Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,288
6,771
Serbia
Thanks that's a good start :).

Next: Surface Pro latest version with bells whistles and a bag of chips! (Please imagine a nosy M$ store dude getting all into your conversations as you write your response) ;)


That's easy - no quad-core CPU in both Pro and Book models which I need for very hi-poly Zbrush work. The Surface Pro has only integrated HD 520 which is not good enough for my needs. Also - and you're going to love this - ports! They don't have Thunderbolt ports which I need for my Thunderbolt drive. You can't fix that even with a dongle! Ha! Again - not pro!

Look, I could go on all day :) I think I made my point. Of course these are all great computers. These are all pro machines - the Dell XPS, the Surface Pro, the Surface Book, the MacBook Pro. Every one of these computers can be used for professional work and they are great. I am just saying - everyone can find something about them that they are missing. That doesn't make them "not pro" - it just makes them not suitable for everyone.

Choice is a good thing. Diversity is good. MacBook Pro is a very unique device, let's not wish for it to become just another Dell or HP - because, you know, we already have Dell and HP.
 

Bryan Bowler

macrumors 601
Sep 27, 2008
4,024
4,347
Maybe these people constantly travel the world and are expected to be ready to churn out deliverables no matter where they are, and the difference between having to carry a loaded, checked-luggage Pelican with a desktop and a monitor hundreds of thousands of miles yearly and carrying a notebook is 3 millimeters. These people are selecting notebooks because a desktop would not make sense in their workflow.

YES! And thank you. This describes my situation perfectly. Am I supposed to cart a desktop with me to Africa and then squeeze it on a bush plane with the rest of my already heavy gear? Should I load up a desktop and take it to Europe for a Red Bull event and then take it with me to China the next week for a World Wingsuit Race?

I am sick and tired of having people on here tell me that I should use a desktop instead of a laptop. Laptops are meant for mobility and I need a pro-version. The editors I work for do not care. They expect me to deliver lightning fast results and my livelihood depends on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjjoseph

brynsmith23

macrumors regular
Jan 24, 2007
154
92
Australia/NZ
YES! And thank you. This describes my situation perfectly. Am I supposed to cart a desktop with me to Africa and then squeeze it on a bush plane with the rest of my already heavy gear? Should I load up a desktop and take it to Europe for a Red Bull event and then take it with me to China the next week for a World Wingsuit Race?

I am sick and tired of having people on here tell me that I should use a desktop instead of a laptop. Laptops are meant for mobility and I need a pro-version. The editors I work for do not care. They expect me to deliver lightning fast results and my livelihood depends on it.

Instead of complaining on here so much, now that you have cancelled your 2016 macbook pro order.

Why don't you go and find yourself a Laptop that suits your needs... You have pointed out a million times that this laptop won't work for you due to the RAM limitations.

Whining, is not going to help you...Apple have released what they thought would work for the majority of the users...

Maybe in 2018-2020 they will make something better...

It is a product designed for portable use and its pretty damm good for a lightweight laptop..... Apple have focused on Battery Life, Portability and Form.

At least you can use a MBP, It wasn't that long ago it was film and not digital...

Let us know what laptop you end up getting.
 

bopajuice

Suspended
Mar 22, 2016
1,571
4,348
Dark side of the moon
And who are you to say that "these people should be using desktops"? That is ridiculous, when the obstacle to bring 32GB of RAM to a notebook is not massive. It just requires that you don't shave 3 millimeters off of the already thin professional workstation notebook.

Maybe these people constantly travel the world and are expected to be ready to churn out deliverables no matter where they are, and the difference between having to carry a loaded, checked-luggage Pelican with a desktop and a monitor hundreds of thousands of miles yearly and carrying a notebook is 3 millimeters. These people are selecting notebooks because a desktop would not make sense in their workflow.

Not to mention another checked-luggage Pelican full of dongles.
 

mrex

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,458
1,527
europe
How is it possible that you guys just don't understand. They CAN'T give you a CTO option without making the thing into a laptop that is against their core design principles. Even with a thicker design, it would still have a lousy battery. That is not what Apple stands for.

