life... you get 9.5 hours? Or, gasp, 9 hours?

And let's be honest... if you're the type of person who needs a mobile workstation with 32GB of RAM to chew through heavy video editing or whatever... you're probably gonna be plugged in anyway.

So yeah... it just seems odd that Apple can't even offer the option.

(Hey Phil... other vendors have 32GB laptops... like all of them...)

The bigger issue is standby power utilization when the memory isn't actually being actively used. Regular DDR3 (or DDR4) RAM is a huge power waster in standby mode.

In standby mode. LPDDR3 has only 10% of the power usage as regular DDR3. This is an enormous difference when it comes to laptops. For desktops, this is irrelevant though, which is why we have our 64 GB iMacs.

So, yeah, Apple is most definitely on the right side of the argument here. In modern times, what you want and need in your laptop or phone is LP RAM, but unfortunately Intel won't be supporting 32 GB for this until next year.

 

[Msivyparrot]

Look Apple Inc/Tim Cook/Jony Ive has known about this issue for more than a decade, the previous generation of laptops had a power consumption issue, this was mitigated by the replacement battery, and the ability to swop out RAM sticks.

Why why has Apple let Intel slide for a decade? There just has been no incentive to innovate, no reason at all, Apple is not competing against Dell, or any microsoft based hardware, so to innovate is pointless at this point, just feed the masses anything badged Apple, they will by it in the millions, and we do...

We don't question the development delays, we don't question the reduction in ports, we just buy and buy what is basically only fit for the landfill.

There is no functional difference between an air and a pro laptop! They are the same thing, sure the keyboard is different, but under the hood, in real terms, they are the same thing...Apple on the fcpx say 8GB is ideal, when even 16GB is borderline.

I agree the power usage in stand by is shockingly poor, a couple of hours on standby, and you have lost 40% or more of battery power... This should have been mitigated by the supply of either a 2nd replaceable battery like before, or a slimline power bank with the same mag safe as the wall supply.

The Apple hardware and the Apple software are almost in conflict, no not almost, ARE in conflict...To be a drone in the software creative apps side must be soul destroying, seeing that the hardware does not support the software you work so hard on...

Apple surely could have by 2018 figured out a way to manage apps better so that you don't have memory/RAM issues, and a way to improve battery life in stand by mode...For me it is shut down every time, I just cannot waste battery life, before I could, I carried a spare charged battery...

 

[EugW]

Look Apple Inc/Tim Cook/Jony Ive has known about this issue for more than a decade, the previous generation of laptops had a power consumption issue, this was mitigated by the replacement battery, and the ability to swop out RAM sticks.

Why why has Apple let Intel slide for a decade? There just has been no incentive to innovate, no reason at all, Apple is not competing against Dell, or any microsoft based hardware, so to innovate is pointless at this point, just feed the masses anything badged Apple, they will by it in the millions, and we do...

We don't question the development delays, we don't question the reduction in ports, we just buy and buy what is basically only fit for the landfill.

There is no functional difference between an air and a pro laptop! They are the same thing, sure the keyboard is different, but under the hood, in real terms, they are the same thing...Apple on the fcpx say 8GB is ideal, when even 16GB is borderline.

I agree the power usage in stand by is shockingly poor, a couple of hours on standby, and you have lost 40% or more of battery power... This should have been mitigated by the supply of either a 2nd replaceable battery like before, or a slimline power bank with the same mag safe as the wall supply.

The Apple hardware and the Apple software are almost in conflict, no not almost, ARE in conflict...To be a drone in the software creative apps side must be soul destroying, seeing that the hardware does not support the software you work so hard on...

Apple surely could have by 2018 figured out a way to manage apps better so that you don't have memory/RAM issues, and a way to improve battery life in stand by mode...For me it is shut down every time, I just cannot waste battery life, before I could, I carried a spare charged battery...

Sorry, but you're just ranting now.

Anyways, Intel was supposed to have its new chips and chipsets out in 2016-2017. It's not that Intel stopped innovating. They failed in their execution. The plan was to have Cannon Lake available years ago, but Intel ran into serious production issues. Take a look at this old roadmap:

Note the 2016 date for Cannon Lake.

As it stands now, we won't have Cannon Lake in volume until 2019, and that is when Apple will be releasing 32 GB MacBook Pros.

