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

[CraigN]

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'd expect that 99% of users who would actually use 32GB (rather than those who just want it for want's sake) will have their machines plugged in most of the time. They could even have added a nice disclaimer that said "expect 10% less battery time if you buy 32GB" and most people would have not even blinked. Battery-only mode when you're thrashing a machine regularly isn't that much fun for battery charge and life.

Not adding a 32GB option because they're worried about battery life is just stupid and is a decision made by marketing people rather than genuine techies.

Edit: just thinking of regularly thrashing a machine on batteries that's this hard to physically support is making me cringe.

 

[bigcat]

Since Apple appears ok now with having multiple lines of their products, why can't they just leave these Pro machines alone and simply update them every year to the most recent, most powerful processors/chips/ram available? Don't try to make them thinner, don't try to make them fancier at the cost of performance.

Then have another line for average users where they put their latest "innovations" (i.e, magic touch bar) and worry about battery life here.

Fact is, no battery can keep up with many pro applications and use cases due to the stress they put on the system. Machines have to be plugged in anyway.

All things considered (hardware + os), these are the best machines money can buy. I've tried going elsewhere in the past and I keep coming back to these systems. Apple has the power to try and make everyone happy (ok, almost everyone ) and it's just frustrating when they won't.

My 2012 rMBP has 16gb and I've hit a wall, and can't believe I'll have to continue waiting and hoping 2017 will bring Kaby Lake with a 32gb option. I can't consider a desktop since I need something I can throw in my backpack and run to my office or a client site.

 

[Bacillus]

It's like the stereotype of people who use Macbooks Pro were only designers and people who deal with image, video and architecture. There's a big community of software developers, scientists and engineers (not only the civil/mechanical ones) who don't give a s*** for those apps. Those people need stuff like VMWare, Weka, Python, R language, Java (and its RAM-hungry tools), C++, Fortran, huge spreadsheets, huge local database queries and so on.

I am with you.
But I have stopped explaining so to VP's driven in Bentley's to fashion shows, running around Beverley Hills in their Hawaiian T-shirts and catwalk types unable to drive 16Gb+ memory

 

[Ener Ji]

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.

Who is calling names?

Anyway, I don't understand where you are coming from. Why are you creating straw man arguments? This is very simple: *I* want more than 16GB of RAM in my next laptop. I am willing to pay for it. As Apple is not (yet) offering me that option, I am not going to purchase a new laptop from them. It's as simple as that.

 

[TrueBlou]

Think we're heading to the point where they should consider renaming them, Pro is going to be a bit of a fallacy. Limited RAM, limiting the input options what's next.

I suppose part of the trouble is that despite being a MacBook "Pro", the biggest market for them are decidedly non-pro users. So Apple are starting to cater to that larger market section. Trouble is, in doing so they are going to end up losing some actual pro level users who just demand more from their systems.

I actually quite fancy one of the new MacBooks, but I won't buy one because I regularly push beyond 16GB of memory. I'm sure I'd probably cope, what with it having faster storage so therefore faster paging. But damnit I'd rather have the option of more memory and to hell with the battery.
Christ they could surely design the damn thing to access 16GB on battery power and get full access when plugged in, I'd compromise with that. But I guess the MacBook isn't an option now for some of us to have as their only Mac, fine for mobility but we're going to need a desktop system as well for the full grunt.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

Okay, but I think you would agree that current technology for laptops vs. desktops isn't equivalent. It sounds to me like some of the complaining is really just refusing to get a desktop involved in some of the tasks.

No....there are laptops out there that do this. Just not apple. Which would not be an issue except...well at $3300 (what I spec'd at for giggles and grins, 512 drive, upgrade video) it should be there. And the reason why is weak for it not being there. too much power. Serious "workstation" laptop users and yes gaming laptop users (see they like NVidia for games, some like us like NVidia or even amd for core sharing, cuda or open cl a wonderful thing)....we don't even look at battery life. Our tasks we know will kill a battery regardless.