If they could put 32Gb RAM in this model - they would. But it is a very portable high-performance computer. You cannot make a very portable high-performance computer with 32Gb RAM at the moment. You can make a computer that is heavy and has low battery life with 32Gb RAM, but Apple doesn't make those. So you'll either have to wait or get something else.

this is the thing i dont understand here: Are you saying that the last gen 13" mbp wasnt portable and high-performing laptop?

you are defending apple and saying that they couldnt put 32gb ram because of the battery life, and it would thicker, non-portable etc, but in the same time they reduced the battery from 75Wh to 50Wh. if they had kept the design as it was earlier and kept the battery as it was earlier, would it have still lousy battery and be non-portable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjjoseph

jjjoseph

macrumors 6502a
Sep 16, 2013
503
643
That's easy - no quad-core CPU in both Pro and Book models which I need for very hi-poly Zbrush work. The Surface Pro has only integrated HD 520 which is not good enough for my needs. Also - and you're going to love this - ports! They don't have Thunderbolt ports which I need for my Thunderbolt drive. You can't fix that even with a dongle! Ha! Again - not pro!

Look, I could go on all day :) I think I made my point. Of course these are all great computers. These are all pro machines - the Dell XPS, the Surface Pro, the Surface Book, the MacBook Pro. Every one of these computers can be used for professional work and they are great. I am just saying - everyone can find something about them that they are missing. That doesn't make them "not pro" - it just makes them not suitable for everyone.

Choice is a good thing. Diversity is good. MacBook Pro is a very unique device, let's not wish for it to become just another Dell or HP - because, you know, we already have Dell and HP.
I think Apple should license their OS again. Maybe we could get a powerful laptop again. So the pros can get back to work on OS X. If not everyone in my industry will have to switch to windows. Something for me and my company that isn't an option right now. But we might have to soon. iPad Pro and MacBook Pro seem to be for the same market I suppose. Not my market anymore.
 

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,288
6,771
Serbia
this is the thing i dont understand here: Are you saying that the last gen 13" mbp wasnt portable and high-performing laptop?

you are defending apple and saying that they couldnt put 32gb ram because of the battery life, and it would thicker, non-portable etc, but in the same time they reduced the battery from 75Wh to 50Wh. if they had kept the design as it was earlier and kept the battery as it was earlier, would it have still lousy battery and be non-portable?

From what I heard, a 75Wh battery wouldn't give 10h with 32Gb RAM unless it's LPDDR4, which doesn't exist. As RAM is constantly used, using one that is not low-powered has a significant effect.
[doublepost=1478946015][/doublepost]
I think Apple should license their OS again. Maybe we could get a powerful laptop again. So the pros can get back to work on OS X. If not everyone in my industry will have to switch to windows. Something for me and my company that isn't an option right now. But we might have to soon. iPad Pro and MacBook Pro seem to be for the same market I suppose. Not my market anymore.

God no. You want to destroy Apple's biggest advantage because of one computer.

And if iPad Pro and MacBook Pro are for the same market, than so is the Surface Pro, Surface Book and 90% of PC laptops out there.

Ah, it's no use. Just go and get that crappy Dell with 1-2h effective battery life for demanding programs. I don't even understand, with that laptop you have to be tethered to the wall to do any serious work, so why not just get a desktop? Now you'll tell me that you specifically need a laptop even if you have to keep it plugged into the wall all the time. Fine. But at least acknowledge that you're a very specific case.

Let me give you an example. I'm left handed. I use Logitech mice. One day, Logitech decided they were not going to produce their mice in left-handed variants because not enough people is buying them. I wasn't angry - I undersood them. That's how things are.
 
Last edited:

mrex

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,458
1,527
europe
From what I heard, a 75Wh battery wouldn't give 10h with 32Gb RAM unless it's LPDDR4, which doesn't exist. As RAM is constantly used, using one that is not low-powered has a significant effect.
[doublepost=1478946015][/doublepost]

lpddr may have a better idle power consuming, and it consumes less power than ddr under the load, but im still waiting someone to point 'how much', what is the difference? .. "heard", "someone told", "phil said"... but the numbers? how much more? remember also calculate the paging on the ssd and the impact for consuming battery and taking more time to finish the job.

25Wh is lot of juice to consume...
 

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,288
6,771
Serbia
lpddr may have a better idle power consuming, and it consumes less power than ddr under the load, but im still waiting someone to point 'how much', what is the difference? .. "heard", "someone told", "phil said"... but the numbers? how much more? remember also calculate the paging on the ssd and the impact for consuming battery and taking more time to finish the job.