 

[The Mercurian]

fast and Furious 99

NOOOOooooooooooo don't even suggest such a travesty

The problem is, most people complaining here do not do this type of work. They are running regular apps and drawing the wrong conclusions by watching the Activity Monitor, or iStat Menus or whatever. They see that, I'm paraphrasing, their "RAM is all filled up". This is their logic: "the computer says I'm using 15 or 16Gb RAM, so I'm all filled up.

No see this is your assumption that you continually spout whenever these discussions come up. How do you know this is what people who ask for 32GB RAM are doing ? There are lots of people doing different things, and while the number of people doing a particular task might be low, there is a wide collection of folks who want this for different reasons. Not just opening too many Safari windows.

most people should not buy a 32Gb Dell XPS, unless they really need it.

Well folks can buy an 8GB Dell XPS and simply upgrade it to 32GB if the need arises. Who knew giving consumers this kind of option might be good for sales??


As to the battery issues This is such a non-argument. When you do intensive work on a MBP that uses all cores and all the RAM, the battery won't last more than an hour anyway.

 

[aevan]

No see this is your assumption that you continually spout whenever these discussions come up. How do you know this is what people who ask for 32GB RAM are doing ?

I am talking specifically about those posts where people say what they are doing. They say things like "I open up my browser, Mail, Spotify and Evernote and I have already filled up my memory". That is just not true.

But you're right - I don't know what they are doing and maybe I'm wrong. But I do strongly believe that 90% of people want more RAM just because "bigger number". And because they don't really understand how memory management works (otherwise, they wouldn't mention the amount used by system).

And working in a studio with hundreds of computers used for game development, I know that 16Gb is more than enough for a lot of really, really demanding workflows, from running massive Unreal levels to modeling. I just find it difficult to imagine that so many people here need 32Gb RAM on their laptops. Some do. But these people probably also need more CPU cores and better GPUs too, alongside much better thermals anyway.

As I keep saying: if you run lots of VMs, do some serious rendering, do some intensive audio work, produce big video files, etc. - you sure can use 32Gb RAM and even a lot more. But can you really do these things on heat-constrained laptop with a mobile GPU?
[doublepost=1521387678][/doublepost]

My personal experience is of 2 macbook pro laptops, 1 in 32bit mode and 1 in 64GB mode, and what I could do in 32bit, run final cut studio, parallels for desktop, itunes, web pages at the same time, and nothing froze.

If you're having issues, it has nothing to do with 64bit vs 32bit but with either bad coding or faulty hardware. If anything, 64bit OS should be more stable with memory intensive apps.

I'm sorry, but you just don't have enough knowledge on the matter and are drawing wrong conclusions from your experience.

Now a decade later, I can barely have 3 web pages open on a 64bit machine before the laptop has enough and stops working...

If your laptop can't handle a few webpages it's either really, really, really old, or has software/hardware issues. It has nothing to do with 64bit operating systems. Getting 32Gb of RAM wouldn't fix those issues.

BTW, the last 32bit OS X available was a decade ago.... and OS X was 64bit since, I don't know, almost forever.

 

[EugW]

I am talking specifically about those posts where people say what they are doing. They say things like "I open up my browser, Mail, Spotify and Evernote and I have already filled up my memory". That is just not true.

But you're right - I don't know what they are doing and maybe I'm wrong. But I do strongly believe that 90% of people want more RAM just because "bigger number". And because they don't really understand how memory management works (otherwise, they wouldn't mention the amount used by system).

And working in a studio with hundreds of computers used for game development, I know that 16Gb is more than enough for a lot of really, really demanding workflows, from running massive Unreal levels to modeling. I just find it difficult to imagine that so many people here need 32Gb RAM on their laptops. Some do. But these people probably also need more CPU cores and better GPUs too, alongside much better thermals anyway.

As I keep saying: if you run lots of VMs, do some serious rendering, do some intensive audio work, produce big video files, etc. - you sure can use 32Gb RAM and even a lot more. But can you really do these things on heat-constrained laptop with a mobile GPU?

VMs sure. It seems common judging by posts around the internet. VMs aren't necessarily always that taxing for CPU use, but of course will eat up lots of memory.

It also depends on how long you plan on keeping the machine, since software and OS memory use seems to double every several years. Mind you, that applies more for my situation where usually I'd be fine with 8 GB RAM but got 16 GB instead for my MacBook. In my case 32 GB would be total overkill in a laptop even several years from now, but 16 makes sense, esp. if I need to use a VM. I don't actually even have 32 GB on my dual 27" screen iMac setup. I have 24 GB there, and that would probably last me the life of the machine, as I don't do any major hardcore production work on it. However, I always have the option to upgrade the RAM on my iMac as needed.

