It seems there are a lot of users lately saying they need or want 32 GB ram, my fear is that if Apple listens and gives the consumer an option for this on the next MBP that any increase in battery size Apple adds to the 2017 model will be moot against power used against 32 GB and consumers are likely to get the same battery times as the current 16' MBP. Then we will have people complaining they got 32 GB ram but terrible battery life.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
After the dust settled, what is the consensus about 2016 MBPs?
- Thread starter Don-Lucio
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is exactly right. People tend to think that their tiny circle is demonstrative of needs everywhere. Apple spends a lot of money to study the market. 32GB is just not something that is being demanded from a majority of users. And Apple shareholders are not looking for Apple to spend money chasing after minuscule markets. That said, Apple will bring a 32GB laptop to market soon.
R.
[doublepost=1491144332][/doublepost]
You can upgrade the Dell RAM yourself after for cheaper ...soo of course people by 8GB
Actually it would make it even faster.
This will help:https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...y-life-concerns.2010291/page-24#post-23820850
Note that guy is not talking about a few users - he it talking about thousands of users.
Personally some of the statistical software I use can only run models if it can fit it into RAM - much of this kind of software does not support disk-swapping. If the model I'm running won't fit in memory the machine will crash. Simple as. 16GB is a hard limit on stuff I want to do. I keep a Dell desktop purely to occasionally run such models. I'd rather sell it and have a 32GB laptop. I'd like that to be an Apple. But Apple currently isn't interested in my business or any of the thousands of scientists that poster was on about. Eventually I'll have to succumb to a Dell XPS if Apple don't shape up (an 8GB Dell - which I'll upgrade aftermarket)
32 GB does not make a computer "faster" if the Apps can only use 16gb. I already owned a 32GB machine. And "thousands of users" is tiny. Apple is selling 8GB laptops to MILLIONS of professionals.
I can appreciate that scientists need more RAM. And I think you'll get it. But we have folks who can't see the forest for the trees here. If THEIR needs aren't met, than they want to scream to the high-heavens on forums that Apple made a bad product.
For folks who don't like the keyboard or trackpad, all I can is TOO BAD. Buy something else. For a majority, these are much improved and I doubt Apple will make many changes beyond small tweaks. My wife and I agree that the older keyboards "feel cheap" after getting used to the new ones, but most users barely note the difference and adapt very quickly.
I think the next two generations will see even more refinements to an already amazing product.
R.
Nobody would be forcing you to buy 32Gb if you don't want it. Those who do want it accept this compromise. No problem here.
Sorry yes it does. You can have multiple apps open at once, each of which might independently use 16GB (or more). You said yourself you had Photoshop and Lightroom open at once and were using virtual memory. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing where more RAM will speed things up. Granted the new SSDs are super fast so it might not make a big difference - but equally if you were running a large batch job over a couple of days it might.
How else are we supposed to get the machines we need from Apple apart from raising a stink ?? (Yes I did already fill out an Apple feedback form on their website). Or do you want us to simply buy Dells ?
This has no negative effects on those who are happy with 8GB or 16GB so ye dont' need to defend Apple.I've only played with it in the shop and didn't like it on first impressions. But I do accept it takes an adjustment period so I'll not judge it on the keyboard personally.
Thickness of a device doesn't have anything to do with the hardware that is in it nor what you can do with it. Anyone thinking thickness has anything to do with it only ridicules himself. 32GB fits perfectly in the MBP 2016 physically but it doesn't fit in its other envelopes such as power. Make it as thick as the 2012 MBP and you end up with a notebook that is no more than a mobile version of a desktop with a UPS. Nobody here will find that any useful considering they are already complaining about battery life.Coz nothing screams 'pro' more then a thin device
That is quite the exaggeration and/or simplification. You most certainly don't need more than 8 or 16GB of memory for those tasks at all since we are able to do them for 2 decades already (just a reminder: in 2006 the MB had no more than 2GB of memory, yet VMware Fusion ran perfectly fine on it). It really depends on the exact workload, not the task itself.
Some people are forgetting how much one can do with something like a microcontroller. RADAR systems for example, they don't have GB's of memory, yet they have no problems passing on a data stream of 10GB/s (yes gigabytes).
