New MacBook Pros Max Out at 16GB RAM Due to Battery Life Concerns

[bernuli]

The funny part of this conversation is how many people think they "need" 32GB of RAM... but are probably really only needing 8GB.

Either you need more RAM, or you could use more RAM.

I have read a bunch of replies here that give good reasons for more.

In the keynote they also gave us a really good example of the need for more RAM when they demonstrated "fast user switching".

Paging out to disk not a good use of battery power.

 

[Ener Ji]

Nope, actually I do want to know. And if you were actually using 32GB of RAM, you would have a detailed answer like Polymorphic that also responded to my question with exact usage scenarios instead of just being defensive and calling people names.

Did you not read my full response? I did answer. I don't use 32GB of RAM, but I want more than 16GB so that I won't feel RAM pressure during the lifespan of the machine. I don't think this should be difficult to comprehend.

 

[ScooterComputer]

32 GB (2x16 GB), 2400 MHz, DDR4, CL14 SODIMM, 1.2V, 260-pin RAM came for 185 dollars (VAT included).

You're in a pretty unique position to TEST Phil's nonsense, I mean technical answer. If you happen to have 2x8GB sticks (16GB) and a KillAWatt you could measure the power consumption of your NUC performing a basic "benchmark" and expose the delta of the power draw between them. The LENGTH of the test is less material to the difference in power draw between them; otherwise the "battery" (total energy available) is relative. If your NUC draws Y Watts with 16GB and Z Watts with 32, the difference between Y and Z would answer the Question. If Y/Z is greater than 80% (which I'd bet it is) than Schiller is full of *****. That would mean that a 10hr test on 16GB would yield >8hr on 32GB, and I don't think too many "Pros" would lose sleep over that.

For the record, this was the same nonsense that Apple spouted about the iPhone 6/+ with its 1GB of RAM. Funny how that turned out… the iPhone 6s/s+ shipped with 2GB and the iPhone 7 with 2GB and 7+ with 3GB! And yet NOBODY is complaining that the iPhone 7+ has half the battery life of the 6s+, nor the 6s half that of the 6. It was all nonsense. Yes, RAM uses power, the more RAM, the more power consumed. However USING RAM consumes power too, so the actual benchmark itself—how much it hits the RAM and how much RAM it hits—influences battery life. Finally, the CPU, GPU, SSD, LCD & backlight, keyboard backlight… these are ALL things that MUNCH power. To say that doubling RAM somehow disproportionately gobbles MUCH MORE power is absurd. (Then again, we should all have come to expect such nonsense from Phil the Schill.) So I'd love to see sofila run such a test with similar hardware (the NUC –IS– similar) and see what comes of it. Somebody will, and I'd bet a beer Apple is ********ting the community. Which is a risky proposition, considering, in this case, "Pros" inherently include engineers who know how to disprove such bullpucky.

 

[bretm]

Good answer. 99% of all users value battery life over masses of unnecessary RAM that macOS really doesn't need. I'm glad Apple remains focused on the important things.

Tell that to my 32gb iMac that can completely deplete the RAM when rendering a complicated timeline in FCP X and return an out of memory error. And lord forbid I be running a 2nd app at the time!

In my world, 16gb is not professional.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Maybe I'm a bit late to the convo, but you were designing computer hard/software in the 70's?

Mid-late 70s, yes.

My first computer was an Apple 1, which I still own. Got paid for writing software by 1978, IIRC.

 

[0388631]

Meanwhile I'm quite chuffed I can control how much Premier uses of my 64 GB of RAM.

 

[Ploki]

Good answer. 99% of all users value battery life over masses of unnecessary RAM that macOS really doesn't need. I'm glad Apple remains focused on the important things.

i love this statement. I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, but to be honest, I agree with you either way, if you're sarcastic, or if you're sincere.
[doublepost=1477725660][/doublepost]These comments are toxic. Nothing valued of opinions, discussions, ideas. Only toxicity. I'm out.

 

[dilbert99]

Good answer. 99% of all users value battery life over masses of unnecessary RAM that macOS really doesn't need. I'm glad Apple remains focused on the important things.

Those who don't need the ram would order the one with only 16GB ram so wouldn't be affected.
Those who need 32GB ram, which would include a lot of users who don't need it today but will in 2 years with software upgrades and since Apple solders the goddam ram, you need to max it out up front.

When I got my rMBP I didn't need 16GB ram, but had to specify it and I am glad I did because I needed it later.
[doublepost=1477726354][/doublepost]

Give it time. I'm sure OWC will come up with their own memory that will allow 32GB in this machine.