IOW, the main issue here though is the RAM is not upgradable. My point is that if you find that 16 GB is fine for your workflow now, but you plan on keeping your machine for say 3 years or more, it might actually make sense to get 32 GB. You may not need 32 GB by end of the life of the machine, but you might need more than 16 GB. However, it's impossible to spec 24 GB on a Mac laptop, and the RAM is non-upgradable.

OTOH, if you upgrade your machine every 2 years and know 12-16 GB is fine, then sure, get a 16 GB machine.

 

[Naimfan]

Don't hold your breath on 32 GB.

By the time Apple pulls its head out of its ass, 32 GB will be like 8 GB today and power users will need 128 GB.

 

[aevan]

Don't hold your breath on 32 GB.

By the time Apple pulls its head out of its ass, 32 GB will be like 8 GB today and power users will need 128 GB.

Depends on your definition of “power user”. Even 8Gb RAM is enough for most people.

 

[drewsof07]

As to the battery issues This is such a non-argument. When you do intensive work on a MBP that uses all cores and all the RAM, the battery won't last more than an hour anyway.

Power utilization not only relates to the battery, but the thermals as well. Desktop memory runs relatively warm compared to LP. We know how much Apple loves thin, light, and borderline overheating.

 

[john123]

For most people, it actually is. Especially those who look at Memory Usage and think they need more because their RAM is “full”.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that that's "most people"?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't.
[doublepost=1521436570][/doublepost]

But you're right - I don't know what they are doing and maybe I'm wrong. But I do strongly believe that 90% of people want more RAM just because "bigger number".

And here it is again. You admit you don't know, yet you double down on your "belief" and even assign an arbitrary percentage to it.

This kind of thing is why it's so hard to have a rational discourse of any kind around here. When you bring you agenda to the table and then insist out of thin air that there are facts to match it, you're guilty of about a half dozen well known cognitive biases.

 

[Queen6]

Depends on your definition of “power user”. Even 8Gb RAM is enough for most people.

It's not unrealistic that those with greater needs also require more than 16Gb of RAM, nor does Apple clearly care about the same users leaving the platform, preferring to focus on dumbed down mass consumer products...

Q-6

 

[The Mercurian]

Power utilization not only relates to the battery, but the thermals as well. Desktop memory runs relatively warm compared to LP. We know how much Apple loves thin, light, and borderline overheating.

You missed my point.

 

[aevan]

And here it is again. You admit you don't know, yet you double down on your "belief" and even assign an arbitrary percentage to it.

This kind of thing is why it's so hard to have a rational discourse of any kind around here. When you bring you agenda to the table and then insist out of thin air that there are facts to match it, you're guilty of about a half dozen well known cognitive biases.

I never claim something is a fact if it isn't. But I don't have to prove something to have an opinion.

It's not scientific, I'm not writing a paper about it, but based on my experience, I find it really hard to believe that so many people here really need 32Gb RAM "to run apps" - as they claim. It is just that - my belief. I do strongly believe that this is so, based on what I read and based on my experience with what you can do with 16Gb RAM.

This is not new in the world of computers. I remember people buying 32Gb RAM for gaming machines even though there is almost no benefit to games - or getting hex-core CPUs for games, because they think it will make them run faster. Of course, manufacturers are on board with this, because they want to sell more hardware.

So, yes, I do think a lot of people here only think they need more than 16Gb RAM and no, I don't have proof or claim it's a fact (like many people on this forum do, when they are ranting). As long as I admit something is just my personal opinion, I am free to give it and you're free to disagree. What's wrong with that?
[doublepost=1521476116][/doublepost]

It's not unrealistic that those with greater needs also require more than 16Gb of RAM, nor does Apple clearly care about the same users leaving the platform, preferring to focus on dumbed down mass consumer products...

Q-6

There are those with greater needs, sure, and yes - Apple does not offer a laptop for them, sadly.

But most of people who need a lot of RAM can't work on a laptop anyway (my friend renders in 3dsmax, he needs 64Gb RAM, for example, but he also needs 5 six-core computers he uses to render). The only case where you can work on a laptop and still need lots of RAM is, as far as I know, running multiple VMs. Which is fine, nothing to add there. Perhaps, maybe, for music processing too? Not sure.

