Was thinking about upgrading but I can't.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by kjs862, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. kjs862 macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #1
    My main computer is an early 2011 13 inch 13 macbook pro with 16gb RAM. I was just about buy a computer from Apple's online store but upon checkout I noticed the retina 13 inch macbook pro isn't available with 16gb of RAM. The only mac laptop that you can get with 16gb of RAM is the 15 inch macbook pro with retina display. Even the 15 macbook pro non-retina maxes out at 8gb. What the hell?!

    I was at Lenovo's website and noticed their notebooks go up to 32gb of RAM. Very tempting of going the Windows (really google since everything is via browser) + Andriod route.

    Really disappointed to see this.
     
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #2
    Not true. All non-retina MBPs can go to 16GB since Early 2011.

    You can find specs on all Apple products, including maximum RAM:
     
  3. kjs862 thread starter macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #3
    I know but it's disappointing to see that they are doing this. I know Apple has done this type of game in the past, but I haven't seen it this aggressive.

    I want to upgrade to the 13 inch retina macbook pro but I can't because it doesn't support 16GB of RAM. Yet, my 2011 macbook pro does.
     
  4. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    The 13" MBPr is the only MBP model that can't be upgraded to 16GB. There are several other choices. Are you even sure you need and will use more than 8GB?
     
  5. kjs862 thread starter macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #5
    No I don't need more than 8gb of RAM but that isn't the point.

    I wouldn't update to a non retina. We all know the notebooks with optical drives and non retina displays are a thing of the past.

    edit: if i'm buying a new computer i'd like to have 16gb of RAM. It's future proofing for the next iterations of software.
     
  6. Arnezie macrumors 65816

    Arnezie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    #6
    So what was the point of this thread? Kinda smells a bit trolly to me:rolleyes:
     
  7. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #7
    Then the choice is clear. If you want a retina MBP with 16GB of RAM, go for the 15". No computer maker is going to have a model lineup that meets every user's needs/wants/desires/whims. If exactly what you want isn't available, then buy something that comes close, or buy from another manufacturer or wait and see if what you want is offered in the future. Complaining about it won't accomplish anything. If you don't need more than 8GB of RAM, it makes no sense to complain about not having 16GB.
     
  8. kjs862 thread starter macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #8
    Okay so the point is that Apple isn't being fair with us.

    They are manipulating their offerings for their profit. By not supporting more RAM that means the computer will not perform as well and not last as long.

    With the next iteration of OSX and the other iterations, 16GB of RAM will become the standard.

    Soon your new machine will not meet the min requirements, which will force you to update earlier than if they were fair with us.

    ----------

    I know but it's just frustrating to see Apple doing this. I don't mean to have a complaining voice. I'm just trying to make a point. Especially with Cook touting they are dedicating to making the best products, ever.
     
  9. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #9
    That's nonsense. Apple offers what they choose to offer. Buy it or don't.
    Welcome to the real world. :rolleyes:
    That, too, is nonsense. It's safe to expect that most computer users have no need for more than 8GB of RAM and wouldn't notice any performance improvement from running 16GB or 32GB. Also, the amount of RAM installed has no bearing on how long a computer lasts.
    First, that's an unsubstantiated assumption. Second, most ML users can run without a hitch with 4GB of RAM. Third, if new releases of the OS require more RAM, the newer Macs being sold will offer more RAM. You're not required to upgrade to a newer OS on older models unless you simply want to.
    You obviously haven't been paying attention to the history of Mac OS requirements. Computers from several years ago can still run the current OS. It sounds like you're just trying to make a lame attempt to slam Apple, without any basis in fact.

    Apple is in business to make a profit.
    Apple will offer what products they choose, at what prices they choose.
    Apple is under no obligation to build a device to meet your individual whims.
    You are under no obligation to buy any particular Apple computer, or any computer at all.
    If they don't make what you want, buy it elsewhere. Then get over it.
     
  10. kjs862 thread starter macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #10
    I disagree with you on the RAM, especially if your computer changes with time-- software updates, internet, etc.

    The rest I understand your point. I just wanted some perspective and I'm not slamming Apple, funny you think that way.
     
  11. Sital macrumors 68000

    Sital

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    Location:
    New England
    #11
    Of course they are. Just like pretty much any company out there - especially public ones that have shareholders to answer to.
     
  12. kjs862 thread starter macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #12
    I see yeah. I just really want a 13 macbook pro retina with 16GB of RAM.

    Damn :(
     
  13. Acorn macrumors 68020

    Acorn

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    macrumors
    #13
    I have to admit I was a bit disappointed when I found out the 13 inch retina only was 8 gb and could not be upgraded by apple or otherwise. I would have really preferred 16 gb so I will pass on that model.
     
  14. kjs862 thread starter macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #14
    Finally someone can understand where I'm coming from, thank you!

