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.
Oh, sure, Apple addresses complaints after the fact....
- Thread starter NJRonbo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Once again... TYPE folks. There's a myriad of different types of RAM. And they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, performance envelopes, and limitations.
The Skylake and Kaby Lake (BOTH!! Even if Apple waited for the Kaby Lake i7's... maybe... MAYBE early 2017? MAYBE December? Weirdly enough, the "U" series Kaby Lakes will support LPDDR4. So, weirdly enough, base model 2.0GHz 13" models and the 12" MacBook could support 32GB if they went to Kaby Lake; but if the 15" models went to Kaby Lake they would STILL be limited to 16GB! And Apple isn't likely to add to the confusion by giving a 32GB option on those models; assuming Kaby Lake refreshes even come; which I don't expect myself) do not support more than 16GB of LPDDR3. That's the low-power RAM that enables the 10+ hour battery life on these machines, while still being thinner and lighter and having smaller batteries. (The batteries are significantly smaller with no reduction in battery life; that's a feat of more efficient computing that allows them to be both faster AND lighter than previous generations). Now, it's no secret some would be happy to return to thicker heavier laptops if it meant they could use more RAM. But since most people just want more RAM so they can have a 'higher number', and while there are real situations where people actually need it, the overwhelming majority; folks doing photo and video editing, etc., do not need it. So Apple continued on the Steve Jobs strategy that began in 2005; making efficient, thin, light notebooks.
So once again; to recap; the Skylake and Kaby Lake chips only support exceeding 16GB of desktop-class DDR3/DDR4 RAM which is power hungry. Using LPDDR RAM (the LP stands for "Low Power") the limit is 16GB. The current roadmap places support for more than 16GB, and support for LPDDR4, somewhere in late 2017, early 2018 with Cannonlake.
Hence the unnecessary fuss over Kaby Lake. The integrated GPU is faster, which is a missed opportunity for the 13", but the CPU component isn't really faster. The big improvements will come with Cannonlake. Like any other guesser on this forums I'm just guessing; but I don't think we'll ever see Kaby Lake MBP's (maybe Kaby Lake desktops). I think the fact that Apple didn't wait a few more months for Kaby Lake shows that they weren't interested in it's minor bumps; and it doesn't support more RAM either. I think the next refresh will come with Cannonlake; and that's when you'll see 32GB available.
Last edited:
It can definitely be done. But not outside of the way most users are going to use it. Heavy duty virtual machine work for example can definitely do it. Stuff that a few years ago, we'd never dream of doing on a notebook anyway.
There are very powerful (and thick/heavy with 60 minute battery life's) workstation laptops out there probably better suited for those applications. You can get Xeon CPU's and 64GB+ of RAM in those.
I thought I should give it a try too since I challenged others:
Only got it to 12.91GB
Running:
- Xcode
- iOS Simulator
- Substance Painter with Sample
- UE4 - Zen Garden Example
- Epic Launcher
- Blender
- Mail
- Calendar
- Maps
- Safari with a couple tabs
- iTunes playing music
- Pixelmator
- Sketch
- Steam
- macOS Server
- Photos
- Git Tower
- Mac App Store
- Finder Window
- A second Xcode project window I forgot to close
I would never actually run all of these at the same time when working, and I didn't really get that close to maxing the RAM. I bet I could double the complexity of my usual workflow and still not really push past 16GB.
![activity monitor.png]( "activity monitor.png")
![desktop.jpg]( "desktop.jpg")
Only got it to 12.91GB
Running:
- Xcode
- iOS Simulator
- Substance Painter with Sample
- UE4 - Zen Garden Example
- Epic Launcher
- Blender
- Calendar
- Maps
- Safari with a couple tabs
- iTunes playing music
- Pixelmator
- Sketch
- Steam
- macOS Server
- Photos
- Git Tower
- Mac App Store
- Finder Window
- A second Xcode project window I forgot to close
I would never actually run all of these at the same time when working, and I didn't really get that close to maxing the RAM. I bet I could double the complexity of my usual workflow and still not really push past 16GB.
Its not bitching on the internet it is was the customer base wants. If you were not biased, you would see that there are many people on macrumours actively talking about buying dell's razors and hp's and others due to the RAM issue.