The biggest thing going against the "I need 32GB memory" claim is the fact that a workload never is about memory alone. Workloads require many other resources too and thus the entire computer must be designed for running that kind of workload. Having lots of memory is nice but if the computer lacks in CPU and I/O power it won't fill the 32GB in time and thus you won't have any benefit from it. Notebooks come with big compromises due to their size, weight, thermal envelope and so on. For many of those actual 32GB workloads having 32GB in the MBP is not going to cut it because the other components will prevent it from being fast and from being safe (there is no use of ECC whatsoever; the more memory you have the more troublesome errors are going to be and thus making ECC critical). For those workloads you simply need a beefier machine altogether with different kind of components.
A pro knows what tool to use and when; almost all of the pros here don't.
Ah the poor mans HPCThis will help:https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...y-life-concerns.2010291/page-24#post-23820850
Note that guy is not talking about a few users - he it talking about thousands of users.
Personally some of the statistical software I use can only run models if it can fit it into RAM - much of this kind of software does not support disk-swapping. If the model I'm running won't fit in memory the machine will crash. Simple as. 16GB is a hard limit on stuff I want to do. I keep a Dell desktop purely to occasionally run such models. I'd rather sell it and have a 32GB laptop. I'd like that to be an Apple. But Apple currently isn't interested in my business or any of the thousands of scientists that poster was on about. Eventually I'll have to succumb to a Dell XPS if Apple don't shape up (an 8GB Dell - which I'll upgrade aftermarket
There is a reason why science organisations have these things called clusters or supercomputer. You can do all those magical calculations on them and you can even leave them running for days, weeks, months. And with services from Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc. this has become even easier. Even the masses can now do it.Again, know thy tools and use them for what they are. Using a notebook for HPC stuff is a very good example of not knowing thy tools. That data in memory needs to get there somehow and something needs to process it including all the funky stuff one does with the data. There is far more to it which is why a lot of these data specialists don't use notebooks with ordinary hardware but defaulted to using the proper hardware that uses Xeons and ECC so the data is protected against errors. And yes, research has pointed out that these errors are indeed a big problem. As does the software used itself (Excel 32 bit comes to mind). With 32GB in a notebook, the time has come to start using ECC for it (and the mobile Xeon).
Btw, one can also reduce the dataset and compute on a smaller one. That's how one group I supported managed to get by on a tight budget and 4 desktop computers. They had single threaded computations on a large dataset which no modern CPU was going to manage; the only way they could get the computations done before their deadline was by cutting them into smaller pieces and run them on several machines.
As any sysadmin/system engineer will tell you: simply throwing more hardware at something has never solved any problem and never ever will solve any problem. If you want to solve the problem you first need to understand it and then address it accordingly.
<SNIP>
Ah the poor mans HPC
Again, know thy tools and use them for what they are. Using a notebook for HPC stuff is a very good example of not knowing thy tools. That data in memory needs to get there somehow and something needs to process it including all the funky stuff one does with the data. There is far more to it which is why a lot of these data specialists don't use notebooks with ordinary hardware but defaulted to using the proper hardware that uses Xeons and ECC so the data is protected against errors. And yes, research has pointed out that these errors are indeed a big problem. As does the software used itself (Excel 32 bit comes to mind). With 32GB in a notebook, the time has come to start using ECC for it (and the mobile Xeon).
Btw, one can also reduce the dataset and compute on a smaller one. That's how one group I supported managed to get by on a tight budget and 4 desktop computers. They had single threaded computations on a large dataset which no modern CPU was going to manage; the only way they could get the computations done before their deadline was by cutting them into smaller pieces and run them on several machines.
As any sysadmin/system engineer will tell you: simply throwing more hardware at something has never solved any problem and never ever will solve any problem. If you want to solve the problem you first need to understand it and then address it accordingly.
I knew someone would post something like this. First - don't tell me how to do my work when you know nothing about it. Second - I don't need a HPC, I just need 32GB of RAM - hence the desktop I have. I could easily get HPC access, it doesn't suit my needs and working in that environment would slow me down hugely. Third - the datasets I use are typically small - its the models that are complex. The model complexity is limited by the RAM and GHz - but out of those two the RAM is harder to get around. Fourth - yes you can simplify the data/model - thats the exact opposite of what i'm trying to do which is use all the available informaiton.
Nobody would be forcing you to buy 32Gb if you don't want it. Those who do want it accept this compromise. No problem here.
Sorry yes it does. You can have multiple apps open at once, each of which might independently use 16GB (or more). You said yourself you had Photoshop and Lightroom open at once and were using virtual memory. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing where more RAM will speed things up. Granted the new SSDs are super fast so it might not make a big difference - but equally if you were running a large batch job over a couple of days it might.
