Guess Microsoft learned a lesson then with their successful Surface line. Most people don't seem to care in buying decisions.
[doublepost=1458918479][/doublepost]
Pretty sure you missed his point.
Last edited:
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.
Why are newer MacBook Pros not upgradeable
- Thread starter Aditya_S
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[doublepost=1458918479][/doublepost]
Its quite amazing. You know everything, don't you? You know exactly how our operations are structured, what our IT policies are, how our finances look like and how our budget is split into personal vs. material costs etc., how much an hour of my working time costs and how much we pay our student assistants for an hour of their time? I am truly impressed by your arrogance.
Just a hint: we are not a 'large enterprise', so I really don't care about what you friend's opinion. Different organisations, different goals, different operation.
You massively over exaggerate. Slavery? Really? So you are ok with your inability to service the machine if the GPU or the PSU fail, but the world crashes down if you lose the ability to exchange RAM? How often do you experience RAM failures anyway? In all honesty, I am more concerned about people spilling drinks on their computers
Happens WAY more often. It is interesting that you take sales numbers as a quality benchmark…
I don't really know what to say here. If you are unable to understand the difference between a performance indicator and CHANGES in the said performance indicator, then maybe it would be best for all of us if you'd go back to your studies and read some books?
Its quite amazing. You know everything, don't you? You know exactly how our operations are structured, what our IT policies are, how our finances look like and how our budget is split into personal vs. material costs etc., how much an hour of my working time costs and how much we pay our student assistants for an hour of their time? I am truly impressed by your arrogance.
Just a hint: we are not a 'large enterprise', so I really don't care about what you friend's opinion. Different organisations, different goals, different operation.
You massively over exaggerate. Slavery? Really? So you are ok with your inability to service the machine if the GPU or the PSU fail, but the world crashes down if you lose the ability to exchange RAM? How often do you experience RAM failures anyway? In all honesty, I am more concerned about people spilling drinks on their computers
I don't really know what to say here. If you are unable to understand the difference between a performance indicator and CHANGES in the said performance indicator, then maybe it would be best for all of us if you'd go back to your studies and read some books?
I've seen IT dept simply replace Macs after 3 years, because they got the budget, and so this reinforces the notion of disposable computers, and that Apple is speeding up obsolescence by soldering components, and so when those 4GB in that macbook air become obsolete in 3 years, you'll just buy a new one. I think you may have been spoiled by this.
From a consumer's point of view it's a different story, this is where expandability is desirable. I still don't get why you are going out of your way defending Apple's profits on this, it makes no sense from a consumer's point of view. It seems soldering ram isn't statistically significant for reliability, and thinness is also arguable since the competition seems to have no trouble having expandability while keeping thinness. Why don't you let Apple defend its profit-scheme, and take the consumer's point of view here?
I know macs used to last 5-10 years and back in the 90s this was actually hurting Apple since they weren't selling more Macs.
Is it impossible that a company may actually be doing more for profits than for the user's benefit?
Working for a very large sports company, our machines are replaced every three years because they are leased. Most short replacement cycles are done for the same reason.
That's the point that I made earlier: many consumers and businesses don't get the luxury of replacing their computers every 3 years.
Being able to upgrade the components extends the usefulness of the computers.
Frankly, there isn't a big difference between don't know and don't care. There is obviously a large overlap between the two.
A military secret? Really? A quick Google search brought up this:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201165
And right at the beginning of the article:
The information is readily available.
Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a computer and if a customer really wants to know, the information is out there.
The market that actually cares about upgradeability is relatively small. With that in mind, is this really a "bad customer policy" or a decision based on the market that Apple is targeting? Remember, Pro doesn't really mean much anymore.
Yeah we all understand that you like your mid 2012 MBP. Enjoy your computer with a slower CPU, GPU, SSD interface, RAM speed, lower resolution display, and shorter battery life. If none of those things are important to you, I'm glad you've found a computer that suits your needs.
Last edited:
Do you have a source for this?
As a Windows 10 user every day, there's still a huge amount to hate about windows 10. More than there is with El Capitan IMHO.