25Wh is lot of juice to consume...

Well, true - "heard", "someone told" - I agree, it's not really scientific. But the same could be said for the other side - how do they know that "adding just 3mm" or "keeping the same battery" would allow for 32Gb? How do they know how much changes would be required?

My logic is this - we all know that if Apple could put 32Gb in that laptop - people would buy it. They would charge it A LOT, and people would buy it. They would have great profits from it. I don't think they were like: "meh, who needs 32Gb?". I also compare the new MBPs to other laptops that do offer 32Gb RAM. None of these laptops have great battery life. None that I've seen - I would love to see one that does. So, I'm guessing, it's not that simple.

Now, what people want is for Apple to give them choice: do you want less RAM but better battery life or do you want more RAM but bad battery life? But Apple has never been about these kinds of chocies. This is what bothers me - Apple was never like Dell or HP. Go to a Dell website - the XPS 15 or 13 can be anything from a low-res screen low-power with an integrated GPU to a 4K, i7 computer with a GeForce 960M. You can customize it in million ways. And that's fine - but that's not Apple. If you want that - go get Dell. It's that simple.

I find all this very contradictory. People say really silly things - like, I want a computer like Dell, but I am looking for it from a company that has always operated in a diametrically opposite way.

It was always like this. Just check the comments for the first MacBook Pros with Retina displays in 2012: "barely enough RAM (and not upgradable to the “enough” level), no dedicated graphics, only dual-core processors. It certainly isn’t bad, but Apple just took the “pro” out of the 13-inch line. And come on - it’s freaking expensive."

That was 4 years ago. And it was the same 10 years ago, as well. It was the same when they remover the floppy drive, the CD drive, the LAN port. Apple was always making devices they think are best and didn't give choice to users when it comes to these things. And people are now realizing this? They JUST realized - hey, Apple is NOT Dell?

All of this is a non-issue. History repeating itself. People complain and complain with every - EVERY - new refresh of an Apple product. Just get that Dell already. But don't repeat that mantra "if they only didn't shave off 3mm, they could've made everything I wanted" - because you don't know that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BarracksSi

mrex

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,458
1,527
europe
How do they know how much changes would be required?My logic is this - we all know that if Apple could put 32Gb in that laptop...

they didnt provide 32gb because the current memory system can handle only max 16gb. it makes me only thinking that they didnt even know how to change the system so they kept it still the same.

It doesnt make sense to provide only 16gb ram nowadays and in the same time introducing usb-c to be the standard in the future and saying that mbp is going to be future proof. abit odd signal. what is needed in a near future is definitely more ram. i wouldnt even consider to get a laptop without 16gb ram nowadays.

All of this is a non-issue. History repeating itself. People complain and complain with every - EVERY - new refresh of an Apple product. Just get that Dell already. But don't repeat that mantra "if they only didn't shave off 3mm, they could've made everything I wanted" - because you don't know that.


i quess you havent read this one? https://www.slrlounge.com/an-open-letter-to-apple-from-the-actual-working-pros/
 

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,288
6,771
Serbia
they didnt provide 32gb because the current memory system can handle only max 16gb. it makes me only thinking that they didnt even know how to change the system so they kept it still the same.

It doesnt make sense to provide only 16gb ram nowadays and in the same time introducing usb-c to be the standard in the future and saying that mbp is going to be future proof. abit odd signal. what is needed in a near future is definitely more ram. i wouldnt even consider to get a laptop without 16gb ram nowadays.




i quess you havent read this one? https://www.slrlounge.com/an-open-letter-to-apple-from-the-actual-working-pros/

Again the same story of some "pros" being more "pro" than other "pros", expecting Apple to do what they want according to their personal needs and not the needs of the majority (because the majority is not pro, true pros are those that want what we want and everyone else is not a pro - right?).

And this attitude is all over the place: YOU wouldn't consider a laptop with only 16Gb. Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but who cares what YOU would consider? I'm sorry to be so blunt - but why should I care what YOU - or some guy writing "an open letter" thinks? Who made you the objective quantifiers of professional needs?

I could give you articles (and I did) where other pros claim this new MBP is great, this is fine, the new MBPs are crazy fast - but then you'd say something like "they are not REAL pros". And the cycle continues.

