Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Offer 32GB of Desktop RAM, Kaby Lake In Top-End 2017 MacBook Pro, Says Analyst (appleinsider.com)
AppleInsider has obtained a note to investors from KGI analyst Ming-Chi Kuo that says Apple's 2017 laptop line will focus on internal component updates, including the platform-wide adoption of Intel's Kaby Lake architecture. What's more is that Apple is expected to manufacture a 15-inch MacBook Pro with up to 32GB of RAM in the fourth quarter of 2017. AppleInsider reports: Apple took flak in releasing its latest MacBook Pro with Touch Bar models with a hard memory cap of 16GB, an minimal allotment viewed as a negative for imaging and video professionals. Responding to customer criticism, Apple said the move was made in a bid to maximize battery life. Essentially, the Intel Skylake CPUs used in Apple's MacBook Pro only support up to 16GB of LPDDR3 RAM at 2133MHz. Though Intel does make processors capable of addressing more than 16GB of memory, those particular chipsets rely on less efficient DDR4 RAM and are usually deployed in desktops with access to dedicated mains power. In order to achieve high memory allotments and keep unplugged battery life performance on par with existing MacBook Pro models, Apple will need to move to an emerging memory technology like LPDDR4 or DDR4L. Such hardware is on track for release later this year. As for the 12-inch MacBook, Kuo believes next-generation versions of the thin-and-light will enter mass production in the second quarter with the same basic design aesthetic introduced in 2015. New for 2017 is a 16GB memory option that will make an appearance thanks to Intel's new processor class.
they could have chosen the 32 gb option and used a bigger battery, but it "has to be thin" so they went with the lpddr3.
Jobs was right. You people because you lie. Normal people are happy with what Apple provides to us. It is you hateful people that hate so much that are unhappy with what our rulers provide. I have a 2010-ear Apple that has 16 Mbytes of RAM. I have happy with that because I am a normal person and not what of your hateful kind. Your hateful kind. Apple tells me what I need. I just want to die while waiting on it to swap constantly, but I know that I know nothing compared to my betters at Apple so I waste hours every single day of my life because my betters know better. My wife beat me almost to death and then left me, but I trust in Apple rather than my wife because they know better for me. She was jealous that I spent more time with the spinning beach ball of death than her and my child. I certainly know I damn do. Know I damn do.
i don't need anymore than 16. 32 is MILF.
it boggles the mind that they use battery life as the reason for not making the option available initially, for people that have a legitimate need for more than 16GB of ram battery life is a secondary factor, especially when the lack of that memory will significantly impact your productivity and considering their target market of video and photographic professionals who legitimately have needs for that memory it really was a strange move.
Well sprayed, coward, well sprayed.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Give me the ability to install commodity RAM and storage after I buy the device.
Without that ability, I will be looking elsewhere. If this means leaving the macOS ecosystem or going with a "hackintosh," so be it.
To squeeze in the extra RAM, they might decide they need to remove the few ports which were left. #courage
#DeleteChrome
This is a good step, but there's a greater fallacy at work at Apple here: The triumph of marketing demands over technical needs of the user.
Apple is great...they are better than Microsoft at making both hardware and software (especially software). Apple's OS is basically Unix with a candy coated shell and it is the best for basically anything except gaming (I know broad statement...I'm sure there are other applications that are better on Windoze but I'm speaking broadly...chill).
Apple's mistake, and it's a big one, is letting advertising phrases like "Our thinnest Macbook Pro yet!" override user centered design.
Same goes for their port nonsense...removing the headphone jack was a huge mistake, it's a *data port* that is backwards compatible with 100 year old tech. They wanted to advertise their phones as "waterproof" so instead of making the port waterproof like other companies, they just remove it and let marketing handle it. Disgusting.
Apple can easily regain their footing by putting the users first in their design decisions and stop their design hubris.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I thought this is an article on laptops? And memory is memory, right?
https://www.amazon.com/Crucial...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
just an quick google.
apple will make it so that you can't install your own ram.