It's not even stable on my Surface Pro 4 - wake from sleep isn't reliable (MS OS on MS hardware... FFS microsoft, it's been 20 years since you tried to do this), the video display driver crashes and restarts regularly, and the resolution independence/high dpi support is just crap (has been since windows 8.1) if you're using 2 different DPI displays (e.g., a non-4k monitor and the inbuilt display).
His next response will be "let them eat cake"
It's the common response/attitude of the Apple apologists around here.
I upgrade Mac components for all my family members. How many Macs do you think I have advised them to buy over the last couple of years? Luckily a couple bought the quad core mini, just before it was recently downgraded. They don't play games, so they are set for MANY a years to come.
When their computers eventually die, I will be advising them that Macs now really cost 2-3 times other quality Windows computers, if they plan on keeping the computer for 3-5 years.
The problem
Is until programmers start making proper desktop class software it doesn't matter. There are some boutique shops making desktop class software. Like pro rest comes to mind. But why Adobe won't make Lightroom proper for iPad is beyond me. Make it a pro only product if you need to limit to new devices.
Anyway until desktop class software is ready. It won't replace a computer. Most reviewers stated the pro can't actually Rolfe a lapto.
Ironically some of the best software closest to the desktop versions is office for iPad. And students get four years for $79. I'm it sure what t costs the average home users. But word onnioad at least is a great tool. It still. Ant do all the advanced functions.
I'd love to see raw photos properly supported if they did that and allowed batch processing I could stop using a computer mostly.
Pro laptops should have pro features. If you don't allow upgrading ram or disk and don't sully discreet graphics then whether it's called pro is irrelevant.
All that keeps coming up are These statements like "most people" "the masses" "average customers" etc.
Those are logical fallacies. There's a reason they don't carry weight in an argument. You're shouting and shouting but you're not making a valid point at all. Everything is just a supposition or appeal to the masses. None of it is a debate point or point made. At all.
The argument is getting old. You may feel most people don't want it but you don't know. Maybe declining sales are due to the limitations. Maybe not. I don't have access to data.
I can say I'm a pro user. I can say I would prefer to be able to upgrade ram as larger disk became available. Or larger hard drives as ssd prices continue to drop
Clearly you don't feel this way. It's fine. But for crying out loud stop should about most people this and that. It's not a valid argument.
I guess you feel something can be classified as pro by putting he word pro in it ?
I have some pro beer. It's like regular beer in every way but cost five times as much.
Sign you up for a case ?
Last edited:
This is my experience with the surface pro 3
It's not the worst device in the The world but it's pretty bad.
I'll
Probably buy the Alienware r2 13" if I can't find something better. Under five pounds. Discreet graphics. Fast processor.
Maybe apple will shock me by releasing a better species machine at a lower price unlikely.
They need to get their finger out and consolidate lines. And stop Calling their Intel graphics powered low end laptop with a two yet old processor a pro machine though m
Screws and bays take up space and add weight, in order to make the newer devices thinner and lighter they remove these and use a strong glue to hold the components in place.
[doublepost=1458935464][/doublepost]
I'm a pro user too, which is why if I'm going to sacrifice my upgradability with a pro laptop then I'm going to build it to be pro, not cut myself short on RAM or processor speeds. I understand the technicalities of why Apple is doing it because I've researched it, both market demographics and hardware engineering. If you feel that Apple is making you less of a Pro because they took away your ability to upgrade your own laptop, by all means, there is a plethora of Windows 10 laptops neglected on the shelf looking for a buyer.
It is considered Pro because of it's abilities to do Pro work such as video editing, photo editing, and music production. It provides the best portable solution that allows those multimedia artists to get their job done without having to hassle with system internals. As you are a power user (not a pro user) then you would probably be more satisfied with a 27" iMac that allows you to upgrade your RAM (only) or a Mac Pro so you won't have to worry about upgrades for years to come.
[doublepost=1458935464][/doublepost]
I'm a pro user too, which is why if I'm going to sacrifice my upgradability with a pro laptop then I'm going to build it to be pro, not cut myself short on RAM or processor speeds. I understand the technicalities of why Apple is doing it because I've researched it, both market demographics and hardware engineering. If you feel that Apple is making you less of a Pro because they took away your ability to upgrade your own laptop, by all means, there is a plethora of Windows 10 laptops neglected on the shelf looking for a buyer.
