As far as longevity goes, I would bet that later versions of OS X/macOS minimize the swapping between RAM and SDD
Just how does one minimize swapping when you're trying to fit a 26GB dataset into 16GB of RAM? You don't and you can't, as that data must be in RAM to be utilized. That means swapping 10GB in and 10GB out every time you need to scan through it. It's actually more than 10GB because some of that 16GB is taken up by the OS and applications, but you (should) get my point.
I said "Minimize". I didn't say "Eliminate". So, what's your point?
I do wish that Apple would have pushed the Fusion Drive concept more aggressively
Why? They're garbage. My wife's 2015 iMac with Fusion has no better load times than her 2013 MacBook Pro did when it used a spinning disk.
I note you didn't mention Boot Times, I'll bet those were significantly faster.
How much faster "load times" are with a Fusion Drive depends on your Application-Use profile. If you use a small number of Applications often, those will get pushed to the SSD "Volume", and "Load Times" for THOSE Applications should be significantly improved. However, if your Application use is more "random", then the Fusion Drive concept will still help for Booting, but not so much for Application Launching or use.
SDD is still too expensive, and as you point out, still creeps people out (me included!) about longevity, especially with long-lived Apple laptops...
If you have enough RAM for your use case, there's no reason to be creeped out by an SSD. I run all-SSD systems (except for my backup disks, which rotate out daily and need to be BIG rather than FAST; those are spinning disks, but that's for cost reasons rather than reliability).
That's a strawman argument; because no matter how much RAM you have, it will still be a small fraction of the amount of data that transits to/from the SSD to/from RAM, and to/from I/O (network/internet/other storage).
And I think that the wait for "a computer that suits your needs" may soon be over, if the recent "peek under the covers" roundtable discussion regarding the Mac Pro and iMac (and possibly Mac mini) roadmaps are any indication.
Too little, too late. I built the system I needed last month.
Maybe "too late" for you, but since none of us can know the future, the "too little" part of that tired old chestnut remains to be seen.
As for the "people who need more than 16 GB of RAM", that appears to be a pretty small segment, most involving Virtualization (VMWare-type, not Virtual Reality), where you simply cannot ever have enough RAM, and some large-scale 4k and above video projects (where again, you can never have enough RAM).
You mean the "Pro" segment, which is who a MacBook "Pro" should be aimed at. Also, it's not that small of a segment (of professionals) who run VMs and edit 4k video; most every software developer should be virtualizing their test environments and everything on a professional scale is recorded and edited in 4k (or 8k) today, even if the final output format is to be 1080p.
The segment of Mac-using professionals who do this may be small, but that's more a factor of Apple not providing hardware options that are well suited to the tasks (where Apple's systems used to excel less than a decade ago, mind you) than it is to do with what actual professionals are doing with their systems. Those users use non-Apple systems because Apple systems that suit their needs don't exist; and those users spend upward of $10-20k or more on a single workstation. Hell, I've sat in front of more than one $50k video editing workstation (and that's before factoring in the $30k panel that was connected to it).
I wonder what thrashing the SSD to swap to/from RAM does to battery life. Not to speak of performance or the longevity of said SSD.
Yes, battery life is a legitimate concern. However, it is less important than having 32GB of RAM to someone who needs more than 16.
I'd like to now address something you said a couple posts up:
Stop just spewing hate.
I'm not. I have waaaaaaaaaaaay too much Apple gear around here to be the Apple hater this site seems to think I am. More detail here.
If I hated Apple, I wouldn't give two shits that they don't currently make a computer that suits my needs, and I certainly wouldn't have bought my wife a brand new 5k iMac in November. In fact, if I hated Apple, I would be glad they didn't make a computer that fits my current needs, as that removes any potential temptation for me to give them a shot; more likely, if I hated Apple, I wouldn't know that they don't make a computer that fits my current needs.
No, I'm actually quite a fan of Apple. I do hate their current computer lineup, though, because it entirely excludes me.
You can pry my iPad Pro from my cold, dead hands, though.