Thin is the real issue if the system was bigger then the systems will be better.
for people that have a legitimate need for more than 16GB of ram battery life is a secondary factor
What laptop owners would that really be true of though? A handful, even among pros... if it's going to be plugged in all the time, and battery life is of secondary or no concern - then my not just use a Mac Pro? It's also fairly portable and will be much faster (yes, even before any updates to the current model).
I personally cannot see Apple releasing a laptop with an option that has way worse battery life just to add more RAM at the very top end - nor making a whole other variant of motherboard to support that option, or adding complexity to the existing design.
In the end it's just a matter of a single year before truly top-end purchasers will get a laptop with more than 16GB of RAM. For the past few years CPU improvements have not been all that large, so not being able ot buy now is not that huge a hit...
What I'm hoping to see in the next revision of the MacBook Pro is an even better GPU.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
(Might be obscure. Look up The Onion's "Macbook Wheel" video)
While I'm thinking about it, how is the desktop RAM different from what they already use? Is it just a matter of LPDDR not being able to run as fast of a clock speed because of the lower consumption or are there bandwidth differences unrelated to clock speed and such?
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
You could just put a bigger battery in it.
Instead, all I hear about is how they were working in such tight space constraints (a completely arbitrary constraint made up by their lead designer), and how kneecapping the system was to "maximize battery life"...
I remember my old Powerbook G4. I used to get 6-7 hours of battery life out of that thing. My old Macbook Pro (Core 2 Duo) was around the same. Every single laptop I've owned up until they discontinued the 17" used to last around 6-7 hours on battery. These were, of course, pretty thick and substantial machines, but I didn't care, they generally worked well and got the job done.
I recently bought a 15" MBP Touchbar (totally decked out, because it's not like I had a choice when the RAM and HD are soldered to the motherboard). It was one of the most expensive Apple machines I have ever purchased. I was lucky to get a consistent 3 hours out of it, running the same workloads my 17" unibody can perform for ~6.5. After spending a good week trying to troubleshoot this issue with AppleCare tech support, I eventually came to the conclusion that the machine was in perfect working order and that the battery was simply incapable of powering the machine for how long I needed it to. I later sent the machine back for a refund.
These problems will continue to plague Apple so long as they're obsessed with form over function, and refuse to admit that they were actually wrong for once. I can guarantee you the next machines will be even thinner, contain less ports (likely dropping the headphones port and one or two of the USB-C ports), and have the exact same operational issues due to over aggressive power saving features and an undersized battery.
And those users shouldn't be buying a MacBook Pro. They should be buying a MacBook.
Seven years after I had an 8088 with 640k I had an 80386 with 4 gigabytes of RAM.
And SCSI, VGA, DVI, CD, DVD, RS232, Parallel ports, Modem, Ethernet jack, etc., etc.
Maybe the headphone jack will be the final straw. Or maybe you're being hysterical. Let's meet back here in a few years and if Apple is out of business then I owe you a Coke.
Stealth brag I guess, but I've had 32 gb since 2015, think it costs $150 total. You know, on a hand built PC desktop.
Macbook Casual 2016 is a casual piece of non-shit with a very non-stupid professional emoji-bar to replace needless Esc key. Keyboard can be soon replaced, keys are obsolete. You use your toung to professionally lick-type your casual posts.
Also it will come filled with the magical and whismical blue anti shock filling, that will reduce the damage caused to the device on impacts in 20% (also make the device impossible to open because it is mostly made out of epoxy)
Yeah sorry. I shouldn't post when I've been drinking. It was four megabytes. Still a large leap.
I have a 2010-ear Apple that has 16 Mbytes of RAM.
You have an Apple with 2,010 ears?
...like all computers did for decades. Instead, they've managed to brainwash their zealot disciples into believing that thinner is better, disposable is ok, and they need a new computer every 2... no, 1 years!