I'm not saying these people don't exist, but - as I keep repeating - if you're here, claiming you need 32Gb RAM because your browser and a few regular apps need more memory and think you're running out, you're just wrong. You can call yourself a "power user" (which is usually just euphemism for "I like to buy expensive hardware"), you don't need more for "regular stuff". But if you're running virtual machines or something, sure - I understand your issue.

 

[EugW]

I never claim something is a fact if it isn't. But I don't have to prove something to have an opinion.

It's not scientific, I'm not writing a paper about it, but based on my experience, I find it really hard to believe that so many people here really need 32Gb RAM "to run apps" - as they claim. It is just that - my belief. I do strongly believe that this is so, based on what I read and based on my experience with what you can do with 16Gb RAM.

This is not new in the world of computers. I remember people buying 32Gb RAM for gaming machines even though there is almost no benefit to games - or getting hex-core CPUs for games, because they think it will make them run faster. Of course, manufacturers are on board with this, because they want to sell more hardware.

So, yes, I do think a lot of people here only think they need more than 16Gb RAM and no, I don't have proof or claim it's a fact (like many people on this forum do, when they are ranting). As long as I admit something is just my personal opinion, I am free to give it and you're free to disagree. What's wrong with that?

You yourself mentioned that 32 GB might be necessary who run a lot of VMs.

BTW, hex-core makes a huge difference for many modern games in 2018. I agree 32 GB doesn't though.

 

[Msivyparrot]

The point is Apple for whatever reason has decided on a development path many find strange and annoying. It should not have taken this long to replace the cheesgrater mac pro, for whatever reason Apple felt the trashcan was a great idea, it was not a great idea, on paper, yes, in reality unsuitable in many applications.

The same with laptops, mag safe is ideal, ports-the more the better, post purchase upgrading for professional grade devices, I agree that maybe the mac air should be fixed RAM, SSD and limited in the ports, it is basically an ipad with a keyboard attached.

For more professional applications, a heavy duty laptop is required, that is a bit bigger, 15 and 17 inch screen, with robust keyboards and legacy ports, for use in many environments, where carrying countless dongles makes no sense, for the air, dongles are ideal...

32/64GB of RAM is ideal as desktop replacements, when you might need to do heavy lifting, but an imac [when is this coming?] or an imac pro, there are users that demand heavy power uses, that will not be using it off mains..

The use of external GPU boxes is a great idea, you have the power of the laptop, the power of the external GPU, and a very large screen, this makes sense, you can scale up as you need to.

The fact is, the screen on a mac laptop is going to last a long long time, the hardware could if it was post purchase upgradable be a viable product, sure buy from Apple as you upgrade, no lost income to Apple there, so the ban on post purchase upgrading makes no sense.

All I can comment on is my own personal experience and conclusions, in that when I used an older generation macbook pro, I did not have the same problems I am having now, I don't think it is faulty hardware, I suspect the more modern operating system at present High Sierra is to blame, something about HS is not right, I wish I could pin point the fault.

Would more than 16GB RAM be better, it cannot hurt, the more the merrier...The point is Apple is heading down a development path many feel is maybe ill-advised, all I can do is comment as best I can, and all I see is Tim Cook+Jony Ive killing the goose that lays at this point dog eggs....it once laid gold eggs, now...just dog eggs!!

 

[aevan]

You yourself mentioned that 32 GB might be necessary who run a lot of VMs.

BTW, hex-core makes a huge difference for many modern games in 2018. I agree 32 GB doesn't though.

Really? Ok, my mistake then.

 

[EugW]

The point is Apple for whatever reason has decided on a development path many find strange and annoying.

That's just it. For a MacBook Pro, the 16 GB limitation isn't strange at all from the technology perspective. It's expected, given the state of current technology.

Yes, it sucks for some people, but that's the way it is. I betcha Apple is just as annoyed as anyone else, as they were probably originally promised 32 GB support for 2017.

Really? Ok, my mistake then.

Yeah, but old games don't benefit much from that many cores. That's one reason why Ryzen has become popular among gaming enthusiasts who play modern games. However, you need a GPU to match, so I suspect it'd be way more beneficial on a desktop than a laptop with GPU power constraints.

 

[Naimfan]

Depends on your definition of “power user”. Even 8Gb RAM is enough for most people.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

"Most" is not all, and whatever you "strongly believe" there are people who need more than 16 GB RAM.

 

[aevan]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

"Most" is not all, and whatever you "strongly believe" there are people who need more than 16 GB RAM.

