Can We Put the 16GB "Pro" Myth to Rest?

[cube]

There is always a compromise with notebooks. What I was saying is if you have a genuine need for it, likely it is for a single application, and running that application is top priority so it doesn't matter about OS or whatever. If you want something genuinely portable, then you're going to have to compromise on that power for the second. It really depends on what you really need. But there isn't a solution that covers all basis, unless as I said you get a desktop.

Yes, it matters which OS because Windows is still junk.

 

[aevan]

Do you not understand that you've got many choices for thinner notebooks in the lineup? But we have zero choices on the users-who-need-a-little-more end? I'm talking about an additional tier that's a no-compromise solution for pros, not an elimination of what they have created. Apple's 13 and 15-inch models have long had different battery life figures, and have long been slightly different thicknesses. There's little reason not to offer what they know a decent subset of their pro userbase wants as a more expensive tier of the 15" with - maybe 8 hours of rated battery life. Just like when they had the 17" model - I wonder who bought those.

First of all, I can sympathize. I understand that you simply don't have a choice currently and that Apple is not making the machine you want. This is a bummer. But that doesn't mean the machines they do make are automatically not "pro". You'll have to look elsewhere, or wait for them to come out with the 32Gb model.

Second, I don't have many choices for thinner notebooks in the lineup. I do need a powerful quad-core laptop to run demanding software, but I also want it light to carry everywhere I go, with a good battery life. This is the perfect, and quite unique machine in that regard. What other notebooks in the lineup? MacBook? Seriously?

 

[fs454]

Ok, so you're saying Apple doesn't build a desktop for your use, or a laptop for your use. Why are you here on a Mac website?

I challenge you to unflinchingly pay 2013 prices for a 2013 Mac Pro. You are missing the point. OS X has been the glue keeping me (and others here, I'm not alone, but I'm being discredited from this entire community because Apple has thrown us by the wayside) to this hardware. Windows is a stability disaster and it's not great for creative work, I use it daily for other things. I can't believe I even have to make this statement here.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Yes, it matters which OS because Windows is still junk.

I don't think Windows is significantly worse than macOS these days, the hardware makers on the other hand...

What I'm saying is if you have a need for that much power it's probably a single app that needs it, if you want something to do everything then you'll have to make a compromise. Choose a MacBook and be able to do 90% of your tasks, or choose a Dell and do 1 task 100% well? I dunno, this thread seems to have gone a bit awry.

 

[BarracksSi]

Related (and possibly being talked about elsewhere on MR Forums):
https://marco.org/2016/11/05/world-without-mac-pro

Nobody else can make macOS hardware. If Apple doesn’t address someone’s hardware needs, there’s no alternative.3 We can’t just buy hideous Xeon workstations from Dell and install macOS on them. If we can’t do what we need on Mac hardware, our only choice is to leave the entire Mac platform.

But the competition isn’t even close.

Linux can solve some pro needs, but not most. It’s a fantastic server OS but a miserable desktop one, and that will probably never change.

Microsoft is boldly experimenting with PC hardware, but Windows and everything around Windows is woefully inferior to macOS and the Mac software ecosystem. Even if Microsoft did everything right, it would take Windows at least a decade to catch up — and they won’t do everything right.

Google’s trying something, I’m sure, but Google is both terrible at consumer software and deeply, profoundly creepy. General-purpose computing must not require us to compromise our privacy and data for advertising.

And just as nobody’s starting new general web search engines or mass-market online auction sites today, nobody else is going to make a viable general-purpose PC OS anymore. The minimum bar is too high. We’re stuck with the few we have for the long haul.

But if the one you’re stuck with is macOS, that’s a great thing.

 

[cube]

I don't think Windows is significantly worse than macOS these days, the hardware makers on the other hand...

4 PCs I manage tell me that Windows 10 is junk. I never look at the other 2.

 

[fs454]

First of all, I can sympathize. I understand that you simply don't have a choice currently and that Apple is not making the machine you want. This is a bummer. But that doesn't mean the machines they do make are automatically not "pro". You'll have to look elsewhere, or wait for them to come out with the 32Gb model.

Second, I don't have many choices for thinner notebooks in the lineup. I do need a powerful quad-core laptop to run demanding software, but I also want it light to carry everywhere I go, with a good battery life. This is the perfect, and quite unique machine in that regard.