How else are we supposed to get the machines we need from Apple apart from raising a stink ?? (Yes I did already fill out an Apple feedback form on their website). Or do you want us to simply buy Dells ?
I've only played with it in the shop and didn't like it on first impressions. But I do accept it takes an adjustment period so I'll not judge it on the keyboard personally.
My 16 GB MBP is just as fast as the 32 GB desktop. That's running Photoshop and LR with multiple RAW files being processed from 5Ds and Nikon D810.
I imagine that if I opened other programs, I could slow the 16 GB Mac down, but why on Earth would a professional do such a thing to EITHER machine? Actually, I don't even need LR open much of the time, but it doesn't seem to slow things down, so I leave it open. I usually have music streaming and web pages open as well.
Last time I spoke with the folks at photoshop, there was no way for PS to make use of RAM above 16 GB and 8GB was perfectly fine. That's from the horses mouth. Now I don't know any professionals who are running PS, LR and doing 3d rendering all at once, but maybe someone is.
This article covers simple ground for MOST users...
http://lifehacker.com/performance-tests-show-that-16gb-of-ram-is-overkill-1724827429
R.
Last edited:
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and clearly, the MBP is not good for you. However, it's interesting to me how most of your disadvantages are advantages for me. I love the new keyboard, the new trackpad, the Touch Bar is very useful to me in Photoshop, etc. The iGPU is fine, and I wouldn't want a faster one if it meant a heavier laptop and battery life is ok. What surprised me the most is MagSafe. Not only do I now miss it, I am totally bought on the whole USB-C thing. First of all, the fact I can plug it in from either side is sweet, but the eye opening moment was when I used the same charger and cable to charge my Nintendo Switch - and had one less charger to carry with me on my trip.
Sorry you dislike the new MBP!
[doublepost=1491146919][/doublepost]
In other words - sure, it's great at things I don't care about, but it sucks at those that I do - so, it's objectively bad.
Only it isn't. I do not see how a group that needs bright and color accurate screens is a "pro minority", but 32Gb is somehow objectively needed by a lot of people. For most people, pro or otherwise, it's the other way around. Everyone can enjoy a better screen, a lot of people really benefit from it - and a small minority needs more than 16Gb RAM.
Also, you're wrong on the CPU/dGPU. At the time of launch, there was no better CPU for any model (except the non-TB 13", ok, these could've been Kaby Lake) and the dGPU was the best choice for the size.
Magsafe was on the wrong side half the time and twice I got stuck unable to charge when the connector broke. NEVER again. USB-C works with everything, far more versatile. I only needed a USB adapter for a few dollars for printers. I always needed card readers.
My ONLY complaint about USB-C is that those ports are small and tough to see in bad light. Mac needs to light them up when you get close to them.
Ditto on the rest...a big upgrade from my rMBP.
R.
First, don't tell me how to do my job or try to do my job because you clearly know nothing about it. Second, listen to someone who actually knows and understands IT and how to work with information in general instead of dismissing things. With an attitude like that, you are doing yourself and your employer a big disservice. There are far more roads than just 1 leading to Rome. All the more reason to listen to someone else's route.
And this is exactly what I meant with sticking to your own job and not trying to do mine. Like I said the workloads that require 32GB of memory also mean that other components need to be changed because they are just as important. The other thing you are not getting is the fact that the more data you work with or the more complexity you have, the more errors you get and the more impact those errors will have.
Yes and that includes all the errors too because the current hardware in the MBP is not capable of handling those and you cannot account for it either because these fall within the so called soft failures. The MBP is simply not suited for this kind of task even if it were equipped with 32GB of memory.
It doesn't matter to me, it matters to you and I see that people like you are basing their reasoning solely on assumptions. Nobody who is making the 32GB claim is backing it up technically. That's the entire point of the story.
It doesn't. The complete lack of technical points is what is the issue here. So yeah, the only reason for you people's reasoning to make actual sense is indeed to forget the technical points.
It would harm everybody, not just me and that does also include Dell owners. Like I said, the problem is that we are moving towards these really big datasets where the risk of soft failures has increased enormously. This is an issue with memory but also with storage.