You'd better have good soldering skills.
[doublepost=1477726459][/doublepost]

Apple's new product next year: Macbook Pro Plus (with 32 gb of ram)

They might need to buy out a company to get the trademark - http://www.proplus.co.uk
[doublepost=1477726839][/doublepost]

Most of us? Essentially 100% of the time?

Are you serious? Perhaps you should only speak for yourself.

I used to get a lot of hours out of my rMBP, didn't initially need my charger at work, now lucky if I get 3.5 hours using safari.

 

[ginkobiloba]

Availability has already slipped so there are plenty of morons buying this MBP from greedy Apple.

I bet they're building half the stock amount of the previous MBP. That way they can "sold out" very easily.

 

[DexBell]

Or Apple could just offer it if that is what people want and are willing to pay for...

Why? For the VERY few people who will buy it? Im pretty sure Apple has a pretty good R&D department and they know the vast majority of people are never going to need more than 16GB (hell, most people dont even need 8GB), so why spend all that money on a niche model thats going to sit on shelves? People who think a company should meet their every wish and demand are quite comical. There are other options for people who need an 32GB of RAM, go forth and buy it and stop complaining in here, no one cares.

 

[pika2000]

Did you not read my full response? I did answer. I don't use 32GB of RAM, but I want more than 16GB so that I won't feel RAM pressure during the lifespan of the machine. I don't think this should be difficult to comprehend.

Again, users that actually used that much RAM can detailed down their scenarios, just like the user I mentioned. And again, that's what I'm curious about. Sounds like you are complaining just because, and then you end up only calling others names. So I guess it is difficult for you to have a discussion without resorting to calling names.

Anyway, why stop at 32GB then? Dell Precision 7000 can go up to 64GB. If you complain about future proofing and know the kind of usage that demand that huge amount of RAM, you would've wanted more. But you only stop t 32GB without even being able to describe any specific scenarios. But let's start calling names instead.

Just a comparison, Surface Pros and Surface Books are also maxed at 16GB RAM, and they are targeted towards Pro as well.

 

[JGRE]

Apple's new product next year: Macbook Pro Plus (with 32 gb of ram)

Yes, and they will charge 1000 dollar extra for it.
[doublepost=1477728687][/doublepost]

Why? For the VERY few people who will buy it? Im pretty sure Apple has a pretty good R&D department and they know the vast majority of people are never going to need more than 16GB (hell, most people dont even need 8GB), so why spend all that money on a niche model thats going to sit on shelves? People who think a company should meet their every wish and demand and comical. There are other options for people who need an absurd 32GB of RAM, go forth and buy it and stop complaining, no one cares.

Completely correct, most people also don't need cars with more than 200 Bhp, lets call Ferrari and Lamborghini right now!!!!

 

[MacBH928]

Make a PRO laptop thinner than a laptop that was so thin it was introduced in a Manila envelope, then make excuse how you had to sell under-powered computers because it will take a toll on the battery life.

logic...

 

[Larry-K]

If you are willing to plug in to use 32GB of memory, then buy a Mac Pro with 32GB or 64GB of memory. Then have a MacBook Pro when you're on the road. Apple is giving you options. People are just filtering the truth to make an argument.

So you're suggesting that because the new MacBook Pro is such a weak POS, one should buy an additional computer (The delightfully overpriced and woefully out-of-date Mac Pro, no less) in order to utilize what would be $100 of extra RAM ($400 if purchased from Apple).

Now that's filtering.

 

[Bacillus]

OMG
The Schiller guy lacks the elementary insight that memory-swapping costs even more energy...

 

[JGRE]

You're in a pretty unique position to TEST Phil's nonsense, I mean technical answer. If you happen to have 2x8GB sticks (16GB) and a KillAWatt you could measure the power consumption of your NUC performing a basic "benchmark" and expose the delta of the power draw between them. The LENGTH of the test is less material to the difference in power draw between them; otherwise the "battery" (total energy available) is relative. If your NUC draws Y Watts with 16GB and Z Watts with 32, the difference between Y and Z would answer the Question. If Y/Z is greater than 80% (which I'd bet it is) than Schiller is full of *****. That would mean that a 10hr test on 16GB would yield >8hr on 32GB, and I don't think too many "Pros" would lose sleep over that.

For the record, this was the same nonsense that Apple spouted about the iPhone 6/+ with its 1GB of RAM. Funny how that turned out… the iPhone 6s/s+ shipped with 2GB and the iPhone 7 with 2GB and 7+ with 3GB! And yet NOBODY is complaining that the iPhone 7+ has half the battery life of the 6s+, nor the 6s half that of the 6. It was all nonsense. Yes, RAM uses power, the more RAM, the more power consumed. However USING RAM consumes power too, so the actual benchmark itself—how much it hits the RAM and how much RAM it hits—influences battery life. Finally, the CPU, GPU, SSD, LCD & backlight, keyboard backlight… these are ALL things that MUNCH power. To say that doubling RAM somehow disproportionately gobbles MUCH MORE power is absurd. (Then again, we should all have come to expect such nonsense from Phil the Schill.) So I'd love to see sofila run such a test with similar hardware (the NUC –IS– similar) and see what comes of it. Somebody will, and I'd bet a beer Apple is ********ting the community. Which is a risky proposition, considering, in this case, "Pros" inherently include engineers who know how to disprove such bullpucky.

