Why does it make more sense if others have announced it, and why is change good if it doesn't add any utility or benefit? And how is it "zero difference" when you can't charge your phone while listening to music? (unless you buy an expensive adapter)
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.
New MacBook Pros Max Out at 16GB RAM Due to Battery Life Concerns
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why does it make more sense if others have announced it, and why is change good if it doesn't add any utility or benefit? And how is it "zero difference" when you can't charge your phone while listening to music? (unless you buy an expensive adapter)
Clueless is believing Phil Schiller’s claims about memory having any impact on battery life. The capacity of memory chips has almost no impact on the amount of power they consume.
So you are saying more RAM only helps when you need more RAM. Thats what everyone has been saying all along. We need more RAM to make the workloads we run faster. I bought my mac in 2012 and it has 16GB of ram. There is absolutely no reason that it should max out at 16GB today. If I pay that much for a laptop I want it to be relatively future proof(at least 2-3 years). Setting the max RAM at 16GB is not a future proof machine.
But I guess as long as you can scroll through your large photo collection quickly everything is fine.
It will be interesting to see what happens when apple keeps pushing the needs of developers aside(the other professional users).
Good point. I'm a professional developer, currently working on IT infrastructure, and use virtualization (host Virtual Machines/Virtual Guest OSes) a lot. I have 32GB in my 2012 iMac and need it. Since the speed of my iMac is acceptable and my machine is quad core i7, I figure the MacBook Pro would retain the environment that's fast enough for me to work, and give me the extra portability and nifty touch bar. I could get a couple of 5K monitors and doc it for office use.
As for the 5K monitors, I really don't want to go with a 3rd party solution. I have been waiting forever for the thunderbolt display refresh to retina, and wanted the Apple product with the Apple look and feel.
Because of the 16GB memory limit, now I'm stuck waiting for a refresh of the iMac line, and the extra retina monitor, Apple branded, if they haven't officially dropped the ball on that. And, as usual Apple isn't tipping their hand, so I'm just stuck in limbo with no satisfactory upgrade option, feeling that if I buy now I'm going to regret not waiting another few months for the desktop refresh, if that's all it is. But it is making me uncomfortable as my iMac is starting to feel dated. So I feel this is a real disservice by Apple. And knowing that they have like 1/4 trillion in the bank and could address this better is a bit frustrating too although I guess that technically should not be my concern.
A previous poster's observation was astute, calling it the Macbook *Pro* is a bit of a misnomer, since Apple really not keeping up with what it means to be a pro, at least for many technical roles, with the 16GB limit. Someone else online pointed out Apple went with "form over function", by deciding it was more important to make the notebook even thinner, but sacrificing battery life and memory expansion. And I think they could have kept it the same size and increase the power, and moved to thin it down next time.
People like me count on Apple to come through with state-of-the-art hardware that supports us in our technical role and to keep up with advances in technology. Reliable communication and proper setting of expectations is important too. Apple's little game of keeping everyone hanging all the time gets old after awhile and it's hard not to start to resent Apple for keeping me perpetually in too much suspense about things important to my professional work. I keep bearing with Apple and love their stuff, but if PCs get to a point where I can no longer justify the wait... I shudder at the thought, but Apple, don't let down your loyal fans.
As for the 5K monitors, I really don't want to go with a 3rd party solution. I have been waiting forever for the thunderbolt display refresh to retina, and wanted the Apple product with the Apple look and feel.
Because of the 16GB memory limit, now I'm stuck waiting for a refresh of the iMac line, and the extra retina monitor, Apple branded, if they haven't officially dropped the ball on that. And, as usual Apple isn't tipping their hand, so I'm just stuck in limbo with no satisfactory upgrade option, feeling that if I buy now I'm going to regret not waiting another few months for the desktop refresh, if that's all it is. But it is making me uncomfortable as my iMac is starting to feel dated. So I feel this is a real disservice by Apple. And knowing that they have like 1/4 trillion in the bank and could address this better is a bit frustrating too although I guess that technically should not be my concern.
A previous poster's observation was astute, calling it the Macbook *Pro* is a bit of a misnomer, since Apple really not keeping up with what it means to be a pro, at least for many technical roles, with the 16GB limit. Someone else online pointed out Apple went with "form over function", by deciding it was more important to make the notebook even thinner, but sacrificing battery life and memory expansion. And I think they could have kept it the same size and increase the power, and moved to thin it down next time.
People like me count on Apple to come through with state-of-the-art hardware that supports us in our technical role and to keep up with advances in technology. Reliable communication and proper setting of expectations is important too. Apple's little game of keeping everyone hanging all the time gets old after awhile and it's hard not to start to resent Apple for keeping me perpetually in too much suspense about things important to my professional work. I keep bearing with Apple and love their stuff, but if PCs get to a point where I can no longer justify the wait... I shudder at the thought, but Apple, don't let down your loyal fans.