To give you yet another example (since I already gave one regarding memory in my previous reply): 8TB disks are nice but if you have a RAID5 array and one fails you are going to be in deep trouble. The issue isn't the disk failure because that's what the RAID5 is for, the issue is the rebuild of the array because it is going to take a looooot of time. During this time you are stressing the disks which now act like a single disk. If anything goes wrong it means the loss of the entire array and thus all the data. That's why Google, Facebook, etc. have changed the way they are handling their data. They are now on smaller and simpler servers with smaller and simpler storage but everything is in one big network. If a node and its storage fails nothing happens because the network itself has a lot of redundancy.
As a sysadmin/system engineer I can tell you from experience that throwing more hardware at something is not going to solve it. Problems usually require redoing things, looking for a different route to Rome. Programmers would say the exact same thing (although there are quite a lot who do not understand this principle either and they, like you, will get mad when you tell them they need to rethink things). Don't forget it is our job to get the user something that works for them, not to do exactly what they are saying/wanting. We are not puppets/robots.
Now you need to answer the question: what harm would it do to you if you were to actually listen to a sysadmin/system engineer and take up their advice? After all, they know IT as it is their daily job. They have worked with more users and systems than you probably did. Why is it so bad to take use of their experience and their knowledge? Why do people who use computers suddenly think they are experts on them because they are using one?
But more importantly: why do you have to look at things negatively? Is this not about solving issues, getting the most out of something and simply understanding why things are the way they are? Why are you people so scared of actual knowledge and being educated?
Okay....
So is Apple now on the 2nd generation of the Butterfly keyboard?
Of course the answer is YES.
Now we'll ask you to make a few simple deductions and draw a conclusion:
1) Do you think Apple did a large study on the new keyboards prior to release?
2) Do you believe that based on that study they were confident in the new keyboard?
3) Do you think that the ultimate response to that keyboard led Apple to STAY with the overall design and only tweak it for the latest generation?
4) Do you think Apple would continue with the butterfly design if it was costing them significant losses?
Yeah, I'm a fan of Apple. But I'm also honest about their products. I don't think they make the best phone or even the best desktop. I like Apple because my friend has done well working for them in spite of a serious physical handicap. I like them because they're sticking to an agreed upon environmental standard and support the LBGT community. I also like them because they make the best laptop for a MAJORITY of users.
And that's about it.
R.
So is Apple now on the 2nd generation of the Butterfly keyboard?
Of course the answer is YES.
Now we'll ask you to make a few simple deductions and draw a conclusion:
1) Do you think Apple did a large study on the new keyboards prior to release?
2) Do you believe that based on that study they were confident in the new keyboard?
3) Do you think that the ultimate response to that keyboard led Apple to STAY with the overall design and only tweak it for the latest generation?
4) Do you think Apple would continue with the butterfly design if it was costing them significant losses?
Yeah, I'm a fan of Apple. But I'm also honest about their products. I don't think they make the best phone or even the best desktop. I like Apple because my friend has done well working for them in spite of a serious physical handicap. I like them because they're sticking to an agreed upon environmental standard and support the LBGT community. I also like them because they make the best laptop for a MAJORITY of users.
And that's about it.
R.
I don't know what you folks are arguing about.
Get a new macbook or don't.
I couldn't live with 4 usb-c ports because they are useless to me.
If you like it, good for you.
Get a new macbook or don't.
I couldn't live with 4 usb-c ports because they are useless to me.
If you like it, good for you.
Again, as just explained, this is pure mythology. Again, there is already room for a larger battery in the new MBPs. Again, the size has nothing to do with the reason there isn't 32 GB RAM. Again, that's about battery life.
Last edited:
That would be the trade off that someone getting more than 16 would have to accept. I am hoping that the work that Panasonic and Tesla/Toyota are doing may be able to offset some of this, between their work on refining LiCo's and Apple's willingness to adopt new changes early on!
Is using both desktop and laptop RAM on the same Apple portable acceptable to their design principles? I don't know.
Is the R&D of making a 32GB model financially beneficial to Apple at this time? I also don't know but I think the justification of "we wouldn't make enough money doing this" is a completely respectable response from a private company that, at the end of the day, must pay their employees and shareholders.
Exactly how many people will swallow what would presumably be a big price premium (and reduced battery life, plus potentially more heat) over an already plenty capable machine with 16 GB? Other than one, I don't know.
What I do know is that I like the MacBook Pro, I've come to like the 2016, I think I would prefer to stay with a laptop over a workstation for certain tasks that are occasionally done outside of my home (when I wear a suit instead of pajamas), and my own personal workflow would benefit from a little more during certain peak tasks.