And I think I'm out of this one. It was fun trying to convince you people that not every pro is the same and that just because you guys need/want/request something, that doesn't make it universally the best option. But I guess that is not something you can grasp. Because YOU need something, that must mean it's more important than whatever the rest of us need. Fine. I honestly don't care.

Enjoy whatever choices you make everyone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig

Freida

Suspended
Oct 22, 2010
4,077
5,868
You are complaining to the wrong company here. Apple does not design nor manufacture the CPU that goes into the MBP, Intel does. The limit of 16GB in this machine is a technical one and the fact that Apple does not use Kaby Lake is also a technical one: the CPUs required for this MBP are not available in Kaby Lake just yet, they are currently only available in the previous gen. Since you can't give people an option that doesn't exist you have to go with the one that does exist and unfortunately for you, that means no more than 16GB of memory. You are oversimplifying the situation here.

And you are being incorrect. Apple can put 32GB in its not an issue. The issue is battery life here.
Yes, Kaby Lake will bring new support for better memory modules that are more efficient but that is not the discussion here.
CTO 32GB for those that needed. I'm sure those people understand that they are sacrificing battery life and I'm sure those people that need 32GB won't really care about battery. Simple as that
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrex

zhenya

macrumors 604
Jan 6, 2005
6,929
3,677
There seems to be a general belief that in some previous time, Apple produced laptops that were substantially more powerful than those they make today. That previously people could buy a Mac laptop that was much closer to a 'desktop replacement' than today. I'm not sure I buy that. Let's look back to late 2010, the heyday of the 17" MBP, which is when many people seem to think they could last get such a device and do some comparisons.

In 2010 the top of the line 17" MBP was equipped with an i7-640m processor with 2 cores at 2.8Ghz and a Geekbench 2 32 score of 5837.
At that same time the top of the line Mac Pro was equipped with two 6 Core Xeon X5670's at 2.93Ghz with a Geekbench 2 32 score of 21754.
The Mac Pro is 3.7x faster. And has 12 cores to the 2 in the MBP.

The MBP was equipped with 4GB RAM with a maximum of 8GB.
The Mac Pro with 6GB RAM and a maximum of 32GB (later updated to 128GB).
The Mac Pro initially allowed for 4x as much RAM, later extending that to 16x.

The video card was a GeForce GT 330M vs. the Radeon HD 5770. That's:
- 25.6 GB/s vs 76.5 GB/s memory bandwidth
- 9.2 Gtexel/s vs. 34 Gtexels/s Texture Rate
- 48 vs. 800 shading units
- 121.44 GFLOPS vs. 1360 GFLOPS
The Mac Pro was between 3-10x as fast.

The MBP could drive 1 additional display (2 total) while the Mac Pro could drive 6.
That's 3x as many displays for the Mac Pro.

The MBP had a 5400 RPM 500GB drive vs. 1TB at 7200 in the Mac Pro, but the real advantage of the Mac Pro at this time before widespread SSD's was that one could cheaply increase performance with a RAID array - wholly not possible on the MBP.
Less obvious here, but at the time, 2.5" platter drives were at a significant disadvantage to the larger 3.5" desktop drives just due to platter diameter. The ability to RAID a Mac Pro would put it far over the top.

For connectivity we had on the MBP 3 USB 2.0, 1 FW800, 1 Gigabit Ethernet and 1 mini Displayport for a total of ~3.3Gbps (not including the Displayport). On the Mac Pro we had 5 USB 2.0, 4 FW800, 2 Gigabit Ethernet, up to 4 mini Displayports, and 2 Dual Link DVI ports for a total of ~7.6Gbps (not including display connections).
More than 2x the bandwidth for the Mac Pro.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, let's see what today's comparison looks like.

Today's MBP has with the I7-6920HQ has not been widely benchmarked, but if we compare to last year's model with the I7-4980HQ we know that the Geekbench 32 score should be ~10% higher than last year's score of about 14000.
The current Mac Pro tops out with the 12 Core Xeon E5-2697v2 with a score of 24420.
The Mac Pro is 1.7x as fast. Much faster of course if we look at multi-core scores - but still we are talking 4 cores vs. 12.

Today's MBP tops out at 16GB RAM, the Mac Pro at 128GB.
The Mac Pro can have up to 8x as much RAM.