I had no idea that forum dwellers constituted the more than a marginal fraction of the customer base. Are there really millions of MacRumors members? Perhaps you're weighting tech enthusiasts a bit too heavily in the overall consumer baser?
Read this post. This is one guy talking about his business customers who number in the thousands:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...y-life-concerns.2010291/page-24#post-23820850
Anyone I know in the sciences buying laptops is going for Dell's for the 32GB option, or ability to upgrade to that later and the cheaper price
I don't get it, you can't point to a few thousand machines and extrapolate that it's the base customer. Here (ESPN) we're definitely going to continue buying Macbook Pros as we always have. That's 5000+ a year for this campus alone. Does that mean we're the base customers now?
What I don't get is...
Why do people keep acting offended when people want features in the Macbook Pro which users who aren't pros don't need?
Yes, I would have bought 32GB of memory if I could. No, I don't care about battery life over a couple of hours.
And if they had to compromise on actual pro-level functionality to make the machine thin, maybe they should have let the MacBook be the super-thin line, and had the MacBook Pro stay focused on being the best machine, rather than the thinnest machine.
Arguably, even most pro's don't need more than 16GB of RAM. They might think they do; but they probably don't. Fire up your most complex real-world workflow and check activity monitor. Keep in mind that "cached files" or "inactive memory" (depending on your version of macOS / OSX / Mac OS X) are also "free RAM". The Macintosh doesn't immediately purge data that isn't being used; but rather leaves it there in case it's needed again. The sum total of Free and Inactive/Cached Files is the amount of RAM that is sitting idly and not being used.
And it's a pro notebook. Of COURSE there are people who don't mind if it's thick and heavy because they essentially just use it as a two-desk workstation. It moves from one to the other. But Apple has always focused on portability. If you want heavy and high performing, and battery life doesn't matter, buy a Mac Pro. Seriously; you can lug a Mac Pro between multiple locations just as easily as a heavy Mac, there are even carrying cases and the like.
The thing is, I'd like the RAM too. But despite the name, it doesn't mean "Pro's only, nobody else is allowed to use this, provide the name of your studio when ordering". The MacBook Pro is also used by hobbyists, prosumers, and the like. And a great deal of pro's who are not IT professionals doing heavy VM work that requires more than 16GB of RAM. It's much more common for Apple's pro consumers to be doing things like digital imaging, content creation, iOS development, video and photo editing, etc., which can easily be done with even the most complex workflows inside of 16GB. After all, folks are doing is now just fine!
The reality is, there's an implicit bias that my next model has to have higher numbers than the one before. Base model buyers are throwing a fit that the new one is 2.0GHz and not 2.5GHz like the previous one. Nevermind that the 2.0GHz model is actually faster!
By late 2017, Cannonlake will be here and those high-end VM users and people doing super-advanced high-end 3D development (Pixar, "Avatar", etc.), will be able to get 32GB of RAM. Though they'll still be seriously throttled by a mobile CPU and will probably still need the desktop class GPU's and Xeon CPU's of the Mac Pro...
Fire up your workflow and post your activity monitor! I'm never against technology and would myself have ordered 32GB if it were available, and Skylake or Kaby Lake supported LPDDR4. But I fired up all of my workflows, all at the same time; PLUS a couple of games and only saw 12GB of memory being used. If your workflow is exceeding 16GB in a real-world example we'd all be fascinated to see it; and hear what it is you do. I mean that genuinely, I'd be fascinated. Unfortunately for you and others doing similar work, you're going to continue using those desktop Mac's, and with this generation will not be able to finally move to a mobile workstation.
Worth noting, with that last port; if you're CURRENTLY using a Mac laptop; then you're not "needing" more than 16GB of RAM, because you don't have it now!
I never said anything that would even hint at suggesting that the pro machine should be "pros only". But there should be a machine that serves the high end.
And hey, it wasn't that long ago that you couldn't get a mac laptop with more than 4GB of memory. If we were to accept the "you can't need more than X, because nothing previously had it" argument, we would logically be forced to conclude that no one could possibly have needed upgrades from 4 to 8, or from 8 to 16, either. Either that, or it's possible to need (or at least benefit very noticably from) more memory than is currently available.