These laptops aren't thinner than a SODIMM memory module or an M.2 drive. Until they are (and they shouldn't be, because they don't need to be and to do so would mean a battery even more insufficient than they already are), any manufacturer telling you that you can't have removable/expandable memory or SSD storage is feeding you marketing BS to justify their anti-consumer design choices. Just so that you needlessly buy more laptops more often instead of repairing/upgrading the one you already have.
There's nothing "Pro" about the MacBook Pro anymore. A Dell tablet has more ports, expandability and options. Hell, there's nothing "pro" about any Mac anymore. Apple has totally given the finger to the professional and high-end user. Where I work (thousands of employees) I see the pendulum swinging back from Mac to non-Mac again since, after a few years of people flocking to Macbooks because of some misguided fashion fad, they're realizing that Macs simply fall short on too many fronts and flat out cannot offer them a computer with the hardware they need to do their jobs. I can spec out a non-Mac that runs circles around the highest-end MacBook "Pro" and costs less. Don't even get me started on the "Mac Pro"... that thing was an useless abomination the day it was released and has only gotten worse as the hardware innards become more and more outdated over the years. It's a nightmare to service and an unexpandable, optionless junk creation not even worth the now-tainted branding of "Apple" it's so bad, let alone "Pro". It's not even white.
Normal people aren't developers so the very limited 16 GB is enough for us casual users.
Why do developers need more memory? My editor, compiler, and other tools all have relatively small memory footprints. My browser uses way more RAM than all my dev tools combined.
Have you not got the memo? What it matters today is diversity in the WWDC keynotes and in the people directing the enterprise. Apparently, the rest is secondary. Signed, an Apple ex-fanboi
Perhaps the first m is silent?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Number one reason would be to be able to run several virtual machines, to try different OSes and environments at the same time. Number two would be that some of us code really memory intensive algorithms (robotics and machine vision in my case).
Give us back
MagSafe charging
Ports that are useful
And
Better tactile keyboard (e.g. Long travel keys) give the thin shit to the hipsters
...aaand that is how religion works. ;) Great analogy!
Ezekiel 23:20
Dolby Atmos is so 20th century...
Ezekiel 23:20
Considering how pervasive macbook is in the developer community it's about damn time!
My workload requires around 25 gig of memory. So, my $3000 MBP is just a remote terminal to an ESX box and a sandbox for my side projects.
Now if they can add some USB ports, a MagSafe port, an HDMI port, an SD card slot, more storage, an NVidia GPU, keys with more travel, a clickable trackpad, function keys, and a longer lasting battery, I might actually buy one. Less isn't more; more is more.
"Casuals" shouldn't buy "pro".
Pros want an actual pro tool.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Of course they can buy whatever they want. But don't drag down the high end that exists specifically for people with high-end needs to meet the needs of people that already have two product lines suitable for them (MacBook, MacBook Air).
Don't be an antagonistic fuckwit. This is how product design works - you have a target user, and you design to that user's needs. Apple didn't do that, and it appears they finally heard the message.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
No, you didn't. Unless you had a memory cabinet sitting next to your desk. And a massive electric bill to run it and the chiller system needed to keep it cool.
A 386 with 4GB of RAM would have required 256 x 16MB 30-pin SIMMs, which is what 386 motherboards used for memory expansion. And I doubt there was any hardware available to do such a thing - if you needed something on the gigabyte scale for memory, you weren't doing it on a 386.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Depends on what you're developing. If you are developing an application that works with a database, you may have a database engine running on your laptop (or in a VM).
I hear that databases and VMs might require a bit of RAM.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Good move that you finally recognized the need for RAM in a hmm, you called it "Pro" machine?
I really hope it will be available without the emoji keyboard.
Now how about making a desktop machine that's actually useful for a developer?
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
OSX is 1999 tech so it doesn't work with that much memory so they refuse to support it because it exposes their horrific shit.