    I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, I don't mean to make fun of Apple.
     
  15. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #15
    Since Apple only officially supports 8GB on the 13" classic MBP (notwithstanding your ability to add 3rd party RAM) it isn't too surprising. That said, if you don't need 16GB then I wouldn't let it be a deal breaker. I think you are greatly overestimating the RAM needs of OSX 10.9. Apple is still selling systems with 4GB RAM (MBA, base 13" cMBP), so I doubt that 10.9 will "need" 16GB to run well.

    Anyway, we'll see a Rev B of the rMBP later this year, so if you really think you need 16GB wait and see what happens next. The 13" rMBP is more of a proof of concept right now, since the pricing is so similar to the 15" rMBP that is quite a bit more computer for $200 more (with comparable SSD storage).
     
  16. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #16
    You're not hurting anyone's feelings, but you're not being sensible. Being disappointed is one thing, and completely understandable. It's something else to accuse Apple of playing some type of "game" or being "unfair" or making it sound like there's something wrong with them making decisions to maximize profits, just because they don't make a particular model and configuration that you want.
     
  17. Ricanlegend macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Location:
    Bronx,Ny
    #17
    I can see this being a problem I have 4gb of ram and am seeing the beach ball way to often 8gb of ram should be the minimum 16gb is awesome and 32 gb would be my dream laptop lol
     
  18. kjs862 thread starter macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #18
    32GB laptop is a very nice desktop replacement! 4 DIMMS baby!
     
  19. duervo macrumors 68000

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #19
    Yes, 32GB is nice. So is carrying around a 170W, ~1.7lb brick power adapter with a ~6lb system. Would definitely go a decent way to keep a person in shape.

    Add a slice battery to the mix too (along with at least 1" thickness and the weight that goes along with it,) because getting around 2hrs life (if you're lucky) on the stock battery is great, but another hour or two is even better. Of course, you can go up to 10 hours too, but make sure you turn the display brightness down to about 3/10, power-off the optical bay, turn off the wi-fi and bluetooth adapter, and turn max processor state down to 50%, because it's just that awesome.
     
  20. Tubamajuba macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2011
    #20
    So you're tempted to go the Windows route, and yet you wouldn't update to a non-retina screen. Good luck with that. 1920x1200 is about as high as you're getting in a current Windows laptop. Which is fine, in my opinion, but it's not retina.
     
  21. Arnezie macrumors 65816

    Arnezie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    #21
    I knew I smelled troll , kinda smells like rotten cat food
     
  22. el-John-o macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Missouri
    #22
    So you won't buy a retina display model from Apple because it won't go to more RAM than you need, and you won't buy a non-retina because it's too obsolete, but you will buy a non retina Windows laptop?

    Look, it's supply chain too. Apple doesn't offer infinite customization with all of their products. I'm sure they'd like to, but each additional model, change, tweak, option; adds cost. In order to keep the price point where it is, they limit it to 8GB of RAM. Plain and simple, that's all it is.

    Apple knows that most customers (not all, but most) who need that much RAM likely also need a quad core CPU and/or a dedicated GPU... enter 15" MBP! Apple doesn't think that there is nobody in the world who wants a 13" retina with 16 gigs of RAM, but they DO know that the increase in cost through adding those extra options to the line means, in the grand scheme of things, it's not worth it. A couple customers not having exactly what they want in the lineup is better than having to raise the already high prices and not selling any!
     
  23. aristobrat macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #23
    Why would you mention going the Windows + Google route, if RAM is a concern? Running all of the Google apps via the browser will REDUCE your need for RAM (compared to you running the traditional apps). Have you seen the specs for Google's Chromebooks? They rarely even make mention of the RAM they come with. :eek:

    At work, I run a 2009 Mac mini 8GB of RAM. That's 1/2 of the RAM that you currently have in your current MBP.

    On the OS X side, I always have Safari, iTunes, Lotus Notes, Things, Terminal, 1Password, Word and Excel open + a dashboard with a bunch of widgets. In addition, I always have a Windows 7 VM running (via Fusion) that has a bunch of Microsoft AD + SQL Tools open. This Mac is on its fourth iteration of Mac OS X, and at least its third iteration of the other applications, except for Office, which I think has only had one version update since then. The Mac runs awesome. It's very very very rare to ever see page outs from all of the RAM being used, and even then, it poses no noticeable impact on the performance of the Mac. :confused:

    Based on your posts, it's hard for me to imagine that you'd actually use 8GB of RAM.

    Double it (16GB) just to be sure you're good for the next five years? Sure. But quadruple it (32GB)? Wow.

    Good on Lenovo for supporting it, though. Their business model seems to be "infinite products with infinite combinations". I'd be cool if Apple supported it as well, but honestly it sounds like a fringe use case (or in your situation, "want case") -- especially in terms of notebooks.
     

Share This Page