For video cards we have vs. the Mac Pro with two AMD FirePro D700's.
- 80GB/s vs. 264GB/s memory bandwidth
- 40.8Gtexel/s vs. 108.8Gtexel/s Texture rate
- 768 vs. 2048 shading units
- 1306 GFLOPS vs. 3482 GFLOPS
The Mac Pro is ~3x as fast per graphics processor, although the Mac Pro can be equipped with two of these.

The MBP can drive 2 5k displays vs. up to 3 5k displays on the Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro can drive 1 more 5k display.

The MBP has up to 2TB SSD that is among the fastest on the market at 3.1/2.1Gbps R/W vs. the Mac Pro at about 1.1/1.1 R/W.
The MacBook Pro has a MUCH faster SSD. At worst, this all-important component has been equalized in the MacBook Pro.

For connectivity today we have 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports on the MBP vs. 4 USB 3.0, 6 Thunderbolt 2, 2 Gigabit Ethernet, and 1 HDMI port on the Mac Pro. That's 160Gbps total bandwidth on the MBP vs. 152Gbps on the Mac Pro.
The MacBook Pro now has MORE connective bandwidth than the top of the line Mac Pro.

As I put together this comparison what has become clear to me - far clearer than I even suspected before I started - is that today's MBP is much closer in performance to today's Mac Pro workstation than it was back in 2010 - ie. the 'golden age' when Apple was actually making 'real' Pro laptops. Even accounting for the fact that today's Mac Pro is a couple of years out of date, Silicon improvements just haven't been enough to account for the difference.

I believe that if you really think you could have done 'serious Pro work' on a MacBook Pro in 2010 but can't today, it's as much that your personal needs have changed more than Apple has changed anything about how they build their laptops. Certainly today's laptops reflect today's trends of how people generally use laptops - all the time and everywhere - where battery life and portability play a very important role, but at the same time, Apple and the rest of the industry has been able to close the gap between their laptop and desktop lines by a significant margin over the past 6 years.
 

mrex

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,458
1,527
europe
YOU wouldn't consider a laptop with only 16Gb. Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but who cares what YOU would consider?

if you are going to buy a laptop, which suppose to be a future proof, i think, you should go with a laptop with 16gb ram. that is the point. if you are replacing your laptop every year, who cares... buy the next one to suit your needs, but some of us keep their laptops for years and ram is something that is needed in a near future - not 4x usb-c ports while everyobne can buy a hub and having them lots of more... you can always add ports with hubs but not a memory.


I could give you articles (and I did) where other pros claim this new MBP is great, this is fine, the new MBPs are crazy fast - but then you'd say something like "they are not REAL pros". And the cycle continues.

that doesnt work like that. it doesnt matter how many pros there are and are happy with 8 or 16gb ram, if you cant cant do anything with it. there are people who were waiting for new macbooks for years but the same old story.. thinner and lighter but no real benefits.

to me 16gb is enough.. but the person next to me cant do anything with that ampunt of ram. it doesnt matter how much i can do while the other cant do anything.

i really dont understand why dont you understand that there are people who needs "pro" from apple but apple refuses to give it.

to me those are fine machines. but to someone they are terrible and they shouldnt be called "pro" nowadays, anymore...
 

Ethosik

Contributor
Oct 21, 2009
7,785
6,703
Which means knowing that RAM is limited, most software don't overuse it unless they really need to. Again, having 32GB RAM doesn't mean they can all be utilized. On the other hand, having a faster RAM (like DDR5, who knows when thats gonna come out), does make a significant difference. Reducing the tiers between different speed of storages "might" help, assuming its IO can match or surpass both the bandwidth and latency of current RAM. Size is not the only bottleneck.
People need to learn how memory is used too. I throw 122GB to After Effects, and it uses that because IT CAN. Not because it MUST. I can do the same thing on 16GB of memory, just a little slower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,288
6,771
Serbia
People need to learn how memory is used too. I throw 122GB to After Effects, and it uses that because IT CAN. Not because it MUST. I can do the same thing on 16GB of memory, just a little slower.