Also, while cached files can in theory be discarded, and are thus "free"... Caching improves performance. I sometimes do things where I would really prefer to be able to use more disk cache, because cached access is a lot faster. And for that, until the entire set of files fits in otherwise-unused memory, you're going to see at least some performance improvement from more memory.
When I got this machine (my current Mac has 8GB), it had "enough" memory. Now it's a giant pain and I frequently have to shut down apps to allow other apps to run. A quick check of the "compressed memory" column in Activity Monitor shows hundreds of megabytes of memory having been compressed to make room, and that means things are slowed down by compressing and decompressing memory. So if I had 16GB, it'd probably be plenty... Today.
If I'm spending $3k on a laptop, I want it to have enough memory that I'm not going to be having the exact same conversations in two years about how there isn't enough memory.
(And this is why I think the shift away from user-swappable memory hurts pro users. I would absolutely accept a 2-3mm thicker case if it got me swappable memory so I could upgrade after a year or two, which is what I did with basically every mac laptop I ever owned back when they allowed it.)
And hey, it wasn't that long ago that you couldn't get a mac laptop with more than 4GB of memory. If we were to accept the "you can't need more than X, because nothing previously had it" argument, we would logically be forced to conclude that no one could possibly have needed upgrades from 4 to 8, or from 8 to 16, either. Either that, or it's possible to need (or at least benefit very noticably from) more memory than is currently available.
Also, while cached files can in theory be discarded, and are thus "free"... Caching improves performance. I sometimes do things where I would really prefer to be able to use more disk cache, because cached access is a lot faster. And for that, until the entire set of files fits in otherwise-unused memory, you're going to see at least some performance improvement from more memory.
When I got this machine (my current Mac has 8GB), it had "enough" memory. Now it's a giant pain and I frequently have to shut down apps to allow other apps to run. A quick check of the "compressed memory" column in Activity Monitor shows hundreds of megabytes of memory having been compressed to make room, and that means things are slowed down by compressing and decompressing memory. So if I had 16GB, it'd probably be plenty... Today.
If I'm spending $3k on a laptop, I want it to have enough memory that I'm not going to be having the exact same conversations in two years about how there isn't enough memory.
(And this is why I think the shift away from user-swappable memory hurts pro users. I would absolutely accept a 2-3mm thicker case if it got me swappable memory so I could upgrade after a year or two, which is what I did with basically every mac laptop I ever owned back when they allowed it.)
There are lots of usage cases in this thread - feel free to read away:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...6gb-ram-due-to-battery-life-concerns.2010291/
This post is particularly informative:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads...y-life-concerns.2010291/page-24#post-23820850
For me it is for statistics. Complex Bayesian models with thousands of variables that can gobble up RAM. Sorry but its a pain to get started - I'm not doing it just to prove a point on the internet. Do you really think people are one here lying about their usage needs ?
I'm with you 100% on all those points. The point I was making was simply the notion that professional consumers with high end workflows; who upgrade much more frequently because of the demands of their software, are not going to be limited in what they can do in the short term. 3-4 years down the road? Of course! But Cannonlake will be there by then and they'll be able to get 32GB of RAM. That does, unfortunately, mean they'll need to update. Since those customers are going to have to make do with 16GB anyway, they are probably best to wait for Cannonlake equipped MacBook Pro's in the next year or two; or use desktops if that's possible.
You can NEVER have too much RAM. I just think we're crying over spilt milk here. You can ALWAYS come up with a niche set of users who would do things differently. But Apple has been really consistent for a decade or more on their notebook strategy.
Absolutely! I didn't say never; I just said less than people expect. What most people use MacBook pro's for, creative stuff, Photo/Video editing, etc., can be easily done inside 16GB of RAM for most users in most workflows. There are of COURSE exceptions and the unfortunate reality for those folks is, the new MacBook Pro is not for them. If they absolutely need a notebook and cannot use a desktop for their tasks; then they have two options. 1) Transition to a Windows powered portable workstation. Dell even has models with Intel Xeon's and 64GB+ of RAM. 2) Continue to use their current MacBook pro (it's limited to 16GB, so is the new one, so if RAM is the limiting factor; there's no change) and upgrade when Cannonlake machines come around; which according to Intels timeline, will support LPDDR4 and 32GB of RAM in the low power spec.