Well, thrashing to/from an SSD is definitely less battery-intensive than thrashing to/from an HDD. As far as longevity goes, I would bet that later versions of OS X/macOS minimize the swapping between RAM and SDD, and "load leveling" also helps take care of some of that.
Keep in mind that Apple now rolls-their-own SDD controller. Did you know that? I would bet that it and its macOS driver work hand-in-glove to both maximize SDD life (important when you solder the suckers in!), and increase speed (Apple has the fastest, or one of the fastest, SDD on the planet).
I do wish that Apple would have pushed the Fusion Drive concept more aggressively, instead of jumping on the SDD so fast. I think the only thing you can still get with a Fusion Drive is an iMac. SDD is still too expensive, and as you point out, still creeps people out (me included!) about longevity, especially with long-lived Apple laptops...
And I think that the wait for "a computer that suits your needs" may soon be over, if the recent "peek under the covers" roundtable discussion regarding the Mac Pro and iMac (and possibly Mac mini) roadmaps are any indication.
As for the "people who need more than 16 GB of RAM", that appears to be a pretty small segment, most involving Virtualization (VMWare-type, not Virtual Reality), where you simply cannot ever have enough RAM, and some large-scale 4k and above video projects (where again, you can never have enough RAM). So, for now, those people have to be content with an iMac or a Mac Pro. But it is likely that the next gen of MBPs will be able to address more than 16 GB (at least 32 GB), because by then, LPDDR4 will be allowed by the Gods of Intel...
And I am getting really frustrated by my iPad 2; so I lust after your iPad Pro. Glad to hear you are happy with it.
Kaby Lake CPUs didn't come out at all until October 2016 and, when they did, all of the quad-core SKUs supported 64GB of RAM. That's irrelevant, though, as the Kaby Lake CPUs aren't what's in the 2016 MBP. The two prior generations (at least) supported 32GB. That includes the i5-6360U in the lowest-end 2016 MacBook Pro.
So, what's the excuse, again?
So, I went back and re-read some of the articles that came out at the time the 2016 MBPs were launched, and it turns out that I was sort of right; but not exactly right.
The real issue was that (if I got this right, synthesizing from a couple of different articles) the CPUs that were due to come out, but didn't, were due to support LPDDR4 (low-power DDR4) RAM, and when they didn't come out as promised by Intel, Apple chose to use a memory controller that supported LPDDR3 RAM (because that's all the CPU would support?), but limited it to 16 GB due to concerns with battery-life.
And that is a legitimate concern; because, if you visit the product-forums for the laptops that do support more than 16 GB of RAM, you will find scores of complaints about hideous battery life, whereas, Apple just got praised for being the only laptop manufacturer who actually generally meets or exceeds their battery-life claims.
No QUAD CORE, KABY LAKE's (or later) that supported more than 32 GB, sorry. That's what Apple was counting on.
Apple didn't need chips that supported more than 32GB in order to build a laptop with 32GB of RAM. Dafuq you talkin 'bout? And, even when they start using those CPUs with support for 64GB of RAM, you know they're only going to give us half of that.
Wait... Right, Apple does "need" a CPU that can handle 64GB of RAM before they'll sell a system with 32GB, because Apple artificially limits the quantities or RAM they'll sell in their systems to half of what the CPU can actually support.
Wasn't a big deal before they started soldering the shit to the gahdamn board.
Sorry that was a typo. Calm down. I meant "more than 16 GB". Sheesh!
Stop just spewing hate. And most laptop manufacturers are doing that with RAM (at least) these days. I don't like it either; but it's unfortunately an industry-wide trend. Not every laptop (yet!); but it has certainly gone from nobody to a lotta bodies doing it in the past few years. I'm pretty sure it is because of two factors:
1. Reliability. Seriously, in a laptop, it can matter if the RAM is socketed or soldered.
2. Outside of Slashdot, most people don't upgrade their RAM, they just buy another laptop. As I said, I personally don't like it much, either, especially with the typically-long-lived Apple laptops; but that is undoubtedly true.
