That's utter rot.
The main reason this machine is non-upgradeable is to maximise the usage of space. Apple have also taken the opportunity to fit low-voltage RAM for additional power saving while they were at it.
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.
TUAW's article against the RMBP
- Thread starter Pentad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's utter rot.
The main reason this machine is non-upgradeable is to maximise the usage of space. Apple have also taken the opportunity to fit low-voltage RAM for additional power saving while they were at it.
But it would have cost hundreds more and no one (well maybe 1%) would have bought it. That's a hell of a lot of r&d and manufacturing costs for Apple to eat on a product they knew 100% would fail.
I really wonder what would have happened if they had kept the legacy form factor, removed the optical drive, added more batteries and a retina display. That sounds like the ideal computer to me.
This is one of those things where I'm going to wait and see if they really have bulletproof levels of reliability. If the battery and hard drive are sealed in, I'd like to know how they hold up after a couple years. Applecare doesn't change much for me. I'm still without the computer while it's at the shop. I prefer warranties that I never have to use.
This should be an acceptable point of reference. It's a link to ram for the non soldered 2012 from Crucial. The price is $174. Oem pricing always has a configuration charge built in. While I know it's annoying, $26 extra for ram should not break the budget on a machine in that price range. The issue for most people is probably reliability or that they can't do it later when prices fall.
I wonder how long they can ride the thin trend. The next will probably be the imac, even though it offers the lowest practical advantage of any machine in that regard. I will say that I dislike their design priorities at times.
I never understood how a company of that size could maintain such a strong group mentality.
It would. How about you don't make a completely unsubstantiated claim when you haven't run the test? Go ahead and find a way to perform such a test and let us know when you've done it. Heck, even just offer an explanation that doesn't make electrical engineers giggle for why you think it even could be the case. I've never heard an EE claim that soldered connections use less power than socketed ones before.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. Show me your google links though, mine don't turn that up. I think only Macbook Airs were advertised with standby life. I think you're confusing the MBP and MBA specs and assuming Apple advertised standby life for the MBPs. I could be mistaken, and I'll be happy to be shown wrong, but so far as I can tell, on anything without soldered RAM Apple never advertised standby life, precisely because they couldn't guarantee anything that had decent performance.
----------
I agree the first and foremost reason for going with soldered RAM is because of space. Being that as it may though, I think there are secondary considerations as well. In addition to space benefits, there are performance benefits. You can call it utter rot if you want, but I expect a counter-argument to my claims, or evidence suggesting otherwise.
I'm using principles of electrical engineering to bolster my claims, so to simply reply that is "utter rot" is a pretty lousy way to conduct this conversation.
You're using handwaving and bald assertion. You're the one advancing a claim that soldered RAM offers a technical benefit other than space. Go ahead and support the claim if you want.
Unfortunately, we can't conduct the required test. But even lacking the test, to claim my assertions are unsubstantiated is nonsense. They are based on recognized principles of engineering. Now you claim this would make EEs giggle, but I think they would laugh at what you say. It's pretty easy to understand that the socketed RAM has more pins and connection points than does the soldered variety, and it is immediately obvious to anyone with the least understanding of how electrical currents work that the more crap you add on to your connection, the more resistance and voltage is required to pass your signal. There is a greater signal to noise ratio in the socketed variety. Yes, the differences may only be microvolts, but as I already indicated early, those accumulate and make a difference in things like standby performance, even if under normal usage you wouldn't notice any difference.
----------
I have provided explanations. Rather than address them substantively, you resort to rhetoric, calling those explanations "handwaiving and bald assertions". Another called it "utter rot". How about you try and refute what I said rather than employ these cheap tricks that we all see past.
It baffles me sometimes that Apple fights so hard to set standards that they like (see Thunderbolt, nano-sim etc) yet use so much proprietary hardware.
http://www.infoauxano.com/apple/apple-new-macbook-pro-2011-review/
-- though perhaps the reviewer got the data wrong.
Not sure if it is reliable. Anyways - I've actually done more digging, and discovered that standby does not imply that the RAM is supplied power for the 30 days.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1264335/ (which has more references within).