Last edited:
If you're slowing down your workload simply because you're running too many memory related tasks at the same time, then you can solve that problem by reducing the number of concurrent tasks. That's going to be true of any memory configuration: don't overload the memory and you'll get the optimal performance. As I said earlier in the thread, anyone can overload their system memory, regardless of what tasks they're doing. Doesn't matter if it's 8, 16, or 32.
[doublepost=1477841069][/doublepost]
The interesting thing about VMs is that the software companies that program them often tout how little system memory each VM will require due to the efficiency of their programming. VMWare actually uses the phrase "drastically reduced" on their web site.
Oh I understand your position now. Basically what you are saying to all those many, many people sums up as "you're using it wrong". Do you work for Apple ? If yes tell your bosses for me that they've lost my custom with this update
Dell have better support. Not sure why you are asking.
[doublepost=1477842456][/doublepost]
The first responses weren't actually intended to be rude at all, I guess the context got lost on you. My response direct to you was however intended to be rude.
No, I'm saying that the logic of "I can max out the memory, therefore it isn't a pro machine" doesn't really make sense considering that you can also max out 32GB. Or 64GB. Or 128GB. It's always going to be possible to max out the memory.
But I won't get OPTIMAL performance because I can't run all the programs I need to run without swapping. I will get amazing performance if I just run an IDE. I just won't get much work done.
And the VM issue. You are talking about VM overhead. Not the resources you need to devote to each VM. If I am running 4 VM's with vagrant and I give 1GB to each VM I am using 4GB + VM overhead.
I get what you are saying, given more resources we will run more programs(aka be more productive). We will find a way to max out 32GB and will want 64GB. So what. Thats the history of computing. If it were up to people like you we'd be stuck at 64K. After all, that was a TON OF MEMORY back in the day. Why do you want your company to have the courage to remove headphone jacks and HDMI ports but then leave the memory at the same level it has been at for 5 years.
Just accept it, Macs are becoming a less and less attractive option for developers. They are fine for you and your big photo library.
[doublepost=1477845469][/doublepost]
The argument is that that we NEED more memory due to the increasing memory pressure from running more and more complicated dev environments. The complexity is going to continue increasing. Not decrease.
We are saying the computer is not a viable option for OUR profession. It may be fine for yours. Therefore, its not a machine I would recommend to a professional software engineer.
But who runs only Mac OS? I'm constantly running out of RAM on my 2012 MBPr (16GB), both when working with multiple graphic programs and when running Logic Pro with larger instrument libraries. Forget trying to do both!
The fact that what is supposed to be a pro machine still maxes out at the same RAM configuration as 6 years ago is beyond my comprehension (yes MBP from mid 2010 maxed out at 16GB DDR3 RAM). Especially considering the old DDR3 RAM generates MORE heat than new DDR4 RAM. Hence, with DDR4 battery life should improve!
For this reasons I simply don't buy the "Battery Life" argument, it is technically moot. I smell a marketing decision! I'm guessing some smartypant has determined that 32GB RAM might cannibalise on iMac & MacPro sales.
Frankly; as nice as the new machines are, I also feel embarrassed on behalf of Apple in regard to the RAM situation.
[doublepost=1477849529][/doublepost]
Heck I remember back in 2010 when Apple Laptops maxed out at only 16GB of RAM...
If I were a professional software engineer, and I considered the amount of RAM available to be the primary concern of my job...I wouldn't be using a laptop as a primary workstation. I'd use the laptop as a complimentary device.
[doublepost=1477853328][/doublepost]
I would certainly agree that nobody is espousing logic.
The 6th gen i5/i7 CPU supports 64GB of memory. The previous generation of rMBPs with the 4th gen CPUs supports 32GB.
I had my rMBP 3 years ago with 16GB, following Moore's Law we should be having 32GB and 64GB models, not 8 and 16 as of today.
Some of the Lenovo and Dell workstation laptops with Xeon processors support 128 GB of memory.
the context was not there to get lost, the extent to which you are impressed with yourself is, you will not be missed.The first responses weren't actually intended to be rude at all, I guess the context got lost on you. My response direct to you was however intended to be rude.
In 3 years when they realizes that professionals who need higher specs have moves to other brands, Apple will decrease the maximum RAM to 4 GB.
The direction Apple is taking will essentially reduce their machines to being used by the few who only want to browse the Internet and check email.
Sadly, few can justify Apple's price for such limited uses. So the ChromeBook will likely overtake the MacBook Pro.
Just for the sake of playing devils advocate and hey, who here doesn't like a good debate
.......