My several hour rated mid 15 rMBP for many tasks I do will be dead and drained in less than hour not on house power. CPU pegged, fans full speed ahead. memory and ssd I/o firing off...this happens often for me. And other users who push system limits.

desktop not always an option. At least in my case I like the portability. And the centrality. example: I take data science classes. I want to work on my assignments/projects at lunch. Everything this is on the laptop.

I do video and photography. Case of FCP there can the nice 100gb file of apple pro res goodness already loaded into the project/event.

To work the MBP goes, lunch time work on projects. At home I assist/oversee my son's homework in his room. he does his work I do mine and stop when he needs me. Watch tv with my son for his chill time. Likes youtube streams on the apple tv, I make sure linked vid recommendation don't go to bad places. On the mbp again.

Its not that I am refusing to buy a desktop to be stubborn or difficult. I am refusing to spend $2000 + monitor in a hunk of metal and plastic I might see in the 2-3 hours between me putting my son to bed and later putting me into bed really.

Again if a midline dell and the midline price of say $900-1100...we wouldn't be arguing this. Its over 3000 when you tack on (imo) needed upgrades. its not really meeting some expectations for that price.

 

[Ener Ji]

My 2012 rMBP has 16gb and I've hit a wall, and can't believe I'll have to continue waiting and hoping 2017 will bring Kaby Lake with a 32gb option. I can't consider a desktop since I need something I can throw in my backpack and run to my office or a client site.

I'm sure this new form factor is going to be with us for at least 2-3 years, much like the previous Retina Macbook Pro. I imagine Apple has planned ahead with the new form factor, and has a plan to make minor spec updates over the next couple of years. My best guess is we'll see Kaby Lake and 32GB (and maybe 24GB?) of RAM as options within the next 6-12 months. I hope we'll also see 802.11AC Wave 2.

I am a bit disappointed that Apple has reduced the battery capacity by 24% in the latest models. Due to other efficiency gains they still claim 10 hours of use, but I'd rather have more. Given that this new form factor doesn't leave much room to grow the battery, there probably isn't much hope for significantly improved battery life over the next couple of years.

I'm kind of astonished to be thinking this, but when I can hold out no longer and need to upgrade, I think I'm probably going to cross-shop the latest Dell XPS 15 and Razer Blade against the Macbook Pro. Right now I don't know if either of those would win, but if Apple sits on its laurels while Dell refreshes the XPS 15 next year...who knows what I'll do.

 

[gnipgnop]

Apple wants to sell phones and pretty thin laptop to starbucks hipster duffs. Professionals are WAY down the list of priorities now.

I haven't really seen a logical reason yet in this thread for saying Apple isn't serving professionals.

Can you max out 16GB of RAM if you run multiple intensive tasks at the same time? Sure. But you can do that for 32GB. And 64GB. And 128GB. So maxing out the memory is really just a matter of how much you personally choose to pile on at the same time, and not so much with the ability of the system to run professional applications in a mobile form factor. This is actually a golden age for mobile computing. It's incredible how much more powerful these systems are and how much less power they actually consume to get there, even compared to just a few years ago.

 

[Ener Ji]

PSA: Anyone unhappy with the latest Apple products, please send Apple feedback here:

https://www.apple.com/feedback/

Aside from voting with our wallets, sending them feedback via the above link is probably the most effective way to make our desires known.

 

[tqwcs]

I haven't really seen a logical reason yet in this thread for saying Apple isn't serving professionals.

Can you max out 16GB of RAM if you run multiple intensive tasks at the same time? Sure. But you can do that for 32GB. And 64GB. And 128GB. So maxing out the memory is really just a matter of how much you personally choose to pile on at the same time, and not so much with the ability of the system to run professional applications in a mobile form factor. This is actually a golden age for mobile computing. It's incredible how much more powerful these systems are and how much less power they actually consume to get there, even compared to just a few years ago.

Can't we apply that argument to 16GB? 16BG is A LOT of ram and to use that much ram it really just comes down to how much you choose to pile on at the same time. So 8GB or 4GB should be fine for the professional user.