And I am NOT a "pro user", a TS/SCI/Q-cleared super secret operator, the bright mind of tomorrow, a fancy CEO, the President of a powerful nation, or a divine being. So I'm not trying to say what makes the MacBook Pro pro or unpro as I am not a "pro" beyond using the computer for my profession. I do much of my work in my pajamas with a rabbit sitting in my lap.
Sometimes I'll even do a video conference session where I am wearing a nice shirt and tie, but still pajama bottoms with a rabbit sitting on my lap. I accept that this is not very professional.
Last edited:
More random venting. What on earth is "wannabe portability"? Who knows what you mean by "nanny mode," but most people, including most pros, do use their laptops in ordinary ways for browsing, watching videos, text editing and other things for which the MBP gets excellent battery life. That's not eking out good battery life, it's just using the machine normally. Obviously that doesn't mean those people only use it for those things. They may also use it for more heavy-duty things.
A few more blows to this dead horse are just what's needed! The wider color, brighter--and higher-contrast--screen is something that can be achieved while preserving battery life and and other goals. Again, that's not true of 32 GB RAM, which would eat into battery life. Apple did, as a matter of plain fact, use the latest CPU. The dGPU was also the most advanced available that would fit with the other goals for the laptop.
The lack of repairability/upgradability is a real drawback, of course, but none of this has much to do with form factor, which is what you appear to be trying to talk about.
You can already fully use the power of these ports. Why do you suppose otherwise?
Again, a mix of myth, confusion about what was available last year, and pure nonsense about what "all" pros need.
No, not clear in the least. You believe what you want to, not what facts support.
We can all dream, of course. I'm guessing you don't really want Apple to use a battery that doesn't pass their tests, though. And you seem to see the conflict between wanting better battery life and a higher-powered dGPU.
I hope that software has some great qualities that make up for the huge drawback of not being able to accommodate swapping! Maybe it's software for some particular company?Note that guy is not talking about a few users - he it talking about thousands of users.
Personally some of the statistical software I use can only run models if it can fit it into RAM - much of this kind of software does not support disk-swapping. If the model I'm running won't fit in memory the machine will crash. Simple as. 16GB is a hard limit on stuff I want to do. I keep a Dell desktop purely to occasionally run such models. I'd rather sell it and have a 32GB laptop. I'd like that to be an Apple. But Apple currently isn't interested in my business or any of the thousands of scientists that poster was on about. Eventually I'll have to succumb to a Dell XPS if Apple don't shape up (an 8GB Dell - which I'll upgrade aftermarket
It's not that Apple isn't interested in people who need more RAM. Again, that eats into battery life, so unless there's a large demand for it, it's not financially sound for Apple to offer it as an option. That requires a distinct model that most people won't want to pay the extra money and give up the battery life for.
In the mean time, the XPS might be an great choice if you need 32 GB now. It has its issues, including worse battery life, but it can handle the RAM.
What will you do when you need 64 GB?
[doublepost=1491155413][/doublepost]
Yes, I think that is sadly true for the case you're talking about.
It would require some redesign for a CPU that uses a different kind of RAM, not just more RAM.
There's the rub. It would have to be high to accommodate such a limited market, and that might make it uncompetitive with Windows alternatives. I'm sure Apple has run the numbers on this. The rumor is that they might be able to make it work later this year, but who knows?can you image the price
Last edited:
I believe you wanted to say "using desktop RAM" instead of "CPU"?
Yes it is now. But for 2-3 years there is no need for 64GB in a laptop. And then there will be a way to achieve 64GB.
Current mobile Skylakes and Kaby Lakes can address 64GB of RAM be it DDR4, LPDDR3 or DDR3L but unfortunately only DDR4 is available in such volumes atm I believe.
These are your words, assumption and opinion, not mine
Yet again I think your have misread I clearly stated:
Which you have replied with "needed by a lot of people"
unless you mean this, then you have contradicted yourself in the next sentence with "and a small minority needs more than 16Gb RAM" LOLNo one suggested 32GB should be mandatory just an option like other good OEM's for a minority now or maybe a majority in the future, who knows but currently your option less with Apple.
The screen is only better in some respects others eg PPI have not changed. The reason I implied that colour accuracy is more a pro feature is simply based on professionals who mandatory require this for printing (for example). For general consumption and entertainment it's generally accepted that much higher gamma etc is more pleasing. Even Apple realised this before we could easily adjust our monitors, when they swapped over to the more vibrant but less accurate windows default at the time.