I never was calling anything "not pro" and don't think that the currently configs should go away - I just think there needs to be a "power user" tier above the top-end 15" config. The many choices you have are the new 13 and 15-inch models that were announced on the 27th. What I'm annoyed about is the lineup stretches to the very bottom, but doesn't stretch that last bit to the top.
[doublepost=1478555258][/doublepost]

Related (and possibly being talked about elsewhere on MR Forums):
https://marco.org/2016/11/05/world-without-mac-pro

This is why it's so frustrating. Because I've been specced out of the lineup and they are doing an abysmal job of keeping the desktops up to date, my only other choice is to leave the entire ecosystem. That's not a choice I'm going to be happy about making, so of course I'm going to be as vocal as I can about the issues that I have with Apple's handling of the pro community. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Or at least, an eyeball or two from decision makers.

At this point, opening up the OS on an enthusiast level would do wonders for the problems they refuse to solve, without digging into the userbase that currently buys the rMB, iMac, and everything but the highest end rMBP. Open sourcing hardware driver creation and allowing the OS to be installed on all (maybe limit it to 4 core and up to keep the low market?) hardware would largely fix the pro market's issue with the company. I've got it going great on a 2015 12-core Xeon, a GTX 980 Ti and 32GB of RAM in a case that's just about the same size as the trashcan, but it took me months and months and I'll be stuck at 10.11.4 for quite a while, which currently isn't a problem.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I never was calling anything "not pro" and don't think that the currently configs should go away - I just think there needs to be a "power user" tier above the top-end 15" config. The many choices you have are the new 13 and 15-inch models that were announced on the 27th. What I'm annoyed about is the lineup stretches to the very bottom, but doesn't stretch that last bit to the top.

Have Apple ever made a notebook that suits your needs before? As in, historically matching whatever workflow you're using, with hardware requirements, and a notebook out at the same time. Like, "In 2008 they made an X machine which was powerful enough for what I do, however in 2016 they don't" sort of thing.

 

[maclaw21]

Some honest questions:

1. What are you pros doing that requires so much ram? 3d movies? Developing an operating system? Producing an NFL game?

2. I thought part of the allure of Macs, in whatever form, was that they needed considerable less RAM than PCs. In other words, Mac's use of RAM is more efficient than PCs.

What am I missing?

I ask these questions as someone who ordered the base TB model with 8 GB of RAM and am seriously contemplating making the jump to 16GB because (a) I intend to keep this notebook for at least 4 years, and (b) I plan do some light FCP work on it (for fun, not for work).

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Some honest questions:

1. What are you pros doing that requires so much ram? 3d movies? Developing an operating system? Producing an NFL game?

2. I thought part of the allure of Macs, in whatever form, was that they needed considerable less RAM than PCs. In other words, Mac's use of RAM is more efficient than PCs.

What am I missing?

I ask these questions as someone who ordered the base TB model with 8 GB of RAM and am seriously contemplating making the jump to 16GB because (a) I intend to keep this notebook for at least 4 years, and (b) I plan do some light FCP work on it (for fun, not for work).

If you can afford it, always max out the RAM on a machine. However you may never use it, which is why I say if you can afford it. macOS does use a lot less RAM and is quite clever in general use. The RAM limitations come in when someone is trying to load up several virtual machines each with 4GB of RAM all at the same time.

I'll second question 1 but add in why you need a portable machine for it. I've needed a powerful rig at times on site but just hired or borrowed one for the job.

 

[fs454]

I don't think Windows is significantly worse than macOS these days, the hardware makers on the other hand...

It is. I work IT as well and manage a fleet of computers on the side and the answer to far too many Windows problems is "wipe it clean and reinstall". The fluidity and overall stability of the OS is much less refined, scrolling sucks, too many little things about the UI just don't make sense. I've tried, before I got my hackintosh running, to run all of my Adobe Creative Cloud apps on Windows and incorporate it into my workflow. It works, but it's the little things that bring it down.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

It is. I work IT as well and manage a fleet of computers on the side and the answer to far too many Windows problems is "wipe it clean and reinstall". The fluidity and overall stability of the OS is much less refined, scrolling sucks, too many little things about the UI just don't make sense. I've tried, before I got my hackintosh running, to run all of my Adobe Creative Cloud apps on Windows and incorporate it into my workflow. It works, but it's the little things that bring it down.

I get that, I do, sadly 3DS Max only runs on Windows so for me the options were use a Mac and run it in bootcamp with pretty lacklustre hardware for my needs, or use a Windows machine and suffer the occasional issue. I'll always use an Apple notebook though, I'm more than happy to suffer slightly longer times in apps in favour of the form and build. It's not as if things just won't run, just that they take a little longer than the desktop.

 

[Macalway]

There's the Verge thing also. I'm thinking the Pro moniker is just a stupid name, like iMac, or iPhone. It's a relatively new name, having been Powerbook originally. But people overthink this crap, and complain about nothing. If you want to complain, complain about the idiotic 'i' in front of stuff.