And IIRC, your 2011 MBP only supported 16 GB after APPLE released a FIRMWARE REVISION.
Huh, they must have released that firmware revision on DAY ONE, then... Oh, wait, no... Intel makes the CHIPSETS that contain the RAM CONTROLLERS that DETERMINE HOW MUCH RAM IS SUPPORTED and APPLE'S FIRMWARE NEVER PLAYS A ROLE IN THAT.
By the way, it is very ANNOYING and REALLY DESTROYS YOUR CREDIBILITY when you type in RANDOM CAPITALS like you did throughout your ENTIRE POST.
Don't believe me? Ask yourself how annoyed you are and how credible you think I am after reading the above statements.
Funny; I just upgraded the RAM in a friend's mid-2010 Mac mini, and it required an Apple Firmware Update to recognize more than 8 GB of RAM. And the threads I was reading at the time also referred to that being necessary for some MBPs around that time-period.
Ok, it appears it was on the 2008-2010 MBPs; so yours was not affected. But Apple still may not have qualified their systems with > 8 GB at the time of release.
BTW, here's the link to the firmware (EFI) Update that allows the 2008-2010 MacBook Pros (and Mac Minis) to recognize more RAM than was "allowed" when the products were launched. Note that it also requires 10.6.6 or later; so it isn't just what the RAM controller can support that makes the difference:
Oh, and as for the "random" capitals. If Slashdot would get into the 20th Century (21st is asking too much!) and put a "rich text editor" in their Comments system (Macrumors has got the best one yet!), I wouldn't feel the need to resort to the old-skool method of "capitalizing for emphasis". It's a bad habit, I know; but my brain is old and grizzled...
Right, because Intel hasn't yet released any mobile chips that support 32GB in 2 DIMMs. Well, other than the i7 in my wife's gaming laptop, which was already an older model when I bought it for her more than a year ago.
Right, it's Intel's fault Apple doesn't sell laptops with the maximum amount of RAM possible. You know, just like the 2011 MacBook Pro I have sitting next to me could only possibly use 8GB of RAM (again, due to Intel's limitations, supposedly) but it's been running just fine with 16GB (and able to use all of it as well) of aftermarket RAM for 6 years.
No QUAD CORE, KABY LAKE's (or later) that supported more than 32 GB, sorry. That's what Apple was counting on.
And the much lower power consumption of the Kaby's was ESSENTIAL to Apple meeting the THERMAL BUDGET for the design.
And THAT was ESSENTIAL for the 2016 MBP's being able, unlike its 2015 predecessor, to run full-tilt, with NO THERMAL THROTTLING of the CPU nor GPU, making the new MBP MUCH faster in SUSTAINED high-demand Applications than its predecessor, EVEN THOUGH THE CPU IS ABOUT 8% SLOWER.
And IIRC, your 2011 MBP only supported 16 GB after APPLE released a FIRMWARE REVISION. So perhaps it just took them a little bit to develop and debug the firmware patch, "Qualify" their memory controller with a good sampling of different memory modules, and get all the sign offs necessary to push out something as potentially catastrophic as a "BIOS" update. Perhaps they didn't feel they could get all that done by the initial engineering cutoff (freeze) date. So they shipped with an 8 GB limit at first.
So, sounds like "Engineering in the Real World" to me.
I installed Windows 10, Kodi and NextPVR on a 2006 Acer Aspire Idea 500 that came with a 32bit 1.83Ghz Intel Core Duo, not long ago.
Runs perfectly well - boots up in about 30-45 seconds from the HDD. No problems with multiple tabs in Edge, even handles the video decoding for live TV from the built-in tuner (with the drivers installed automatically).
Meanwhile my sister's struggling to open Finder on her 2015 MacBook Air (4GB RAM) because she has two windows open in Chrome and a dozen PDFs in preview.
Chrome is well-known to be the hog-of-all-resources.
I have 4 GB of RAM in the 2012 MacBook Pro, and, using Safari, I could have more than that open without any performance issues.