All I'm really saying is, it's not going to change. Apple has been on this strategy forever. I still think the solution to everyones problem is the 17" MacBook Pro. It's sheer size would surely enable a big enough battery while remaining thin, that would let it run DDR4 memory. Give it a pair of PCI-e SSD slots, a 4K display, and maybe even mobile Xeon CPU's. You could have one hell of a machine. It'd be heavier, and the battery life won't be great; but it would be a "from one desk to another" machine like the folks who have outgrown 16GB of RAM are doing.
The machines running DDR4 RAM at 32GB on these skylake chips are often thicker AND heavier, and with a fraction of the battery life of the MacBook Pro. So it's not just a case of "last years form factor could've supported it". No matter what, it'd be a battery life hit. And, again, like it or not; it's clear that Apple is unwilling to do that.
So those Niche customers will lose out; and Apple will laugh all the way to the bank since they set pre-order sales records for this model already...
You can NEVER have too much RAM. I just think we're crying over spilt milk here. You can ALWAYS come up with a niche set of users who would do things differently. But Apple has been really consistent for a decade or more on their notebook strategy.
Absolutely! I didn't say never; I just said less than people expect. What most people use MacBook pro's for, creative stuff, Photo/Video editing, etc., can be easily done inside 16GB of RAM for most users in most workflows. There are of COURSE exceptions and the unfortunate reality for those folks is, the new MacBook Pro is not for them. If they absolutely need a notebook and cannot use a desktop for their tasks; then they have two options. 1) Transition to a Windows powered portable workstation. Dell even has models with Intel Xeon's and 64GB+ of RAM. 2) Continue to use their current MacBook pro (it's limited to 16GB, so is the new one, so if RAM is the limiting factor; there's no change) and upgrade when Cannonlake machines come around; which according to Intels timeline, will support LPDDR4 and 32GB of RAM in the low power spec.
All I'm really saying is, it's not going to change. Apple has been on this strategy forever. I still think the solution to everyones problem is the 17" MacBook Pro. It's sheer size would surely enable a big enough battery while remaining thin, that would let it run DDR4 memory. Give it a pair of PCI-e SSD slots, a 4K display, and maybe even mobile Xeon CPU's. You could have one hell of a machine. It'd be heavier, and the battery life won't be great; but it would be a "from one desk to another" machine like the folks who have outgrown 16GB of RAM are doing.
The machines running DDR4 RAM at 32GB on these skylake chips are often thicker AND heavier, and with a fraction of the battery life of the MacBook Pro. So it's not just a case of "last years form factor could've supported it". No matter what, it'd be a battery life hit. And, again, like it or not; it's clear that Apple is unwilling to do that.
So those Niche customers will lose out; and Apple will laugh all the way to the bank since they set pre-order sales records for this model already...
Yeah it did occur to me that a 17" might be a solution - but personally I would have no use for it I consider that too big (cannot use the 2014 15" MBP I have now on an airplane seat so 17" would be a non-runner).
Oh in answer to this:
The simple fact is this - if they were no so obsessed with thinness, they could have made a slightly less thing machine and kept everyone happy. The fact that they didn't will drive many to other grands that do.
If you think this only affects a few people - take note: Apple execs are making public statements about this already. It is worrying them.
Oh in answer to this:
I bought a 32GB desktop purely for those times I need 32GB. But I'd rather not have to do that.
The simple fact is this - if they were no so obsessed with thinness, they could have made a slightly less thing machine and kept everyone happy. The fact that they didn't will drive many to other grands that do.
If you think this only affects a few people - take note: Apple execs are making public statements about this already. It is worrying them.
oneMadRssn wrote above:
"In my observations, Apple get's it pretty close to perfect in their second- or third-revision of a new design; and it is pretty much perfect by the fourth-revision of a new design.
For example:
2010 initial second-gen MBA, 2011 MBA is close to perfect, 2013 MBA is perfect;
2008 initial unibody MBP, 2009 MBP is close to perfect, 2010-2011 MBP is perfect;
2012 initial rMBP, by 2014 or so it was near perfect."