 

[aevan]

I never was calling anything "not pro" and don't think that the currently configs should go away - I just think there needs to be a "power user" tier above the top-end 15" config. The many choices you have are the new 13 and 15-inch models that were announced on the 27th. What I'm annoyed about is the lineup stretches to the very bottom, but doesn't stretch that last bit to the top.

Sure. I wouldn't mind, who would? It's just that Apple thinks it's not worth the effort. Perhaps this outcry changes their mind.

But let's not claim that 16Gb is for casuals only.

 

[neoelectronaut]

I just want SSD prices to come down. I'm having to trash a bunch of random content on my iMac in anticipation of a move to a Macbook Pro soon. Moving from a 1TB HDD that came standard in 2010 on a 27" iMac to a 256GB SSD on a Macbook Pro in 2016 seems bonkers.

 

[vddobrev]

@fs454 - out of pure curiosity, what is it that you do on site that requires 32GB, i.e. what business is this? You mentioned video, but why can it not be processed in house on your more powerful machines?

 

[cube]

There's the Verge thing also. I'm thinking the Pro moniker is just a stupid name, like iMac, or iPhone. It's a relatively new name, having been Powerbook originally. But people overthink this crap, and complain about nothing. If you want to complain, complain about the idiotic 'i' in front of stuff.

I thought rMBP should have never been called Pro. They are a downgrade from cMBP.

But after needing 32GiB RAM in 2014, I thought no MBP at all deserved the designation. This is a statement of them not being workstations, not what people do.

 

[The Mercurian]

And who are you to say that "these people should be using desktops"? That is ridiculous, when the obstacle to bring 32GB of RAM to a notebook is not massive. It just requires that you don't shave 3 millimeters off of the already thin professional workstation notebook.

Maybe these people constantly travel the world and are expected to be ready to churn out deliverables no matter where they are, and the difference between having to carry a loaded, checked-luggage Pelican with a desktop and a monitor hundreds of thousands of miles yearly and carrying a notebook is 3 millimeters. These people are selecting notebooks because a desktop would not make sense in their workflow.

This x 1000.

The thing that all of you are missing here. Other makes of laptop DO sell 32GB slimline laptops. For those of us that need that option, Apple just spec'ed us out of the market. 2 years ago there were no viable competitors in this space. Now there are several and Apple are not. This means a section of the pro market have no choice but to move. This will only be bad for MBP's in the long term as people shift away. It will accelerate that transition of MBP's into glorified iPads. In the long run it will be bad for the platform to lose such high end users (particularly as such need will only grow in the next 4/5 years).

 

[Macinsquatch]

And remember, the 2012 Macbook Pro (non retina) could handle 32GB of RAM. There were no 16GB modules back when they were released, but it works fine. And this is from a machine 4 years old.

 

[cube]

And remember, the 2012 Macbook Pro (non retina) could handle 32GB of RAM. There were no 16GB modules back when they were released, but it works fine. And this is from a machine 4 years old.

The funky 16GiB SODIMMs or are there normal ones?

But no ExpressCard is a deal breaker.

I bought a 2008 15" MBP in 2009 when ExpressCard was removed.

I bought a 2011 17" MBP in 2012 when it was discontinued.

 

[fs454]

And remember, the 2012 Macbook Pro (non retina) could handle 32GB of RAM. There were no 16GB modules back when they were released, but it works fine. And this is from a machine 4 years old.

Okay. I really, really, want to have someone who has this model to do a battery life test with one 16GB stick and 2x 16GB sticks. Wouldn't be too scientific given the age of the machine and the different memory type, but it'd give us a vague figure on just how much having that many memory chips powered up affects battery life.

 

[cube]

Okay. I really, really, want to have someone who has this model to do a battery life test with one 16GB stick and 2x 16GB sticks. Wouldn't be too scientific given the age of the machine and the different memory type, but it'd give us a vague figure on just how much having that many memory chips powered up affects battery life.

That is DDR3L RAM. Skylake can use DDR4.

I googled and could not easily find anybody who put 32GiB.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

i think the legit argument is if you want 32gb for future proofing. I'm unsure if ram usage goes up with technology, seems like we've been stuck at 8gb and 16gb for a while.

 

[fs454]

That is DDR3L RAM. Skylake can use DDR4.

Right, like I said it's not the most scientific test in the world, but it's extremely relevant. And since DDR4 consumes less power on average than DDR3L, the results of the experiment will be even more extreme than what they'd show if Apple had thrown 32GB of RAM into the 2016.

 

[cube]

i think the legit argument is if you want 32gb for future proofing. I'm unsure if ram usage goes up with technology, seems like we've been stuck at 8gb and 16gb for a while.

You could put 32GiB in a mobile workstation at least as far back as 2014. Now you can put 64GiB.