The fact is, Apple is built on propoganda. Their total investment of an iPhone after it arrives in the store is only usd50.
The hardware is always 2 generations behind modern and the softwate is constricted to a seamless user interaction with software administrative privileges withheld from the owner or lessee.
Other non Apple manufacturers have tried this, like Samsung and LG claiming to own all data and the hardware itself, and they just look foolish when the software is 3rd party.
The original propoganda is that these are phones tgat can be searched under shitty "transmitting utility" codes that bring Unites States out of Washington DC. These are computers used less for communicating, a complete disrespect of concept even by Amateur Radio Relay League.standards.
The best thing we can do is to resist the pressure to upgrade our gadgets. No we don't need to upgrade every year and no we don't need the new shiny gadget that will be put in the dump in a few months. The fix starts with us.
I hate to say it, but I think we've already lost this battle.
I run a Galaxy Note 3, and have done so since about its release date back in Sept 2013. For me, it's flawless - 4 monster CPUs, a great OLED screen, thermometer, barometer, hygrometer, great camera (with 4k video), LTE/MiMo, running CM13 (Android 6.0.1). I have no reason or desire to upgrade. None. I'll still be using this phone for 3 or 4 more years unless I break or lose it.
Here's the trick: I'm on my third replacement battery.
This behavior costs the incumbent manufacturers money, and they have put a stop to it by gluing batteries into devices. They all do it now. It's disgusting. And we allow it. And don't be surprised if they start chipping and authenticating the batteries in the future.
This is the battleground, and very few people seem to understand it. Gluing batteries into phones encourages users to replace them at least every two years (as they typically start just long enough to last a day, and after two years, can't do that anymore). Replacement is mandatory, for many users, after 3. Forget about 5, 6, or 10 years.
The practice should be illegal as it is a huge waste of resources, recycling or not.
If Samsung would stop overcharging their batteries, they'd last longer. That's a fact.
My iPad 2 at 5 years old and HEAVY use daily, still has nearly 100% of the battery life it did brand new, nor has the charge time changed in any noticeable way.
My iPhone 4s (although I don't use it anymore), went into the drawer with no appreciable battery life or charge time difference from new.
My current iPhone 6 Plus, going on 3 years now (I think), still lasts about 4 days of general use, and again, I haven't noticed any degradation of battery life or change in charge-time.
Samsung just beats the hell out of their batteries, and guess what? They don't last under those conditions.
You didn't get them if you were running an older device. For example, I still use a 2011 Mac Mini at home and it had the older version of these apps it came with, but I paid for the upgrade to the couple I actually use.
Despite the jokes, Mac users don't really have to upgrade annually... Until a few months ago, I was using a 4s phone!
I run a G5 Tower as a Security Computer, FTP Server and iTunes Server in my living room.
Relax, buddy. We are breaking Samsung's balls because they are a bunch of assholes and because it is fun to stick to the man - especially when the man is a complete asshole.
Well, you'll have no argument from me, there, LOL!
Years ago I had a Motorola K1. It's a little flip phone that could (in theory) connect to the Internet via a dialup connection. Because Motorola wanted to push all that crappy dialup stuff, they put a whole button (on a crowded keypad) for getting onto the Internet. It was so absurdly slow to load the browser, much less dialling up that I found it easier to go online in other ways than to ever use it. Some of the other buttons could be remapped - but not that one. Shame, I could have used that real-estate to do something useful.
I still have that phone - I use it as an alarm clock. I've remapped all the keys to make it as 'fat finger friendly' as possible, but even though it's in aircraft mode, and had a dead sim in it, one little press of that button still tries to load up the browser. It still annoys me some 10 years after they came out with that phone.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as longevity goes, I would bet that later versions of OS X/macOS minimize the swapping between RAM and SDD
Just how does one minimize swapping when you're trying to fit a 26GB dataset into 16GB of RAM? You don't and you can't, as that data must be in RAM to be utilized. That means swapping 10GB in and 10GB out every time you need to scan through it. It's actually more than 10GB because some of that 16GB is taken up by the OS and applications, but you (should) get my point.