Never said there weren't.

But only if you do some memory intensive work, which does not include "having a lot of tabs open in my browser".

You have to do work that is more memory demanding than this guy, to need more than 16Gb:
https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355

Of course, even after reading this article, most complainers here will just say: "Some people need more. Apple doesn't care about REAL PROS".

Some people need more than 16Gb RAM.
Most people just like to complain.

 

[john123]

I never claim something is a fact if it isn't. But I don't have to prove something to have an opinion.

It's not scientific, I'm not writing a paper about it, but based on my experience, I find it really hard to believe that so many people here really need 32Gb RAM "to run apps" - as they claim. It is just that - my belief. I do strongly believe that this is so, based on what I read and based on my experience with what you can do with 16Gb RAM.

This is not new in the world of computers. I remember people buying 32Gb RAM for gaming machines even though there is almost no benefit to games - or getting hex-core CPUs for games, because they think it will make them run faster. Of course, manufacturers are on board with this, because they want to sell more hardware.

So, yes, I do think a lot of people here only think they need more than 16Gb RAM and no, I don't have proof or claim it's a fact (like many people on this forum do, when they are ranting). As long as I admit something is just my personal opinion, I am free to give it and you're free to disagree. What's wrong with that?

"Blue is a pretty color" is an opinion. "The size of the US population is roughly 325 million" is not. That's a fact. Prefacing that sentence with "I believe" is non-sensical, and doing so doesn't make it an "opinion" either. Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions.

So when you just flat out make up a statistic ("90% of people want"...) and preface it with "I do strongly believe," that's non-sensical too.

What's wrong with it? For starters, when you start making up numbers, you do the community a disservice. It's hard enough for people to know what's fact and fiction. You're blurring the lines, and that makes for bad discourse.

Second, your "opinion" is based on a very limited bit of anecdotal evidence. The plural of anecdotes is not "data." If you had worked on a market research study on the subject, that might be different.

Third, it's insulting and patronizing. You basically said, "Nearly everyone who wants more RAM doesn't have a clue."

Bottom line -- the issue is your phrasing. It's not so much what you said as how you said it.
[doublepost=1521497760][/doublepost]

Some people need more than 16Gb RAM.
Most people just like to complain.

But alas, instead of learning from your mistakes when they're pointed out, you just double down on them.

 

[Queen6]

There are those with greater needs, sure, and yes - Apple does not offer a laptop for them, sadly.

But most of people who need a lot of RAM can't work on a laptop anyway (my friend renders in 3dsmax, he needs 64Gb RAM, for example, but he also needs 5 six-core computers he uses to render). The only case where you can work on a laptop and still need lots of RAM is, as far as I know, running multiple VMs. Which is fine, nothing to add there. Perhaps, maybe, for music processing too? Not sure.

I'm not saying these people don't exist, but - as I keep repeating - if you're here, claiming you need 32Gb RAM because your browser and a few regular apps need more memory and think you're running out, you're just wrong. You can call yourself a "power user" (which is usually just euphemism for "I like to buy expensive hardware"), you don't need more for "regular stuff". But if you're running virtual machines or something, sure - I understand your issue.

I stated very much depends on the need, as much as I would like an iMac Pro carrying one on a aircraft is clearly impractical. All notebooks are compromises and as such one must opt for lesser of evils, with some portables capable of 64Gb RAM, Xeon processors and ECC RAM, equally when full specified they too cost as much as a max'd iMac Pro for a 17" notebook.

Why do such costly, yet still compromised products exist? performance on the go, simple as that with the applications these systems are designed for stretching well beyond the imagination of the average user. If I had the right project and the need I would have no hesitation as such hardware is purposeful, more to the point highly productive, preferably with someone else picking up the bill

For the average user 8Gb - 16Gb is more than enough for the midterm, for others with more specific needs not so much. If I had to put a number on it I would say I now need a minimum of 24Gb RAM, although a balanced pair of 16Gb makes for more sense. I may be wrong although my observations tend to concur that as the system runs low on physical RAM and pages, instability is more likely to occur, both OS X & W10.

I believe the crux of the matter is that "some" feel Apple has snubbed them in favour of a more casual approach to the MBP (myself most obviously included), literally shutting the door in favour of mass adoption for the base consumer, admittedly remaining to be a very well appointed notebook, yet significantly diluted in many respects. The real danger is when there are no longer any counter arguments, as then nobody really longer cares...