It is considered Pro because of it's abilities to do Pro work such as video editing, photo editing, and music production. It provides the best portable solution that allows those multimedia artists to get their job done without having to hassle with system internals. As you are a power user (not a pro user) then you would probably be more satisfied with a 27" iMac that allows you to upgrade your RAM (only) or a Mac Pro so you won't have to worry about upgrades for years to come.
Last edited:
I've had an SP3 before, and the 4 is marginally better, but it's still a long, long, long way from the experience you get with an iPad or a Macbook.
And given MS are doing both the hardware and software in this case, they don't have the excuse of blaming third party drivers.
It could and should be better.
Trust me. I had to swap surface four times in three months. Their support is the worst in the industry too. Their premier hardware line is **** Jair if he time and when you get through its to people who have no idea.
I was tempted by the surface book but in the end is rather buy an Alienware to hackintish and iPad Pro then run Astro.
Just be aware that discrete graphics in a fairly portable device will still be crap discrete graphics.
Buy Macbook Air/Pro. buy Bizon Box, stick GTX970 on your desk in it, and hook it up via thunderbolt when you're on AC power.
Have proper GPU when on AC, and don't carry some garbage mobile "discrete" graphics chip with you when you're on battery and using it is pretty useless because it drains the thing in 1-2 hours.
[doublepost=1458936182][/doublepost]
Yeah, i went through 3 surface pro 3s in about 9 months. They used to go flat when left on the dock over the weekend, come in on monday, go into a meeting and your machine that was on charge all weekend has 5% battery. Top work. Takes like 4 hours to charge, too.
That and the way they would fail to re-start, not reliably PXE boot when told to, etc.
The 4 has a lot less pain.... but its still a long way off what I would expect.
very interesting… for you people not knowing about important facts about their purchase that are hidden by the vendor take "decisions" about the facts that they don´t know….
This desperate sort of argument is nothing but absolutely ridiculous.
Nobody claimed that anyone is forced to buy something. Your "argument" is the typical argument of apple defenders who don´t know how to defend apple…. what they forget: They talk with people who payed already and want just that what apple claimed to do: Care for their customers….
This market is rapidly growing. BECAUSE APPLE DOESN´T CARE about their customers.
If they would, this rapidly growing market was nonexistent.
It was NOT apple who cared about their customers for YEARS when lots of dGPU failed, it was that rapidly growing market! They repaired the MBPs when apple just said "That is a total lost, buy a new MBP for 3000 USD or pay for a repair for about 800 USD". I know what I am talking about because I had to throw a 3000 USD "MacBookPro" in the garbage because apple denied the problem of their crappy design for years. The MBP lived just 3 years. The highest cost of ownership I ever had concerning a computer since the early 80´s… and I had a lot of computers since then.
And that they have NOW (Years after all) "extended repair programs" for their crappy MBP 2011-2013 (and surely soon also for 2014/2015) is only because they REFUSED TO VCARE ABOUT THEIR CUSTOMERS for years and were abbot to lose the case at court against several class action lawsuits of their "CUSTOMERS" they took for fools for years.
BTW: The same "dGPU-Barbecue-feature" begins now with the MacPros - and after denying for YEARS GPU-isues with the "garbage-can-designed" MAcPro they started silently also an "Extended repair program" for the crappy nMP line.
Customers were happy that there were services helping them when apple just ignored their own crappy engineering…
You still ignore REAL LIFE FACTS:
CPU, GPU, RAM and so on are important to me.
But I use my brain and look about RELEVANT FACTS instead of glittery marketing phrases.
In fact, the benchmark of the 2015 MBP is only 7% "better" than that of the 2012 MBP.
SSD Interface is irrelevant for daily life as is RAM speed. But I have upgraded my "old" 2012 MBP up to 16 GB and a 2 TB SSD. Starting takes just 14 seconds now. My MBP is now as fast as the 2015 models. Did cost me just 650 Euro all together. THAT is what upgradability and smart investments is all about.
Why invest 2500 USD more for roughly the same product performance???
You really don´t know what you are talking about, if you claim a higher RAM speed or more than 500 MB/s SATA III speed write/read would make any difference in daily life work. Or that newer CPUs/GPus since 2012 would make any difference in daily life.