I am not wrong I simply stated
You assumed and limited it to October 2016, not me
They could of done the same as other OEM's for example and released just prior to the holiday season a MBP that supported 32GB with a slightly larger battery to compensate for some of the battery endurance lost whilst in nanny/mimic mode of less powerful laptops. There is no doubt many assumptions and best guesses why they did not do this, but the fact remains others managed it.
Time out now as I have had enough of these trivia ping pong matches
Last edited:
My understanding is that for 32 you can use a Skylake or Kaby Lake laptop CPU, but for 64 you can't. You need both a desktop CPU and desktop RAM for that currently. Whether that's a limitation of the CPUs or the available RAM chips, I don't know.
So there aren't any data sets yet that take up more than 32 GB? That's surprising.
[doublepost=1491158490][/doublepost]
Thank you! I have noticed that change, or the reports of it (this is my first retina), but the old options are still available too, if I understand right. The scaling has improved too, not fuzzy anymore, based on what I've seen.
Well of course we all understand there are datasets that take more than many TBs of RAM some servers have. It's just how common they are...
My assumption is that datasets (or better say workloads) requiring 32GB in 2016 were already common enough to make this kind of memory available in laptops whatever the way (hence Dells and others with desktop RAM in laptops to achieve this) but not common enough for a Pro laptop not having it to be considered outdated no matter its other characteristics. So MBP late 2016 had its share of critics for RAM but was still OK overall that's why it flied. In 2017 pretty much everyone will offer 32GB in their pro series of laptops and there will be opportunities to make this without using desktop RAM so if Apple releases next MBP without 32GB option we'll hear much more critics.
IMHO in 2-4 years the same will repeat with 64GB.
[doublepost=1491158807][/doublepost]
JFYI, Intel mobile CPUs can address 64GB of DDR4, LPDDR3 and DDR3L, here is an example http://ark.intel.com/products/97462/Intel-Core-i7-7920HQ-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-4_10-GHz, see Max Memory Size. But there are no LPDDR3 and DDR3L 32GB modules yet and I believe Apple doesn't want to install 4 modules no matter what for battery and size reasons. I believe there were no 16GB LPDDR3 and DDR3L modules when MBP 2016 released that's why we didn't have 32GB then. I think I've read they're available now.
Holy ****!That would be the trade off that someone getting more than 16 would have to accept. I am hoping that the work that Panasonic and Tesla/Toyota are doing may be able to offset some of this, between their work on refining LiCo's and Apple's willingness to adopt new changes early on!
Is using both desktop and laptop RAM on the same Apple portable acceptable to their design principles? I don't know.
Is the R&D of making a 32GB model financially beneficial to Apple at this time? I also don't know but I think the justification of "we wouldn't make enough money doing this" is a completely respectable response from a private company that, at the end of the day, must pay their employees and shareholders.
Exactly how many people will swallow what would presumably be a big price premium (and reduced battery life, plus potentially more heat) over an already plenty capable machine with 16 GB? Other than one, I don't know.
What I do know is that I like the MacBook Pro, I've come to like the 2016, I think I would prefer to stay with a laptop over a workstation for certain tasks that are occasionally done outside of my home (when I wear a suit instead of pajamas), and my own personal workflow would benefit from a little more during certain peak tasks.
View attachment 694622
And I am NOT a "pro user", a TS/SCI/Q-cleared super secret operator, the bright mind of tomorrow, a fancy CEO, the President of a powerful nation, or a divine being. So I'm not trying to say what makes the MacBook Pro pro or unpro as I am not a "pro" beyond using the computer for my profession. I do much of my work in my pajamas with a rabbit sitting in my lap.
Sometimes I'll even do a video conference session where I am wearing a nice shirt and tie, but still pajama bottoms with a rabbit sitting on my lap. I accept that this is not very professional.
What do you run that maxes out your ram like that?
we might wanna revive the old ram wiki now:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/how-much-ram-do-i-need-in-my-macbook.1756865/
Well, here are my stats:Holy ****!
What do you run that maxes out your ram like that?
Memory Used: 10.90 GB
Cached Files: 4.96 GB
Swap Usage: 948.3 MB
I'm not video- or photo- editing or running a virtual machine or anything like that. Just your regular IT guy.
Whenever I do run a virtual machine occasionally I feel not enough RAM. Not a big deal though for now.