Yes, when I double my RAM in my old 2011 MBP from 4 to 8 GB I did not notice any difference in battery life (at all). I probably even got better as the hard disk did not need to swapping constantly (as pointed put some posts above).

 

[Bacillus]

Let's collect some money for Phil to attend elementary IT education.
With his reasoning, they should have configured the Air (which is thicker...!!) more Pro than the Pro. And rename the regular MacBook => "Air"...

 

[DexBell]

So you're suggesting that because the new MacBook Pro is such a weak POS, one should buy an additional computer (The delightfully overpriced and woefully out-of-date Mac Pro, no less) in order to utilize what would be $100 of extra RAM ($400 if purchased from Apple).

Now that's filtering.

Seems like you hate Apple computers. Stop trolling and go find a Windows forum, buy some PCs and get on with your life kid. Bye.

 

[amegicfox]

so they have power to feed that stupid led bar but not keep 32GB of RAM running?

what idiots are running apple

 

[robertosh]

Is really important the battery life for a PRO usage? I don't see me exporting a 4k video using the battery. Even they showed in the keynote a "typical" pro studio with the macbook being charged all the time.

 

[Mad Pierre]

I edit video professionally. 16GB just isn't enough. These just aren't for me. Currently using Mac Pro, but if I wanted to be portable Apple don't provide the answer.

 

[amegicfox]

the reason why the iPad has been successful after so many tablets failed is because of a 12 hours battery life.

Microsoft and many other companies have been (poorly) selling tablets since the 90s but the battery would only last 3 hours

BATTERY LIFE and WEIGHT is very very important in a laptop as well, NOT THICKNESS or SIZE

Having said that, Jony should have left the required battery to have at least 12 hours (like the MacBook air)
and try to make it lighter may using a new tech battery.

THINNER doesn't matter, it's WEIGHT that matters

of course Timmy will approve anything that comes out of the lab since he is busy traveling and counting money as well as scared to contradict Jony

believe or not these are the people running Apple today

 

[the8thark]

Performance Per Watt. Remember Jobs introducing the first MacBook Pros? His story was that this time, Apple found a way to keep up performance and maintain battery life. He called it a big step forward and named it the "Pro" (at 1:18:15 sec)

Apple nowadays likes to release new products out of price range with poor performance. That's the same thing like selling the G5 PowerBook.

Bonus: The anouncement of iSight was a big thing at the first MacBook Pro release. A massive hardware update for that time. Jobs didn't took almost an hour to talk about it. He just told us, gave a fun demo and left us exited. That's how a keynote should be. That's why I will always look back Keynotes. To hear Jobs and get that "Apple feeling" again. I'm feeling old...

Steve said "we're done with power"
He sure was not wrong there.

 

[Eric_Z]

People buy objects that fulfill their needs.

People don't need a laptop per se, they need a mobile computing device to get certain stuff done.

Some people need a list of things that a laptop with more then 16GB of RAM can give them. Sometimes you need less, like me typing this on a RaspberryPi 3 (works just swimmingly).

Like my girlfriend the credit analyst, who may need to juggle multiple large databases in Excel. Or me that may need to run a VM with a big code base to debug an embedded system, or to get a simulation running fast enough.

A certain subset of professionals and hobbyists are in need of that RAM, and like in all things they do, Apple takes a risk when not catering to the market that I represent. It can be ok, and it may be ... less than ok. Given the glacial pace of Apples Mac updates, I'm a bit concerned. But certainly, the group of people for whom the Apple brand image and related class signaling power serves a far more important role than performance, this will be of a lesser concern.

 

[amegicfox]

Is really important the battery life for a PRO usage? I don't see me exporting a 4k video using the battery. Even they showed in the keynote a "typical" pro studio with the macbook being charged all the time.

I think Jony Ive just read your comments and plans to have the next MacBook without batteries so it will be 2mm skinnier.
You will get in the box a free battery back in case you want to travel.
[doublepost=1477733884][/doublepost]

Steve said "we're done with power"
He sure was not wrong there.

After they fired Scott Forestall there is no communication between engineers and narcissistic self centered Jony.
And since the software is detached from the battery, there is no optimization.