The point is that we are maxing out 16GB of ram. I've been maxing it out for years. It slows me down. I need to run multiple DBs/VMs/IDE's at the same time. I target a lot of platforms, DBs, languages. Spinning up and down applications every time I need to context switch to different project is a major time killer. I don't know why you are attacking people who have a different workload than you. You don't need 32GB of ram. Thats fine. We do. Stop trying to convince us that we are wrong.

I guess you need to wait for apple to let you know when you need 32GB of ram.

 

[trifid]

Phill schiller's excuse is BS, there has to be another reason, and I wouldn't be surprised if the reason was either:

1. Not enough space in logic board due to compactness/thinness obsession

2. Not profitable enough due to Apple aiming this at wider market and less at professional niche markets

 

[gnipgnop]

For your first post, See post this post: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...y-life-concerns.2010291/page-22#post-23819197
Any demanding program that uses close to 16GB WILL run faster in 32GB because you don't need to use swap disk.

For your second:
R, Python, Java, C++, Jags, Stan, to name a few. Give me more RAM and I can make bigger models incorporating more data. It is as simple as that.

Friend -you are not informed on what all 'pro users' do with their macbooks.

Yet, at the same time, you're always accepting a wide variety of technical performance compromises by choosing a laptop in the first place...and that's true regardless of the brand. The CPU/GPU combinations aren't as powerful as a desktop. The RAM configurations are smaller. Internal storage is more limited...etc., etc. So why is anyone doing intensive professional work choosing a laptop? Because they're now as powerful as desktop workstations used to be not too long ago, AND most of the pro software is legacy and doesn't increase system requirements all that often. It gets easier and easier to perform certain types of professional tasks on laptops.

 

[Workerbee Redux]

Dude...name the programs and their recommended system requirements.

- R
- Postgres
- VirtualBox
- Apache Tomcat
- Eclipse
- Webstorm
- Docker
- Chrome

I can give you no "recommended" requirements because they are all tools for software development. The amount of RAM they use depends entirely of the amount of data in your projects. They will each run with 500MB of RAM, but in my current project, Tomcat alone runs an application that takes a cool 12GB of RAM. And Postgres is the database that stores the data for it.

And, while switching to a desktop/laptop setup would be an option, switching to Linux is less disruptive. I love Macs and I like macOS, but the direction Apple is taking shows me my needs are no longer met by their lineup.

 

[gnipgnop]

I don't know why you are attacking people who have a different workload than you. You don't need 32GB of ram. Thats fine. We do. Stop trying to convince us that we are wrong.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they can't max out their RAM. Just like I wouldn't try to convince anyone that they can't max out their drive space. However, I don't really understand the argument that simply because you CAN max it out, that means Apple isn't generally serving professional users.

 

[Digital Dude]

Guys, let us vote with our wallets and not buy this garbage. I for one, will look elsewhere.

Well, that was easy. During the presentation when I saw the Photoshop rep using the trackpad in combo with the touch bar, it was like watching a person playing a violin inside a phone booth. The whole presentation was disappointing, and at first, I just thought it was me. Then I came up here to read a growing list of unhappy Mac users that pretty much echoed my thoughts. Heck, I couldn't believe Tim Cook's lackluster performance whereby he didn't appear to be all that prepared as he constantly read from the teleprompter. Anyway, as it stands now I don't plan to buy one of these even though I was in the market prior to the presentation.

 

[BenTrovato]

This is the MacBook Air Pro, not a MacBook Pro. For those of us who simply need more RAM to do our jobs, battery life does not matter at all. Anything that requires 20 - 30GB of RAM will want to be plugged in anyway. Stupid explanation that makes zero sense. Their number #1 priority was thin, get it thinner. I don't need it thinner, I want a 17 inch, thick MacBook Pro that has serious cooling fans and 64GB of memory.

Some of us just need the RAM period. I put off buying a new laptop for a year waiting for this junk. This is a MacBook Toy, not a MacBook Pro.

