apple care replacing a 17" they gave me options, what do you think?

[agaskew]

Yes, I can. CPU supports up to 32GB - and, since Sandy Bridge, the memory is connected directly to CPU.



The hard drive is using a proprietary connector.
That means, every time you buy a hard drive, you will need to buy "special edition for Mac" hard drive, which could be 1.5x times more expensive than usual hard drive with the same specs.

The Crucial website disagrees with you - states 16Gb RAM is the maximum. Could you post some evidence that someone has actually put 32Gb in a Macbook Pro and it is recognised, addressable and working? I'm genuinely curious to know if this works.

And regarding the proprietary connector - this isn't really a surprise. These are Apple machines after all.

 

[AppleMacFinder]

The Crucial website disagrees with you - states 16Gb RAM is the maximum. Could you post some evidence that someone has actually put 32Gb in a Macbook Pro and it is recognised, addressable and working? I'm genuinely curious to know if this works.

And regarding the proprietary connector - this isn't really a surprise. These are Apple machines after all.

Please, take a look at this post.
It contains a table, which tells if the specific CPU model supports 1600MHz, or just 1333MHz.
For some reasons, the same table works for 32GB RAM:
if the specific CPU model supports 32GB, or just 16GB.

Since Sandy Bridge, memory is connected directly to CPU. Thus, if the memory is supported by CPU, it is supported.

As you see, not all MBP could handle 32GB of RAM. Like not all MBP could handle 1600MHz
(if cannot, then it downclocks to 1333MHz)

I have no doubt that this is true. But, to test it in Real Life, I need 2x16GB DDR3 SO-DIMMs.
Sadly, at the moment they are not available to usual customers; even 8GB modules became available just recently.

However, the opportunity to upgrade the RAM later would be really nice!
You may ask: "Who needs 32GB?" Well, some professional applications are already listing 16GB
as "recommended". And, as the time passes, applications are becoming more and more demanding.

What's about some companies? Crucial is a memory manufacturer.
They would not talk about product that they cannot sell to customer at the moment.
Because there is simply no point for them. Also, this geeky stuff is not approved by Apple
They has not offered to install 1600MHz to 2011 MBPs, and they would not even offer you
to install 16GB to your non-Retina 2012 MBP while purchasing.

 

[uhslax24]

Please, take a look at this post. It contains a table, which tells if the specific CPU model supports 1600MHz, or just 1333MHz.
For some reasons, the same table works for 32GB RAM: if the specific CPU model supports 32GB, or just 16GB.

Since Sandy Bridge, memory is connected directly to CPU. Thus, if the memory is supported by CPU, it is supported.

As you see, not all MBP could handle 32GB of RAM. Like not all MBP could handle 1600MHz (if cannot, then it downclocks to 1333MHz)

I have no doubt that this is true. But, to test it in Real Life, I need 2x16GB DDR3 SO-DIMMs.
Sadly, at the moment they are not available to usual customers; even 8GB modules became available just recently.

However, the opportunity to upgrade the RAM later would be really nice!
You may ask: "Who needs 32GB?" Well, some professional applications are already listing 16GB as "recommended".
And, as the time passes, applications are becoming more and more demanding.

What's about some companies?
Crucial is a memory manufacturer. They would not talk about product that they cannot sell to customer at the moment.
Because there is simply no point for them.
Also, this geeky stuff is not approved by Apple They has not offered to install 1600MHz to 2011 MBPs,
and they would not even offer you to install 16GB to your non-Retina 2012 MBP while purchasing.

While I have no doubt that hardware can handle 32GB, I am curious as to whether or not OSX can support that much RAM. If I recall correctly though, I think 10.8.2 had something about a fix for Mac Pros with 32g RAM....hmmm

 

[theSeb]

The Crucial website disagrees with you - states 16Gb RAM is the maximum. Could you post some evidence that someone has actually put 32Gb in a Macbook Pro and it is recognised, addressable and working? I'm genuinely curious to know if this works.

And regarding the proprietary connector - this isn't really a surprise. These are Apple machines after all.

No one has done it yet because there aren't 16 GBs sticks available yet. Some 2011 models do support up to 32 GBs of RAM.

----------

While I have no doubt that hardware can handle 32GB, I am curious as to whether or not OSX can support that much RAM. If I recall correctly though, I think 10.8.2 had something about a fix for Mac Pros with 32g RAM....hmmm

Os x can handle up to 96 GBs of RAM.

 

[Rhinoevans]

Can you upgrade to 32GM RAM with a cMBP then? Why no, you cant.
Change the Hard drive? Yes. For what - SSD? Already in the rMBP.
Why recommend buying another screen to overcome the limits of the built in cMBP one? You could equally buy a pretty screen to go with the rMBP - so what?
Or even, buy a retina panel and try to fit that in a MBP - you have got to be kidding there my friend

Don't get me wrong - the rMBP is expensive and as a 1st gen product it does have a few kinks to be ironed out. It also doesn't have a mechanical hard drive or an obsolete optical drive. The whole commoditisation of computers has been coming for a very long time now, this is another step along the way.

