16GB default? Not upgrading to Yosemite... it will be probably based on the new Retina RAM standard.
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.
Apple Launches Retina MacBook Pros with Faster Haswell Processors, More RAM Standard
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
this is apple's fault....I know intel should have hurried it up...but it's apple's fault because they weren't taking initiative to force them to hurry it up.
Back when Steve was alive...he made sure intel fulfill his request or otherwise he'll move to somewhere else...
Intel wanted to deal with Apple...so they had no choice..
Back when Steve was alive...he made sure intel fulfill his request or otherwise he'll move to somewhere else...
Intel wanted to deal with Apple...so they had no choice..
Ok.
16GB is the new default size for 15" Retina Macbooks. Why doing this? Is it the lack of anything better to offer or is it a suggestion that the next OSX releases will require more RAM for basic tasks?
For example, now Mavericks uses nearly 2GB for doing the basic system management. Everything else will need additional RAM or it will be swapped to the secondary storage (SSD/HDD). Beta releases of Yosemite point to a heavier OS, so Apple could be solving the issue with a bigger base RAM spec to newer Macs.
But what about people who have Macs with 8GB or 4GB. I guess it would be better keeping Mavericks since it runs pretty well and it's lightweight for Macs with (now only) 8GB.
That's my point.
A 15" MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM for £1,599? That price brings it down into the 'incredibly tempting' category.
It's neck and neck as to which my next Mac will be: MacBook Pro or Mac Mini.
You can spec out the mini without it costing an arm and a leg (and there's hopefully and update coming), but then the 15" Pro has the specs I want, and would mean I only needed to own one computer, not hold onto this 13" Pro.
It's neck and neck as to which my next Mac will be: MacBook Pro or Mac Mini.
You can spec out the mini without it costing an arm and a leg (and there's hopefully and update coming), but then the 15" Pro has the specs I want, and would mean I only needed to own one computer, not hold onto this 13" Pro.
I'd love to see the macbook pro line in matching shades to the iphone: silver, space grey, and champagne.
Would also be nice to have the magic mouse and wireless keyboard come in the same colors and with black keys / mouse surface.
Agreed. When Intel denied third-party chipset manufacturers from supporting newer Intel CPUs, Apple decided keeping Core 2 Duo a little longer AND provided a GPU bump on the Macs of that time. This happened on the 2010 Mini and the 2010 13" Macbook Pro which got a 320M GPU, which was an improvement of more than 100% comparing to the previous 9400M. THIS is taking initiative.
Last edited:
Isn't that half the point in going pro? To have space to get the creative stuff done without having to use a mini drive?. If I wasn't bothered about space then I would buy an air. If I'm going to buy a rMbp then I at least want the storage space at my disposal. Until they knock up the storage space then I'm sticking to my non retina mbp, hell for £140 I can even fit a crucial mx100 512gb ssd.
I really know little about Intel processors and the differences in the latest models. Is there a good resource online that breaks down the current chips and what's coming down the road in a way that's relatively easy to understand? I'm just curious to learn why there are so many posts stating that Intel is to blame for this release being rather bland.
Thanks guys.
Thanks guys.
I bought the $1,499 MacBook Pro Retina less than two weeks ago, and have until Aug. 1 to return/exchange. Do you think the 200 MHz speed increase is worth the hassle? If the make 16 GB RAM standard on that model, I'd definitely go for it, but the CPU increase seems negligible.
As someone working in the nano field, to be fair to Intel (AMD too), what they are doing is actually difficult. Apple just shove matched TDW components into their custom shells and call it a day. People really need to stop thinking that Jobs was some kind of physics defying god!
I work with nanoparticles, the difference between 20 nm and 5 nm in gold nanoparticles results in the difference between near zero catalytic activity and activity respectively (CO oxidation IIRC).
Traditionaly, soldered-RAM Macs with base specs are suited for basic usage, like watching videos, browsing, working with spreadsheets and text editing. Launch a VM or Eclipse or Photoshop on these Macs and your performance will be compromised by severe swapping (although swapping to PCIe is not so bad).
So, yes, they make Macs with small RAM size as a way for segmenting market. If you want a premium laptop for doing ordinary stuff, that's the way to go. For anything else, you go to intermediary to highest spec ones.
Now, there are signs that 8GB Macs will became the new base Macs, that is, the poser-class, basic usage ones. I say "there are signs" and that's why I won't be an early adopter of Yosemite.
I'd go with the idea that RAM is becoming even cheaper for them, and they don't have much else to give us. I can't speak for the "retina footprint", but I know that my MBA runs better with Yosemite at this point than it did with Mavericks. Unless they're making retina horribly inefficient, I don't see that not being the case for rMPB as well.
I don't see why anyone with 8GB of RAM would stick with Mavericks.
Now the mid 13" model doesn't make as much sense as before for $200 you got extra RAM and extra storage, now you only get extra storage for that price.
I understand maybe not putting 16GB of RAM on the middle model, but they should have put the 2.8Ghz processor on the $1,499 model and then on the $1,799 included 16GB of RAM. Then it would have made sense.
I understand maybe not putting 16GB of RAM on the middle model, but they should have put the 2.8Ghz processor on the $1,499 model and then on the $1,799 included 16GB of RAM. Then it would have made sense.
It should be a sign to everyone that unless you buy a new mbp DO NOT upgrade to Yosemite! If you do, your computer will slow down and not work as well. Apple does this on purpose so that you will buy a new mbp with the hardware needed to run the new software properly. They do it with iPhones too. Never upgrade the OS to a version newer than your computer came with.
I'd go with the iMac, probably. The Mac Pro uses Xeon workstation processors, which are designed for photo and video editing and rendering, not gaming. They're good value for what they do, but they're not designed for gaming, and for gaming you can get a comparable PC at a fraction of the price.
If you have a truly collossal amount of disposable income, though, go for it. Those things look sick.
----------
They can all be configured with a 1TB SSD.
Well, I just called the store, and it sounds like this would be rather complicated, as I bought it with a Barclays Apple card with 12 month financing with a limit slightly higher than the computer cost itself. The store said they MUST refund the original to the card and charge the new one to it -- they cannot do an exchange or store credit. Due to the limit on the card, I'd have to return mine, wait for the credit to post (3-5 days likely), then buy the new one. I don't think that's worth it for a 200 MHz speed bump.