I will be maxing out this http://www.eluktronics.com/P670 or this http://www.eluktronics.com/p770dm-g

If they are not going to build us what we need, they should at least let us run macOS in a VM, but they don't allow that either.

Apple has lost its way.

Not that I disagree with your complaints against Apple but unless I absolutely needed more than 16gb of RAM or a higher end video card, I would rather pay double to use a new MBP instead of that Eluktro clunker.

 

[The Mercurian]

Yet, at the same time, you're always accepting a wide variety of technical performance compromises by choosing a laptop in the first place...and that's true regardless of the brand. The CPU/GPU combinations aren't as powerful as a desktop. The RAM configurations are smaller. Internal storage is more limited...etc., etc. So why is anyone doing intensive professional work choosing a laptop? Because they're now as powerful as desktop workstations used to be not too long ago, AND most of the pro software is legacy and doesn't increase system requirements all that often. It gets easier and easier to perform certain types of professional tasks on laptops.

Some of us travel with our job and its kinda hard to drag a desktop around and getting a box and monitor on as hand luggage is a bitch

 

[tqwcs]

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they can't max out their RAM. Just like I wouldn't try to convince anyone that they can't max out their drive space. However, I don't really understand the argument that simply because you CAN max it out, that means Apple isn't generally serving professional users.

The sentiment is that apple isn't serving "us" as professional users anymore. Which is why I immediately started looking at other laptops after their announcement. I believe you will start seeing many developers jumping ship pretty soon. The browse the web/edit photo professionals will probably stay.

 

[The Mercurian]

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they can't max out their RAM. Just like I wouldn't try to convince anyone that they can't max out their drive space. However, I don't really understand the argument that simply because you CAN max it out, that means Apple isn't generally serving professional users.

Yup you said it yourself - you don't understand the argument. Thats because you are dismissing any viewpoint that disagrees with your preconceived opinion.

 

[mi7chy]

High end laptops are sort of a compromise. Not many laptops support a minimum of 32GB for things like virtualization, high resolution photo and video editing, etc. while the few that do like Thinkpad P50 and P70 that support up to 64GB with Xeon class CPUs have gimped dGPU. Razer Blade Pro 2016 seems the most well-rounded with top of the line GTX 1080 dGPU with 3840x2160 touchscreen but DRAM is capped at 32GB.

 

[Markarian421]

I haven't really seen a logical reason yet in this thread for saying Apple isn't serving professionals.

Then you're not paying attention. Maybe I can help.

It's like the stereotype of people who use Macbooks Pro were only designers and people who deal with image, video and architecture. There's a big community of software developers, scientists and engineers (not only the civil/mechanical ones) who don't give a s*** for those apps. Those people need stuff like VMWare, Weka, Python, R language, Java (and its RAM-hungry tools), C++, Fortran, huge spreadsheets, huge local database queries and so on.

Yes, this. I'm a physicist. I remember years ago, in the early 2000's, when we were all using Linux desktop and occasionally laptops, but Linux laptops (back then at least) were a bit of a pain. Then OSX came along, and a user friendly UNIX was an amazing thing. Slowly at first we started getting mac laptops -- in my case it was almost an experiment. I wanted something small and portable, and within a month of getting it I ended up sys admin'ing the installation of a small Linux computer cluster for a new instrument for a telescope on Mauna Kea, and I couldn't have been happier. I thought there was no going back after that. Then people started replacing their workhorse desktop Linux boxes with Mac Pros, and as one colleague said "it was like overnight everyone had macs." Apple was on the cutting edge for real high end research users. (Apple even had booths at astrophysics conferences showing off Mac Pros.)