That's why Mac Pros since at least 2009 work with up to 128GB?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I run multiple VMs, IDEs, and a couple of DBs. All in 24GB. I could upgrade to 48GB, but haven't seen the need as I normally don't swap. Browsers in VMs generally don't require all that much memory, provided you have specific VMs for browsers only, and don't have a jack of all trades VM that happens to also work as your browser VM. I also run a similar configuration on my MBP, in 16GB. It also rarely swaps. However, 32GB would be a nice bump, as I am hitting 14+GB on a regular basis, and a bit more headroom is always welcome.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Number one reason would be to be able to run several virtual machines, to try different OSes and environments at the same time.
I regularly run 2-3 VMs, no issues with 16GB. I test on those, I don't run production applications in them. For anything more than mere functional testing, I run a full external server configured to deal with production type loads to validate the scaling approaches and performance as it would be in production.
Number two would be that some of us code really memory intensive algorithms (robotics and machine vision in my case).
I have coded memory intensive algorithms, even back when you were charged by the KB used. You learn to use optimized memory algorithms that also have been tuned for CPU cycles (we also got charged by the thousand CPU clicks, IIRC) Fortunately I don't have to spend that much time optimizing my code anymore, since CPU time and memory are cheap, today, but if you're exceeding 16GB for an app in development, you need to revisit your approach. (I'll grant you that I haven't dealt with machine vision, but I can't imagine that the memory requirements are really that large. The CPU requirements are a different story, at least with what image/video processing I have dealt with)
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So, now they make their systems non-memory-expandable, and just as desktop chipsets increase RAM capacity to 64GB, they decide to offer 32GB of soldered-on chips. Very nice.
Yes, I did RTFA, and their reasoning is largely bullshit. It's more of "Buy what you need now, and if your needs change in a few months, don't worry about upgrading; we'll happily sell you a new shiny with more RAM! Just chuck your old shiny in the landfill."
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
First, define what you think you need. Look at the tests this guy reports running: https://www.zdziarski.com/blog...
I've done similar tests on a late-2013 16GB Macbook Pro, and I've seen similar results. The only thing that would make additional RAM a lot better for me would be the ability to spin up more vagrant instances simultaneously for testing of larger / more complicated stacks of applications. But I've had multiple VMs, terminal sessions, outlook, omnifocus, evernote, atom, 3 or 4 RDP sessions, half a dozen different messaging apps (hipchat, slack, messages, irc, twitter, instagram), tower git client, itunes, safari, word, excel, kaleidoscope, docker (with a couple containers running), xcode, dropbox, antivirus, crash plan, and corporate VPN all running, along with half a dozen little menubar utilities (alfred, dash, textexpander, cloak, moom, flux)... and my system hardly ever breaks a sweat, RAM-wise.
What, exactly, are you doing that *REQUIRES* more than 16GB of RAM? I wouldn't *mind* having more ram - I could spin up more (or larger) VMs, which would be nice since I often work disconnected. However, I have yet to hit any hard limits, and I've spent 3 years putting this laptop through some pretty heavy usage. If *I'm* still in the level of casual user, I'm really interested to know how you define that term.
I have the same experience with my mid-2012 MacBook Pro with 4 GB of RAM. OS X/macOS is simply (MUCH!) more efficient at memory-management that Windows.
Can't speak to Linux in that regard; but as far as my (pretty extensive) Windows experience, I have never seen a Mac in "swap file hell" like Windows routinely exhibits.
I think that those clamoring for more RAM either come from a Windows background, and are simply "scared", due to Windows-induced PTSD; OR they want to run multiple VMs.
You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much RAM; so I'm not opposed to such an improvement; but, in most cases, gigantic pools of RAM are not NEARLY as important to performance in macOS as it is in Windows.
"Casuals" shouldn't buy "pro".
Pros want an actual pro tool.
Please define "Actual Pro Tool".
OSX is 1999 tech so it doesn't work with that much memory so they refuse to support it because it exposes their horrific shit.