Thanks for the links. Also, you are right that in the current standby implementation the ram isn't provided power for 30 days, but the big question to ask is does Power Nap change the way standby works? I can't imagine it would put the computer into deep sleep or hibernation, otherwise it wouldn't be able to continue fetching your emails, syncing your contacts and notes, etc. Also worth taking note of, this feature is only being provided to computers with Flash storage...
I tried telling this to an actual electrical engineer. The result was giggles. Here's the thing: While it's totally possible that there are microvolts involved, they are... well, microvolts. They are not even measurable with most equipment compared to the active components involved. If you mess around with a PC BIOS, you'll note that you can adjust RAM voltage, usually by increments of .05V. So if your theory that "microvolts" are significant and have a measurable effect is correct, obviously it should be the case that the average PC bios lets you change a setting which matters roughly 10,000 times as much.
That's... frankly, stupid. Even if we grant that there is a measurable difference in resistance (and for most measurement tools, there isn't; the resistance of a series of connectors is usually too small for people to measure), the difference is on too small a scale to be measurable compared to other things.
And actually, I think you have it backwards. What happens is not that voltages increase; it's that amperages decrease a little. So higher resistance tends to reduce total power consumed. Now, if it reduces power consumed too far, that would prevent things from working. But it doesn't in reality.
So not only is the difference unmeasurably small; it is in the other direction.
Furthermore, resistance of many materials varies noticably with temperature. Which means that the alleged differences you're talking about are going to be totally swamped by the difference in resistance you see from, say, running with or without a laptop cooler under the machine.
So there are three ways in which your position is laughably incoherent:
1. You're talking about things that are on the wrong scale to even be measurable.
2. There are much larger effects from other things.
3. The effects, if they existed at all, would go in the opposite direction from the direction you're going in.
And again, yes, I checked with an actual electrical engineer.
The money he lost selling the mbp is the time he used on it. Then he receives a new one maybe better spec or what not.
It's like buy a new car drive it for few month selling it for little lost. Then spend few extra to get a new 2013 model. I wouldn't complain to Honda that their civic doesn't allow me to upgrade a v12 twin turbo engine, if I feel like it down the road, because I can afford now lol.
Unsurprisingly, over half the people don't really seem to care about all the changes and the other half might be pissed but will buy anyway.
Upgraders =0. Apple +1.
Upgraders =0. Apple +1.
Your interpretation of those numbers does not match mine.
26.8%: Don't object.
30.4%: Object but will still buy.
19.5%: Don't mind in cheaper machines, but won't buy a "pro" like this.
23.3%: Flat-out hate.
Seems to me that this comes out to 57.2% willing to buy, and 42.8% unwilling to buy at least in this model. And the thing is, at least some of those 23.3% are going to be "hop platforms as a result". Heck. I am terrified of the notion of trying to make do without OS X, but I am thinking seriously about making an effort to do so in order to get away from this.
And here's the thing. Let's say that 60% of people are willing to buy this. So Apple's selling to more than half, right? But what if 80% of people were willing to buy an upgradeable model? The question is, is Apple saving enough money (or getting enough extra sales from "wow that's really thin") to make up for not selling to those people?
I dunno. I do know, though, that I think the time has come where I try to buy or build a mini-tower PC to replace the Mac Mini I've been using as my studio box. The DAW I use (Reaper) supports Linux, and I think there's some Reaper fans who are maintaining a DAW-oriented Linux distro. I only need drivers for a few things to be able to do what I want on that machine, and if it were a Linux machine that I built myself, it would have a number of advantages (say, more non-hub USB ports on separate controllers).
If you'd asked me two weeks ago whether I'd ever consider trying to do music on Linux, I'd have laughed. Then Apple announced that their flagship product would be a glossy screen, no matte option, with Ethernet and Firewire both optional add-ons that, if you use them both, replace your hi-res monitor outputs. Unless you want to get an even glossier screen.
26.8%: Don't object.
30.4%: Object but will still buy.
19.5%: Don't mind in cheaper machines, but won't buy a "pro" like this.
23.3%: Flat-out hate.