The SSD in the rMBP is way to small and way to expensive to upgrade. The 512 on the cMBP is $1000. What a rip off. Sure I don't need the optical drive and maybe outdated but for sure not obsolete , not yet anyways, but in the end it s just another space for something else (upgrade ability). I agree that this is they way of the computer, but for Apple to lock everything down and tell me what I need is not good for me anyway. And the only way to get 16G ram is a Special Order!!

 

[TRMC13]

What's the etc....? Listing storage capacity is silly. Platter drives are dirt cheap.

I would say go the low end rMBP. But you wold have to ask yourself what you can move to an external and if you would be ok with that. Thunderbolt externals are very fast (I have a seagate portable drive with thunderbolt adapter), or even just your standard USB 3.0 (which the 17's don't have).

Oh and you can upgrade the SSD in the rMBP. It's not cheap, but can be done.

Not capacity...capability. Reading is fun. The 17" can store 2 2.5" drives, giving you 2TB of internal storage possibilities, or a large SSD in one bay, and a large HDD in another. It also has better speakers, a larger display, matte, ExpressCard, Gigabit and FW800 without the need for dongles, etc.

 

[clyde2801]

The hard drive is using a proprietary connector.
That means, every time you buy a hard drive, you will need to buy "special edition for Mac" hard drive, which could be 1.5x times more expensive than usual hard drive with the same specs.

1.5x times more expensive? We can only dream.....

 

[AppleWarMachine]

It all depends on Your needs...but it's nice to have options

 

[Brows]

It all depends on Your needs...but it's nice to have options

yes it is I think I am leaning the cMBP way... a little leery of the rMBP. I like the thinness and screen and speed but I think I would get a bit more longevity out of the cMBP

 

[Erasmus]

Every time Apple brings out a new notebook, there are people that jump on these forums to complain about it. Of the two MBPs I've owned, the first (2007) suffered from overheating problems, and a yellow tint at the bottom of the screen. It also suffered from the dreaded 8600M flaw, and had the Motherboard replaced. My second, (2011) I have no issues with, but others have complained about SATA 3 SSDs not working, and overheating problems again. There are many more reported problems with these models too, I just can't remember what they were.

Every MBP generation has problems, especially if you go looking for them. You need to weigh up whether you believe any potential risks in getting an RMBP are outweighed by it being a generally nicer machine. NOBODY can give a completely objective opinion about which is better. So it's completely up to you. Trusting someone else's judgement is just going to lead to your disappointment.


TL; DR: Don't listen to people on forums. They don't know what they're on about. (This includes me.) Do what makes you happy. Or not. Up to you.

 

[wethackrey]

Ive had a number of issues with my Early 2011 17" MBP and applecare wants to replace it.

CURRENT SPECS:

these are the options that they have given me:

refurbished Early 2011 17" (exact same as mine except for HDD)
i7 2.3 Ghz (upgraded from the 2.2 Ghz)
4 GB ram
750 GB HDD 5400 RPM
High Rez Matte screen (Upgraded from glossy)

New higher end 15" MBP
i7 2.6 Ghz
8 GB ram
750 GB HDD 7200 RPM
high rez matte screen

Low end Retina MBP
i7 2.3 Ghz
8 GB ram
256 Flash Storage

Well good for Apple. This is a TERRIFIC opportunity to upgrade to the next gen for free. Great deal. I would certainly go with the Retina MBP. I actually made a similar move without Apple's help. I had a 17" Matte display very similar to yours (except it was problem-free). I went with a MBPr 16GB ram/768GB SSD. I am extraordinarily happy I made that choice. It's the best computer I've ever owned.

On the AppleCare, my inclination would be to get a credit for the unused time, then buy the full three years on the new machine.

 

[Snowshiro]

Every time Apple brings out a new notebook, there are people that jump on these forums to complain about it. Of the two MBPs I've owned, the first (2007) suffered from overheating problems, and a yellow tint at the bottom of the screen. It also suffered from the dreaded 8600M flaw, and had the Motherboard replaced. My second, (2011) I have no issues with, but others have complained about SATA 3 SSDs not working, and overheating problems again. There are many more reported problems with these models too, I just can't remember what they were.

Yep. You can add to this warping and buckling cases due to heating issues on MacBooks, hard drive failures on iMacs, graphics card failures in Mac Pros and numerous other faults in Apple hardware over the years.

It has little to do with being first gen. People like to quote the "early adopter" idea as if every time Apple put out a brand new product it has problems. Which is BS. Problems occur at any time in a product's life whether it's a small revision or an entirely new range. History supports this.

You're as likely to have problems with the next rMBP as you are with the current one. And as someone who has had no problems at all with mine, I'm perfectly happy to have been an early adopter. I didn't buy it because I wanted to jump on the Apple retina bandwagon. I bought it because about 2 month after it launched I found myself needing a laptop, and it was the best choice available to me.

 

[Erasmus]

Of the two MBPs I've owned, the first (2007) suffered from overheating problems, and a yellow tint at the bottom of the screen. It also suffered from the dreaded 8600M flaw, and had the Motherboard replaced.

Oh, the battery also failed before it hit 300 cycles.

In comparison to my Santa Rosa MBP (which was one of the last gen models before Unibody came to being), my new Sandy Bridge is almost perfect. It's just luck of the draw, and likely always will be.

Also, as time goes by, and quality control improves, the few bad ones that do slip through get complained about more and more.