You're a moron.
Yes but artificially limiting the memory for seven+ years is just going too far.
Um, Apple isn't "artificially limiting" ANYTHING.
Talk to Intel, Hater.
Didn't you know? Macbook Pros demand *sacrifices*. Your battery life is backed by the precious life-blood of your slain foes.
OSX is 1999 tech so it doesn't work with that much memory so they refuse to support it because it exposes their horrific shit.
That's why Mac Pros since at least 2009 work with up to 128GB?
Exactly.
And I believe that, since OS X 10.4, OS X/macOS has a RAM limit in the 18 Exabyte range for VM, actually.
I can't find a definitive answer as to whether the physical RAM is limited in macOS to less than 18 exabytes; but at least 128 GB of physical RAM seems to be well-documented.
Depends on what you're developing. If you are developing an application that works with a database, you may have a database engine running on your laptop (or in a VM).
I hear that databases and VMs might require a bit of RAM.
When they're coded like MS SQL Server, they do.
Other databases are less insane.
I don't care what engine it is - if you're dealing with large data sets, and large reports that return large data sets, it will be RAM hungry.
Our developers routinely work with databases that have hundreds of millions of rows of scrubbed data to create financial reports for the business. Their development goes far faster if they have that database local to their laptop running as either a native service, or in a VM. Spending a few hundred bucks on extra RAM pays itself off hundreds of time over through the useful life of the laptop with these guys, in the form of them not twiddling their thumbs waiting for queries to return while testing.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
A C++ compiler will happily use 2-300MB of RAM. A MBP has 4 cores plus hyperthreading, so to make sure that you're using the CPU you're doing 8-way parallel builds. That will easily fit in 4GB, until you get to the small handful of template-heavy files that use 1-2GB each, and suddenly you're at 16GB and swapping, which kills performance for the whole build. The linker will take 4GB or so if you're not doing LTO, if you are then it will happily chew through 16GB.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I can't find a definitive answer as to whether the physical RAM is limited in macOS to less than 18 exabytes; but at least 128 GB of physical RAM seems to be well-documented.
You won't find the limit on physical RAM because that limit is directly related to Intel CPUs RAM limitations, which for most OSes is going to be below what they can support. It will likely be a while before RAM speed, size, and memory controllers get to a point that most current OSes will need to be concerned about whether they support all physical memory on a machine.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Intel only support 16 GB of low power RAM so it is Intel's fault that they have done this to us rather than Apple's. I am so distraught and am considering suicide because of this, but this is not Apple's fault.
Yeah, I don't understand why Slashdotters, who THINK they are smarter than the average Apple Engineer, don't get it that the issue is INTEL, not Apple.
I can't find a definitive answer as to whether the physical RAM is limited in macOS to less than 18 exabytes; but at least 128 GB of physical RAM seems to be well-documented.
You won't find the limit on physical RAM because that limit is directly related to Intel CPUs RAM limitations, which for most OSes is going to be below what they can support. It will likely be a while before RAM speed, size, and memory controllers get to a point that most current OSes will need to be concerned about whether they support all physical memory on a machine.
Thanks. I wondered...
Note I said most. There is one....
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Note I said most. There is one....
Nice. Thanks for the info!
And typical Microsoft. Some of the limits appear to be utterly capricious and designed for the sole purpose of limiting the usefulness of "economy" versions of their various OSes.
For example, Windows 10 Home x64 has aN upper RAM limit of a paltry 128 GB, yet Windows 10 Pro and above have upper RAM limits of (a still paltry, but much more reasonable) 2 TB.
Why? They're undoubtedly the same codebase. So why, other than to deliberately limit the usefulness of the cheaper "Home" edition?
Be amazed that MS upped it to 128GB. Take a look at previous versions. Before Win8, it was downright tiny.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Be amazed that MS upped it to 128GB. Take a look at previous versions. Before Win8, it was downright tiny.
Oh, I did look. You're right.