There are people who look about FACTS and people who believe in marketing phrases.
I prefer to be part of the first group.
I have a lot of apple products. But I am a independent customer who dislikes to be taken for a fool by apple or whoever else.
Last edited:
Again, flawed logic. If one replaces the computer after 3 years its not necessarily because its not upgradeable. Other reason might include that the machine is out of warranty or that the advances in tech make a refresh justified. As I have written countless times already: going from 8GB to 16GB in the regular case WON'T increase the longevity of the computer. And if you buy a higher end 15" model, it ALREADY has 16Gb RAM, which is the ABSOLUTE MAX that you could ever fit into that computer, no matter if the RAM is upgradeable or not.
I can tell you for example how we handle it. Usually, we'd replace the computers every 5 years (people who work with data such as me and other statisticians get a computer replaced every 3 years instead, because the performance increases become considerable). We buy extra 3 years warranty from our supplier. Costs us about 300 swiss franks per machine. If we replace say 40 computers every 5 years, this means extra 12000 swiss franks per five years, or 2400 swiss franks per year or 200 swiss franks per month. If I were to hire a full-time technician for in-hourse repairs it would cost me at least ten times more. This is why we don't do repairs at all. Too expensive. Doesn't make sense. The friend of our knowledgeable buddy MrAverigeUser here might work in a large company, which has thousands of computers (and some very clear IT regulations), so for them it might have a sense to handle some repairs in-house. For us, not at all. In fact, by using Macs and foregoing any tinkering with the hardware we are saving thousands and thousands per year in personal costs.
When did I claim the contrary? My claim is certainly not that expandability is non-desirable. My claim is that expandability is not as important to users as you and some others say it is. I believe that only very few users ever upgrade their computers and that in this time and age, upgrades are less important or relevant then ever. I think I was fairly clear on my point here. Which can be basically summed up as: don't care what Apple or other companies do in this regard, because upgradeability is the last point on my list of what I look in a computer.
Using terms such as 'statistically significant' means that you did a statistical study. Would you be so kind to point me to this study? I have no evidence on the matter, aside anecdotal one. Personally, I'd expect soldered-on RAM to be considerably reliable than slotted one.
I am not defending them. In fact, if you look through this thread, I very explicitly say that the main reason why Apple does soldered-on RAM is because its first and foremost convenient to THEM. I also agree with you that non-upgradeable RAM is LESS convenient to the customer (pending more exact study of the reliability thing). I just think that its not a big deal. Would it me possible for Apple to build MBPs with upgradeable RAM? I don't see why not. Its simply not something that I as an Apple customer care about.
BTW, I do not a moment believe that soldered-on RAM is some sort of evil plan of Apple to get more money through 'forced' upgrades. Apple upgrades were always ridiculously expensive and people were buying them anyway. Folks who upgraded was always in overwhelming minority. The much more simpler and likely — at least in my eyes - explanation is simply process streamlining. Soldered-on RAM means more simpler manufacturing and system design. Thats it.
Just the fact that you said you'd get an alienware proves you don't know jack about pricing computers. I was done with you until I saw this. You want a real laptop get an Aorus. Alienware is the kind of crap that rich parents get their kids because of the name brand, and they aren't willing to spend more than 20 minutes looking for a gaming laptop.
I have a MacBook Pro, a MacBook Air, an iMac, and a custom gaming rig that I ended up building myself.
The MacBook Pro is solid for just photo editing
The MacBook Air is solid for classwork
The iMac is solid for music production and game development.
The gaming rig is as follows
MSI X99A Raider
5820k 6-core i7 which I OC'd to 4.0 Ghz
32 GB DDR4 RAM
MSI GeForce 980Ti SeaHawk (plays the division at 144+ fps on ultra)
512GB SSD + 4 TB 7200 RPM HDD
Corsair H105 CPU cooler
5x 120 MM SP120 fans
1300w EVGA (because I plan on SLI later on)
Now you get your alienware for $3000 I bought my rig outright for $2000 and put it together myself. You need to stop bashing Apple devices because they don't compare to a Gaming PC. Guess what all three of my devices don't compare to the performance of my gaming rig but the difference between you and the rest of these people trying to help out with this question is the fact that you think Apple should make gaming computers which they don't. Apple computers have never been gaming computers, they are in the market of multimedia and design. Not the same thing.