I'm in R&D now (for a private company so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail). We make scientific instruments and sell hundreds a year, these are typically multi-user research instruments with many users each, so for our tiny fraction of the research universe there are thousands of users. Users who traditionally, over the last decade, have favored macs. I regularly deal with data stacks that are about 16GB in size. My two year old workhorse desktop which I use for data analysis and simulations has 128GB of memory and I max it out regularly. (It's been years since I could justify that kind of machine being a Mac Pro.) But for a laptop, if I just want to deal with a little of that data, if you want to actually process something that size you need some headroom, so the absolute minimum memory for any of our machines is 32GB. And that's for our last generation instruments, not the next generation stuff. So 32GB is the bare minimum for any of the thousands of users in my tiny corner of the research universe. None of those thousands of computers are going to be Macbook Pros. Over a decade ago "it was like overnight everyone had macs" but now I'm seeing the opposite, the Mac Pros are long gone and all those Macbook Pros were already fading away before this update. It's clear this update isn't going to change that.

 

[thats all folks]

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they can't max out their RAM. Just like I wouldn't try to convince anyone that they can't max out their drive space. However, I don't really understand the argument that simply because you CAN max it out, that means Apple isn't generally serving professional users.

just because you cant understand doesn't make it not true.

most of the comments here about needing more are from developers, I don't know much about that world but I'm going to accept what they say because it makes sense. my world is video and image production. we can always use more RAM.

it's not just that some specific task takes more than 16GB of RAM, it's that as RAM becomes cheaper and more prolific, the software is developed to make ever more an better use of it (provided you have enough). So can work be done with 16GB of RAM yes? can work be done faster with more? absolutely. when things that used to take minutes now take seconds and when things that used to take seconds are now instantaneous, we want all the RAM we can get.

it's not just about shaving some time off the workday. it's about maintaining your focus, about being willing to try other things, knowing they wont knock you out for 10 minutes if you decide to go back. it's about interaction choices that used to be a deliberate decision (because of the time cost and limited resources) are now near instantaneous (because the software has been optimized for a large pool of available RAM).

 

[spacebro]

This is such a ******** insulting answer. If 32gb ram would really kill battery life, they have enough engineers who could figure out how to turn off all but 16gb when on battery or to only turn on the other 16gb when it is needed. Schiller is saying its raining out while he is pissing on all your faces. Steve jobs would have never allowed this middling piece of **** to be released, he would have thrown a temper tantrum until they included a 64gb option.

 

[gnipgnop]

it's not just that some specific task takes more than 16GB of RAM, it's that as RAM becomes cheaper and more prolific, the software is developed to make ever more an better use of it (provided you have enough). So can work be done with 16GB of RAM yes? can work be done faster with more? absolutely. when things that used to take minutes now take seconds and when things that used to take seconds are now instantaneous, we want all the RAM we can get.

From what I've seen, the trend in professional graphics software is to put greater and greater emphasis on the memory and performance in the GPU, not the system memory. Thus the relatively recent jump in GPU memory sizes. The days of system RAM as the blunt object is diminishing. Note that Apple is really gearing up with hires that have GPU architecture as their background these days.

 

[organicCPU]

...When it has to resort back to using disk, not only is it slower, you got the disk power penalty as well. More RAM would actually increase power reserves as it can keep more there instead of slow access.

I want to agree with that, but what about the energy for writing to the sleep image. If one puts the Mac to sleep 10 or 20 times a day to save energy, thats 320 to 640 GB of writes at 32 GB RAM, compared to 160 to 320 at 16 GB. What do you think: where would be the limit, of how often one can put a Mac to sleep each day (without fiddling around with hibernate mode), so that one saves more energy than spends, if you consider the 32 RAM that saves you writes in general and compare it to 16 GB that doesn't save you so much writes, but belches out less data for sleep mode?

...If you add a 3rd option you start messing with economic variables. This is a purely cost effective decision not a performance one.

I'm thinking about the soldered RAM for the whole day. I would take 32 GB and risk less battery life, yet. Probably you're right to blame it on faster lower production costs and more profit. Is there really not another technical reason behind soldering RAM instead of plugging. I never liked soldered RAM, it's a pity that you need advanced hardware skills to expand or repair it. I'd sleep better again, if I knew that there is some reasonable advantage in soldering the RAM.

1. Not enough space in logic board due to compactness/thinness obsession

Good point... If that's the reason, I'd live with it being a little thicker than the MacBook Air!