Seems to me that this comes out to 57.2% willing to buy, and 42.8% unwilling to buy at least in this model. And the thing is, at least some of those 23.3% are going to be "hop platforms as a result". Heck. I am terrified of the notion of trying to make do without OS X, but I am thinking seriously about making an effort to do so in order to get away from this.
And here's the thing. Let's say that 60% of people are willing to buy this. So Apple's selling to more than half, right? But what if 80% of people were willing to buy an upgradeable model? The question is, is Apple saving enough money (or getting enough extra sales from "wow that's really thin") to make up for not selling to those people?
I dunno. I do know, though, that I think the time has come where I try to buy or build a mini-tower PC to replace the Mac Mini I've been using as my studio box. The DAW I use (Reaper) supports Linux, and I think there's some Reaper fans who are maintaining a DAW-oriented Linux distro. I only need drivers for a few things to be able to do what I want on that machine, and if it were a Linux machine that I built myself, it would have a number of advantages (say, more non-hub USB ports on separate controllers).
If you'd asked me two weeks ago whether I'd ever consider trying to do music on Linux, I'd have laughed. Then Apple announced that their flagship product would be a glossy screen, no matte option, with Ethernet and Firewire both optional add-ons that, if you use them both, replace your hi-res monitor outputs. Unless you want to get an even glossier screen.
First show us your evidence to prove or backup what you are saying! You made statements that are opinion and not fact. At least just state them as your opinion and move on but don't make statements you have no factual basis for and continuously back track on them.
Funny thing is that alot of people who's moaning and complaining all over the internet about lack of upgradeability, ethernet, ODD and whatever will still buy it, and they will enjoy it like crazy.
Complaining is kind of a quick health check for the masses. Something would be wrong if all of a sudden people stopped whining.
Complaining is kind of a quick health check for the masses. Something would be wrong if all of a sudden people stopped whining.
Not even close to the same thing! You can remove and replace the engine in your car! It's done all the time. Can you replace the hard drive or ram that is soldered onto the motherboard? Think not.....it means replacing the motherboard. So by your car analogy it would be the same as having to replace the car because your battery died!
Thanks for the better response. Now on with it. I was told all this by an actual EE too, so I guess they are giggling at each other.
Not measurable when running the system, but the question is if those accumulated differences can be measured when we let the system remain in standby mode for a couple of days. In that case we don't need fancy equipment but all we need to do just to look at the % of battery remaining when we turn the systems back on. Of course we'd need two identical system other than one having socketed RAM and the other soldered RAM, which we don't have.
While you are operating the system, correct. When the system is left in standby mode for a couple of days, not so obvious.
Right, but if you want to maintain the exact same signal/current how do you compensate for a decrease in amperage? Don't you think if manufacturers could they would decrease the power consumption of the devices? Obviously reducing the signal is not an option.
You are using the wrong metric, you are trying to measure the difference at one particular instance, so right now. But that's the old wrong way of looking at this. I'm talking about measuring the difference over a prolonged period of time since that is what is involved when we are talking about standby life. Another way to conduct the test would be to run the two systems, one with socketed RAM and the other with soldered RAM, in identical environments for a prolonged period of time, all the while measuring the total amount of energy being consumed by the devices.
We don't need a cooler under the laptop. Place your laptop in below freezing temperatures and leave it in standby mode, leave another one in your cozy home, and you'll notice the one in the colder climate will have suffered far more battery drain. We already know what the cold does to batteries. What's your point? I don't see the relevance of all this.
Your metric of evaluation is completely skewed.
That's irrelevant to what we are discussing.
You haven't explained that well so far.
As did I.
Ok. I'll give you this.
As of a few days ago, I merrily meandered through day-to-day life just assuming I'd be a mac user for life. (Never really thought about it). I'm reassessing that belief now but god how I dread losing my trackpad and build quality. (Don't care about OSX).
I have some life left in my MBP13. Perhaps I'm overreacting and just need some time for all this to sink in. Maybe in a few years I can get a machine with 1TB SSD, and 32GB memory and never worry about seeing the underside of my mac. But which one of my kids skips college?
What part of 57 vs. 43 looks the same to you?
I hope you don't work for NASA or worse yet, the guy who is remodeling my house.