Before you make another post on here, you really need to understand that most people who own a Mac are a) journalist b) music producers c) web designers d) iOS app devs or e) college students doing homework. Not a single one of those groups has time for games and there is little push for gaming graphics. Fork out the $2500 for a MacBook Pro with dedicated GPU if you want to play games.
That Alienware comment really set me off. Alienware and Apple have nothing in common, Alienware used to be good back before Dell bought them. Apple also updates their laptops every year and it just so happens that Intel releases their new processor after Apple releases their new lineup, so I don't know where you got your two years back info because in terms of release cycle those Broadwell chips are just one release behind. New skylake processors are coming in June or July and Intel will upgrade to 7th Gen processors in August or September.
Did this guy just wrote about 'using his brain' and 'real world' and 'relevant facts' and then quote artificial benchmarks and '14 seconds' to back up his point? Wow, this is hilarious. How about doing some measurements on real workflows?
You have invested 650 Euro in a 4 year old machine out of warranty to get '14 seconds' boot time? You must be filthy rich. I certainly don't have that kind of money and here I though I was doing quite well
For my work, it means improvements of 20-30% on computational workflows and about 1.5-2x improvements on data loading/writing. I actually measured it. So yes, I know what I am talking about. Sure, if you workflow is about reading emails or writing reports in Word, you won't notice any difference. But then again you won't notice any difference between 8GB and 16GB, so I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
Also I'm not sure who said it but faster RAM Speeds do make a difference, I am an IT Pro, been in the field for 7+ years with a bachelors in Information Security. Studied computers for longer but no work experience to back it up on a resume.
I'm just going to say this.
100 Mhz used to mean -1 second for computing time. Now that we are in the Ghz it's almost negligible. In Ghz you will notice a performance hit. Processors are important for crunching numbers. (the 1s and 0s that it works with)
The speed of your RAM determines how fast it can send data to that processor. In terms of speed 1333 vs 1866 MHz is about half a second in difference. In the real world, most people don't notice, in computer terms it's a long time. For me it feels like a long time.
DDR3 vs DDR4, I don't notice a difference.
dual core vs quad core, I notice a difference.
4 GB of RAM vs 8 GB of RAM, I notice a difference
8 GB vs 16 GB of RAM, I notice a difference only after I've used 6 GB of RAM.
Your HDD also matters but only after your RAM has been used up. 7200 seems to be the way to go for platters, but SSDs are the way to go period.
Your processor speed is relevant to your graphics performance, in games like Minecraft, your single core performance is very important, in multicore games like Bioshock, not so much. When it comes to graphics cards, the amount of memory your graphics card has is completely relevant to the speed of the bus on the Graphics card. If you have a graphics card with 4 GB of memory and a slow bus, a 2 GB graphics card with a faster bus could outperform it on a newer game.
[doublepost=1458937924][/doublepost]
Apple does try to profit off users at their expense but by forcing them to want the high dollar models. It's not about defending Apples profit scheme, Apple makes a device and a darn good one at that. Granted you know what an Apple device is for. Macs still last 10 years, my family has a few. I agree with your last statement, Apple should be thinking more about their profits than the users, but at the same time, they do want to make sure that the users aren't getting screwed by the OS and mix and match hardware. Support costs money, that's why Microsoft charges a consumer $150 per ticket. Apple does this for free and if they can cut down on the number of tickets by disallowing users to install hardware that is incompatible then that's what's going to happen. They started this model when the big push for Apple laptops came through and all of a sudden college classrooms which were 80% Windows are now becoming 80% Macs and even though they might have very specialized skills in say Rocket Science, they may know jack about computers.
I'm just going to say this.
100 Mhz used to mean -1 second for computing time. Now that we are in the Ghz it's almost negligible. In Ghz you will notice a performance hit. Processors are important for crunching numbers. (the 1s and 0s that it works with)
The speed of your RAM determines how fast it can send data to that processor. In terms of speed 1333 vs 1866 MHz is about half a second in difference. In the real world, most people don't notice, in computer terms it's a long time. For me it feels like a long time.
