Waiting for 32GB RAM?

if you are doing anything that requires 32 gb of ram, you should probably be using a desktop.

 

You can buy a mobile workstation or a gaming laptop with 4 DIMM slots.

 

Blame Intel for the vendors' ultrabook obsession.

And Apple by itself.

 

Just FYI, but you can configure the 13" rMBP with 16 GB or RAM. It just isn't one of the stock configurations.

 

I also did not know. In the tech specs they keep on showing 8.

 

To be honest I'm not sure, I just noticed it this morning. Maybe Apple did a silent update of sorts and added some additional options to the CTO rMBP.

----------

Go configure one! It's an option on all 3 13" retina models. Not cheap though...

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro

*edit*

Looks like the tech specs page confirms that all rMBP models are capable of running 16GB.

 

Silent update?
Are you guys ****ing serious?
You havent noticed the countless threads 4gb, 8gb or 16gb on this forum over the past months?

The option to get 16gb on the 13" rmbp has always been there and discussed at nauseum.

 

I did not see it in the specs when I looked earlier today, but I see it now.

16GiB RAM and 1TB storage is not enough for heavy work. Dual-core is not even enough for medium work.

If I'm going to buy a machine for travel, I could get a cheaper 11", or a quad-core 13" with discrete graphics.

 

Sorry, I don't spend much time in the MBP section.

 

You show me a quad-core 13" macbook and I show you Jimmy Hoffas grave.
I am all for as many and pimped out options as possible, but ou of curiosity:
What are you doing with your laptop that would require more than 16gb ram and 1tb ssd?

----------

Good for you. You have a life

 

You'd be surprised. I have some photoshop files that give me low memory warnings on my 32GB desktop but they are not CPU intensive. Just a lot of layers and filters, a lot of things to maintain in memory.

Theres quite a few usage scenarios where the memory would come in useful and the other lower specced parts of the computer (CPU / GPU) aren't as important, Photoshop and Illustrator are two of those.

Another scenario is multitasking. Maybe you are working on a web project so you need your IDE open but you're also working on graphics for that project so you need Photoshop or Illustrator open. Maybe you are doing video for this site too so you have iMovie or Final Cut open and taking things from your photoshop documents in to the video editor etc. All of these things running eats a lot of memory but not many CPU cycles.

 

I can show you a quad-core 13" laptop PC with discrete graphics. This shows you how Apple is lagging.

 

Apple isn't lagging, despite your claims to the contrary. If you want to buy something other than Apple, just do it rather than complaining about what you perceive to be a lack of options in Apple products.

 

Once you have used the new haswell macbook lineup you know that isnt the one lagging.
If you dont mind windows, good for you.

 

If Linux had the applications OSX has, I would have abandoned this platform many years ago.

 

I'd imagine either it is 1" thick for thermal reasons or it has absolutely horrendous battery life. Everything is a trade off - Apple goes with what appeals to the most number of potential customers.

 

It's ad nauseam

 

I don't care that it is thick. It weighs 2Kg like a classic 13" MBP.

 

At naseum, at naseum, at naseum, at naseum

 

Then go find a platform that better meets your personal preferences.

 

Apple releases their iOS development tools only for OSX, and iTunes only for OSX and Windows.