NO! You're not a pro! You NEED at least 32Gb! It's IMPOSSIBLE to do anything pro on 16Gb! Impossible!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ethosik

mrex

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,458
1,527
europe
NO! You're not a pro! You NEED at least 32Gb! It's IMPOSSIBLE to do anything pro on 16Gb! Impossible!

a bad example. i have macbook pro only with 8gb, but i see lots of paging taking up to 5-10gb. it is fine to me.

you can be pro with 4gb ram, 8gb ram, 16gb or whatever... the thing is that apple calls them pro, when they - more or less - mean just prosumers nowadays.

you are actually mocking people who do works that is ram intense and tasks are done much faster when having enough ram than paging all the time (or even if it was possible without ram enough).

i know people who do tv stuff and they werent happy with these new "pros".
 

ixxx69

macrumors 65816
Jul 31, 2009
1,294
878
United States
you are actually mocking people who do works that is ram intense and tasks are done much faster when having enough ram than paging all the time (or even if it was possible without ram enough).
No, he's "mocking" you because even though he's pointed out numerous times that he understands and has cited usages that require more than 16GB of RAM, you (and a few others being rather irrational) continually persist as though that hasn't been acknowledged.

It's pretty apparent that you just want to keep arguing this topic, despite a general lack of technical knowledge on it. Again, par for the course these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aevan

mrex

macrumors 68040
Jul 16, 2014
3,458
1,527
europe
the problem with this guy is that he likes to divide the system parts.. cpu, ram etc rather than dealing with a whole system.

macbook pro isnt pro anymore nowadays.
 

aevan

macrumors 601
Original poster
Feb 5, 2015
4,288
6,771
Serbia
the problem with this guy is that he likes to divide the system parts.. cpu, ram etc rather than dealing with a whole system.

macbook pro isnt pro anymore nowadays.


No, no, I meant it as a whole system. I was trying to show that what people are saying about the parts was wrong - but you're right, it's not about the parts, it's about the whole. And looking at it as the whole system, it looks like one of the best pro laptops out there. No doubt.
 

bniu

macrumors 65816
Mar 21, 2010
1,118
302
Why do I want a MBP with 32GB of ram? Easy. I like to get about 6-7 year or so of usage out of my MBP before I move on. Spending over $3K on a laptop, I want longevity. 32 or 64GB of ram gives me that.

Currently, I'm wrapping up year 3 with my MBP, so it looks like in another 3 years, I will be in the market for another MBP. By then, I'm hoping for 64GB RAM and maybe 4TB of flash storage.
 

dyn

macrumors 68030
Aug 8, 2009
2,708
388
.nl
And you are being incorrect. Apple can put 32GB in its not an issue. The issue is battery life here.
The only one being incorrect here is you. You are incorrect in thinking that one can simply slap in a new CPU or just some memory chips and you are incorrect in thinking the issue is battery life. A computer is more than just a CPU, it's a complete PCB and that PCB needs to house all the components. The problem with the current CPU used is its memory support. It either supports the notebook memory (which is limited to 16GB) or it uses the desktop memory (which can go up to 32GB). The latter comes at several costs: it uses more power, it uses more space on a PCB and something people forget a lot: because it uses more power it can also dissipate more heat. There is far more to this than just batter life. It requires a redesign of the PCB and such.

Yes, Kaby Lake will bring new support for better memory modules that are more efficient but that is not the discussion here.
CTO 32GB for those that needed. I'm sure those people understand that they are sacrificing battery life and I'm sure those people that need 32GB won't really care about battery. Simple as that
You know what they say about assumptions and I can tell you that it is going to apply here. Lesson 1 in IT and engineering: users do not know or understand. There are some exceptions luckily but most are just like that. Look around the forums here regarding the new MBP and you'll see that most people have absolutely no understanding of what they actually need. That's the entire gist of this topic too: when you actually put things to the test it shows something completely different to what people are saying here. The only certainty here is that people will whine even when the machine has the exact specs they want. It's just who they are.

Like it or not, there are actually sound technical/engineering reasons why there is no 32GB option. And for most this discussion is far above their head. You guys simply need to accept that and move on. As simple as that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karnicopia

brynsmith23

macrumors regular
Jan 24, 2007
154
92
Australia/NZ
My GTX 680 in my Mac Pro can't edit 4K :(. Omg! That computer is not Pro!

lol, we can go on all day what is and isn't a "Pro" computer.

At the end of the day, you can only buy something that works for your needs.

"Pro" is just a sales pitch from Apple, it doesn't necessary mean the fastest, best in class at all times

Its just a name, and I'm sure apple would have analysed the market together with the tech that is "Currently" available to see what would appeal to the public.

This new laptop will be fine for "Most" people that need a portable high end laptop.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.