Mine will be a complimentary system. That doesn't however mean I wouldn't like as much memory in it as I see fit for my purposes. I'd certainly be willing to compromise on a little bit of battery time if Apple offered the *option* of adding more RAM.
But they're not even doing that, they've just decided in their infinite wisdom that no-one who buys one of their laptops will ever need or want more than 16GB. That's super, but the point of mobility products is to allow you to continue your work away from your main workstation.
If I'm away for a few weeks, I'd still like available to me as much power and resources as possible. I can't think of a single good reason as to why they couldn't offer it as an optional upgrade. Even if they were worried about battery life as they claim, well if they can put a disclaimer up that a shiny phone will show scratches. Couldn't they put a disclaimer that more RAM could impact battery life and let us make the decision for ourselves.
Actually that's not true, I can think of two good reasons as far as Apple are concerned. By limiting the choices and not offering upgrades they can order larger quantities of the same specification motherboards from their suppliers and drive their cost down to maximise their profits even more without worrying about bto so much.
Secondly by limiting the RAM in the devices it's far easier for them to build in planned obsolescence. A few years down the line when macOS is putting much more strain on the system and we want better performance, we can all go and replace our struggling systems with shiny new ones.
And yes I'm very well aware of how good macOS is with memory but we don't know what the future holds and if some people consider 16GB too low now. It's sure as hell going to be too low in three or four years time. And while many of us will upgrade before that anyway, some people hold on to their £4000 computer for longer.
Or you know, I could buy a laptop that has 32GB of memory. Why not take the easy way out? Is the elegant apple way of solving problems to force people to buy two overpriced computers when one would do?
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now? When people prove 5 of your points wrong you ignore their arguments and focus on the minutia of one part of their argument.
LOL...I'll give you the two "decisions" that would have occurred in the threads of MacRumors:
A. Apple is charging too much for the upgrade! Nobody but Apple fanboys would pay that price!
B. 32GB should have been standard! How dare they treat this as build-to-order!
You know it's true. Just look at the LG monitor thread. In contrast to this thread, everyone is suddenly offended by the idea that they would buy a non-Apple product that doesn't have Apple design, materials, and finishes.
Absolutely spot on. When you start soldering RAM to the board you're not innovating, you're in the business of trying to manipulate customers. Many of the new product releases are light on significant hardware improvements/upgrades and heavy on hype ("marketing") that puts software upgrades or new software features out there like they're part of the new product. Shifty at best. Apple Watch is still a joke and will be until it can access cellular data.
Instead of buying this joke of a Macbook Pro, I'll simply get a new or refurbished 2011 quad core Macbook Pro and load 16GB of RAM on it and put an SSD HD or two on it. I'm involved in iOS development and Apple's very own IDE, Xcode, runs as slow as molasses on the most current, fastest MBPs with 16GB of RAM. How pathetic is it to have your own IDE running prohibitively slow on your own device and OS. I was hoping for 32GB of RAM this release and no go. Pathetic. "The engineers said..." Complete nonsense. You're in the business of managing margins and sale cycles now, Phil.
The only reason I stick around at this point is because of the stability of Apple's OS environment and the fact that the devices tend to last longer. Give me an option to put MacOS Sierra on another device and I am gone!
Let me know when they can run OSX,THAT's the other 1/2 of the equation, cannot go back to WINDOWS
Well I've been waiting for this update for years now, and was literally ready to click Buy. Then I realized 16GB max. A 2.7ghz with 512GB SSD+Radeon 460 is $3619 CDN + 15% Tax = $4161. With 16GB. You have to be ******** me, Apple.
So I will be skipping this, see if they get it right with the Kaby Lake update (which does support LPDDR4), and if my MBP dies before then I'm switching to Windows and selling my ios devices as well.
So I will be skipping this, see if they get it right with the Kaby Lake update (which does support LPDDR4), and if my MBP dies before then I'm switching to Windows and selling my ios devices as well.
Erm... that's fine if you just use VMs for lightweight tasks or for simple desktop replication. I use mine to replicate whole infrastructures on a micro scale and do specific tasks like troubleshoot bottlenecks, my VMs use their full allocation because that's what I spec the VMs to do. I want a guaranteed processor core allocation, a guaranteed memory allocation and a guaranteed disk space allocation, I certainly don't want a machine that's even suggesting paging to disk because it's getting twitchy over host OS memory overhead.
I mentioned on an earlier post that I don't expect my MBP to be a workstation, like my Mac Pro, but I do expect it to be capable of acting like a mobile mini-workstation. For years, that's what's happened. I COULD run a good setup on the new MBP but it's already going to be stretching the memory limits, what about next year? What about 2019? I can't exactly open up the tin and upgrade the memory these days.