DDR3 vs DDR4, I don't notice a difference.
dual core vs quad core, I notice a difference.
4 GB of RAM vs 8 GB of RAM, I notice a difference
8 GB vs 16 GB of RAM, I notice a difference only after I've used 6 GB of RAM.
Your HDD also matters but only after your RAM has been used up. 7200 seems to be the way to go for platters, but SSDs are the way to go period.
Your processor speed is relevant to your graphics performance, in games like Minecraft, your single core performance is very important, in multicore games like Bioshock, not so much. When it comes to graphics cards, the amount of memory your graphics card has is completely relevant to the speed of the bus on the Graphics card. If you have a graphics card with 4 GB of memory and a slow bus, a 2 GB graphics card with a faster bus could outperform it on a newer game.
[doublepost=1458937924][/doublepost]
Apple does try to profit off users at their expense but by forcing them to want the high dollar models. It's not about defending Apples profit scheme, Apple makes a device and a darn good one at that. Granted you know what an Apple device is for. Macs still last 10 years, my family has a few. I agree with your last statement, Apple should be thinking more about their profits than the users, but at the same time, they do want to make sure that the users aren't getting screwed by the OS and mix and match hardware. Support costs money, that's why Microsoft charges a consumer $150 per ticket. Apple does this for free and if they can cut down on the number of tickets by disallowing users to install hardware that is incompatible then that's what's going to happen. They started this model when the big push for Apple laptops came through and all of a sudden college classrooms which were 80% Windows are now becoming 80% Macs and even though they might have very specialized skills in say Rocket Science, they may know jack about computers.
Last edited:
Did this guy just wrote about 'using his brain' and 'real world' and 'relevant facts' and then quote artificial benchmarks and '14 seconds' to back up his point? Wow, this is hilarious. How about doing some measurements on real workflows?
You have invested 650 Euro in a 4 year old machine out of warranty to get '14 seconds' boot time? You must be filthy rich. I certainly don't have that kind of money and here I though I was doing quite well
You are wrong in all points:1) I did not at all claim to have invested for a gain of 30 seconds starting the MBP. The 14 sec. was only to show that this machine is as fast as the 2015 MBPs. In fact, the upgrade of the RAM helped me a lot. As did the fact that in one of our 2011 machines I had to replace a failing RAM one year ago. No problem since this was happily exchangeable…
2) ou are WRONG about warranty: The 2012 cMBP has apple care service until september 2016 since it has been assembled as one of the last 2012 models and was purchased in September 2013.
3) about measurements: YES, I quoted already 1 or 2 months ago the performance measurements of the 2012 and 2015 MBPs. The difference in benchmarks is about 7-9%, not more.
You are free to compare the listing at everymac yourself. EVIDENTLY you don´t know what you´re talking about because you claim relevant differences between the models of 2012 and 2015.
And yes: 99% of customers do not much more than emails, surfing, photoshop, office work and other things which demand not more than 10-40% of the CPU and GPU…
We are NOT talking about servers, we are talking about notebooks, you know?
The "Improvements" you are talking about are nothing but peak workload for some seconds - if even that long.
And I am very impressed that you did NOT answer at ONE SINGLE FACT about cost efficiency and budget-respecting investments.
This is the most impressing… you just don´t talk, yes: You absolutely AVOID talking about when someone shows that your claims are not correct.
This talks about itself….
Last edited:
You keep bringing up 8gb/16gb examples and that's the flawed logic, why are you conveniently not considering that Apple currently ships 4gb macbook airs, and 4gb mac minis, for which upgrading to 8gb might indeed extend its life? And what about the MPB Retina from 2013 that has soldered 4gb?
Honestly, it seems we are all operating by anecdote, and whatever 'credentials' one might have don't really mean much here without hard data which is hard to find. But it's hard to take your opinion seriously when there plenty of macs, both current and just a couple of years old that ship with 4gb DEFAULT, and you keep having a notion that we live in a 8gb/16gb world. We don't.
...and a spinner HDD you can't replace, too.
Edit: oops, I meant iMac, not Macbooks, obviously.