Interesting observations.
But.. if what you wrote is true... one might be better off buying the 2015 MacBook Pro (at discounted pricing), and getting the final, "more perfect" iteration of the design, than buying a 2016 model, which is "the first iteration" and [possibly] somewhat lacking.
In simple terms, Apple's "end-of-life" model will usually be the best of its design, most robust, perhaps longest-lasting...
"In my observations, Apple get's it pretty close to perfect in their second- or third-revision of a new design; and it is pretty much perfect by the fourth-revision of a new design.
For example:
2010 initial second-gen MBA, 2011 MBA is close to perfect, 2013 MBA is perfect;
2008 initial unibody MBP, 2009 MBP is close to perfect, 2010-2011 MBP is perfect;
2012 initial rMBP, by 2014 or so it was near perfect."
Interesting observations.
But.. if what you wrote is true... one might be better off buying the 2015 MacBook Pro (at discounted pricing), and getting the final, "more perfect" iteration of the design, than buying a 2016 model, which is "the first iteration" and [possibly] somewhat lacking.
In simple terms, Apple's "end-of-life" model will usually be the best of its design, most robust, perhaps longest-lasting...
They're not quite "making public statements" so much as answering journalists questions. I'm not sure how worried they can be if they are setting record pre-order sales figures and are sold out through the end of the year...
Also, we don't actually know that to be the case. DDR ram uses a lot more power than LPDDR. The new chips are a bit more efficient but even with the thickness of the 2012 models; they might not be able to keep 10 hours of battery life with 32GB of RAM. That's just fine for a LOT of people (though of course that trickles down. Doing some heavy video editing my 10 hour battery life is 2 hours; but it might only be 30 minutes if my laptop was less efficient or had a smaller battery! Essentially making it useless because it can't do intense tasks for any reasonable length of time). But Apple is clear that's their goal. I could all but guarantee there's a DDR equipped MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM in Apple's secret lab somewhere... a model that they collectively decided wasn't worth shipping.
Yes I imagine there is one of these somewhere all right. The thing is - that they did not ship this means they are loosing out to the competition. I would have bought a 32GB MPB - now I will most likely buy a Dell - and there are many like me
> P.S. I used like 20% of my battery in the 10 minutes I spent doing that.
This is actually worrisome, as someone that will need to run VMs on a daily basis (at least 1 windows vm).
Most of the stuff I want that memory for, I'm not running on the Mac, because the Mac doesn't have enough memory.
I do have more than one computer. In my current workflow, one of them is a Mac. If Apple sold higher-end hardware, probably two or three of them would be.
I do have more than one computer. In my current workflow, one of them is a Mac. If Apple sold higher-end hardware, probably two or three of them would be.
Most people don't really need more than 8Gb for what they will use it for really. Not genuine pro users, but I'd imagine the vast number of folk who will be primarily browsing the web, emailing, watching video and some light photo editing.
Shutting down redundant apps is good practice anyway. A lot of people have memory issues due to awful memory management by application developers (see Chrome)
If I need more memory than 8Gb then it will be likely due to doing some graphics/video/music work and will want a big screen (or screens) so if necessary I'll upgrade my iMac memory.
Shutting down redundant apps is good practice anyway. A lot of people have memory issues due to awful memory management by application developers (see Chrome)
If I need more memory than 8Gb then it will be likely due to doing some graphics/video/music work and will want a big screen (or screens) so if necessary I'll upgrade my iMac memory.
So, outside of Apple, there's this concept of what they call a "desktop replacement" class of laptop, which is a laptop which has the specs to be used as a primary desktop when hooked up to, say, a monitor. And for most purposes, the MBP is pretty close. So here I am with a MBP on a 30" display, and it's okay. But if they made a proper high-end machine, it'd be great.
Like, say I spend $3k on a laptop, and $2k on an imac. What if, instead, I could spend $4k on a laptop, and have a machine which is just as upgradeable, and powerful, as the imac, but is still a laptop I can take with me? That would be way better.
You'd loose the portability plus battery life on the go, and you'd loose true performance (no throttle) that can only be achieved with large thermal envelopes (granted the iMac does not offer this, but still...)