Flipping back to your CPU comment, as soon as hex core CPU's are mainstream I will likely up the game again being one step less compromised for my need, again coupled with 32GB Ram and upping the 1070 GTX to a 1080 GTX. Right job I'll happily delve into the Xeon, ECC RAM and Quadro goodness

We are not at odds, nor too far apart rather more differing perspectives due to our divergent professional roles

Q-6

 

[aevan]

What's wrong with it? For starters, when you start making up numbers, you do the community a disservice.

Ok, I apologize for the arbitrary number. What I meant was: a vast majority of people. Better?

Again, this is my impression. I did not do a scientific study or anything, I just used experience and observation to form an opinion. Like if I said that "most people like music". Do I have any data to back that up? No. Is it wrong for me to think most people do like music? Again, no.

It's hard enough for people to know what's fact and fiction. You're blurring the lines, and that makes for bad discourse.

I am not blurring anything. It is a measurable fact that 32Gb RAM benefits only the people with very specific workflows that include running virtual machines, demanding rendering jobs, etc. The majority of people, including professionals like artists, photographers, programmers, designers, etc. - do not require more than 16Gb of RAM currently. I think this information is not blurry, it's informative for people who may think they need 32Gb RAM to run internet browsers and mail.

Second, your "opinion" is based on a very limited bit of anecdotal evidence. The plural of anecdotes is not "data." If you had worked on a market research study on the subject, that might be different.

And yet, no data is required for you to make the claim that a significant amount of people do require 32Gb RAM, even though only most demanding of workflows require more than 16.

Third, it's insulting and patronizing. You basically said, "Nearly everyone who wants more RAM doesn't have a clue."

You're phrasing it maliciously - what I said is: a lot of people here do not know how memory management works, drawing the wrong conclusions about how much RAM they need.

And I do believe that is the truth, insulting or not.

Bottom line -- the issue is your phrasing. It's not so much what you said as how you said it.

No, I said it fine. You're disagreeing with me and trying to present my side of the argument as some kind of insult.

But alas, instead of learning from your mistakes when they're pointed out, you just double down on them.

If I agreed with what you pointed out and thought I made mistakes, I would try to learn from them. As it is, I don't think I made a mistake and you didn't point out anything that I consider valid.


You're one of those people who think people who disagree with them are making some logical or ethical errors and that they should try to somehow see the truth that you're saying.

 

[Msivyparrot]

Hi Aevan,

It is very disingenuous of Apple to assume they know best for everyone, the point is, you should be able to buy the right tool for the right job, and long ago, you could buy an Apple laptop and adapt this post purchase, you could swop out the internal hard drive, the internal cd drive, the ram, the battery, the fans, and this was great, it extended the life of the laptop, it also allowed the laptop to be ultra productive, you had 2 hard drives, always a good thing!!

Now in 2018 we have dog eggs in silver cases, the laptop cannot be modified post purchase, you cannot add hard drives, you cannot swop RAM, maybe a segment of RAM goes off, and you sit with a turd on the desk...When really back in the old stupid days of 32bit, we could swop out parts.

It is the same as a automobile dealer assuming everyone wants a sub compact, that is all he stocks...that dealer might be out of business very soon, you might need a sub compact for the wife, you might need a F450, would you buy that F450 if was incapable of having tow hitches attached? No...you would buy what you need..You can retrofit the part later...yay you see retrofitting works well..

So what makes Apple so special that retrofitting is banned? When we had retrofitting, and this lead to development of RAM sticks, you had choices, you had companies like macsales/OWC developing techniques and selling parts to allow the removal of the stupid cd drive and the retrofitting of a 2nd hard drive, battery etc.

Sure not everyone needs 32GB/64GB, but some do, some need many ports, some not so much, some would love 17incg screens, with a selection of legacy ports, thunderbolt/lightning bolt/USBx.x..it is so confusing, bluetooth, wifi, it is just a mess and getting worse...

 

[john123]

Ok, I apologize for the arbitrary number. What I meant was: a vast majority of people. Better?

If I agreed with what you pointed out and thought I made mistakes, I would try to learn from them. As it is, I don't think I made a mistake and you didn't point out anything that I consider valid.

Thank you for proving my point.

And yet, no data is required for you to make the claim that a significant amount of people do require 32Gb RAM, even though only most demanding of workflows require more than 16.

The word "significant" does not mean "large." Why am I not surprised that a guy who makes up numbers doesn't know this?