I said "Minimize". I didn't say "Eliminate". So, what's your point?
I do wish that Apple would have pushed the Fusion Drive concept more aggressively
Why? They're garbage. My wife's 2015 iMac with Fusion has no better load times than her 2013 MacBook Pro did when it used a spinning disk.
I note you didn't mention Boot Times, I'll bet those were significantly faster.
How much faster "load times" are with a Fusion Drive depends on your Application-Use profile. If you use a small number of Applications often, those will get pushed to the SSD "Volume", and "Load Times" for THOSE Applications should be significantly improved. However, if your Application use is more "random", then the Fusion Drive concept will still help for Booting, but not so much for Application Launching or use.
SDD is still too expensive, and as you point out, still creeps people out (me included!) about longevity, especially with long-lived Apple laptops...
If you have enough RAM for your use case, there's no reason to be creeped out by an SSD. I run all-SSD systems (except for my backup disks, which rotate out daily and need to be BIG rather than FAST; those are spinning disks, but that's for cost reasons rather than reliability).
That's a strawman argument; because no matter how much RAM you have, it will still be a small fraction of the amount of data that transits to/from the SSD to/from RAM, and to/from I/O (network/internet/other storage).
And I think that the wait for "a computer that suits your needs" may soon be over, if the recent "peek under the covers" roundtable discussion regarding the Mac Pro and iMac (and possibly Mac mini) roadmaps are any indication.
Too little, too late. I built the system I needed last month.
Maybe "too late" for you, but since none of us can know the future, the "too little" part of that tired old chestnut remains to be seen.
As for the "people who need more than 16 GB of RAM", that appears to be a pretty small segment, most involving Virtualization (VMWare-type, not Virtual Reality), where you simply cannot ever have enough RAM, and some large-scale 4k and above video projects (where again, you can never have enough RAM).
You mean the "Pro" segment, which is who a MacBook "Pro" should be aimed at. Also, it's not that small of a segment (of professionals) who run VMs and edit 4k video; most every software developer should be virtualizing their test environments and everything on a professional scale is recorded and edited in 4k (or 8k) today, even if the final output format is to be 1080p.
The segment of Mac-using professionals who do this may be small, but that's more a factor of Apple not providing hardware options that are well suited to the tasks (where Apple's systems used to excel less than a decade ago, mind you) than it is to do with what actual professionals are doing with their systems. Those users use non-Apple systems because Apple systems that suit their needs don't exist; and those users spend upward of $10-20k or more on a single workstation. Hell, I've sat in front of more than one $50k video editing workstation (and that's before factoring in the $30k panel that was connected to it).
Why does Apple not want a piece of that m
I wonder what thrashing the SSD to swap to/from RAM does to battery life. Not to speak of performance or the longevity of said SSD.
Yes, battery life is a legitimate concern. However, it is less important than having 32GB of RAM to someone who needs more than 16.
I'd like to now address something you said a couple posts up:
Stop just spewing hate.
I'm not. I have waaaaaaaaaaaay too much Apple gear around here to be the Apple hater this site seems to think I am. More detail here.
If I hated Apple, I wouldn't give two shits that they don't currently make a computer that suits my needs, and I certainly wouldn't have bought my wife a brand new 5k iMac in November. In fact, if I hated Apple, I would be glad they didn't make a computer that fits my current needs, as that removes any potential temptation for me to give them a shot; more likely, if I hated Apple, I wouldn't know that they don't make a computer that fits my current needs.
No, I'm actually quite a fan of Apple. I do hate their current computer lineup, though, because it entirely excludes me.
You can pry my iPad Pro from my cold, dead hands, though.
Well, thrashing to/from an SSD is definitely less battery-intensive than thrashing to/from an HDD. As far as longevity goes, I would bet that later versions of OS X/macOS minimize the swapping between RAM and SDD, and "load leveling" also helps take care of some of that.
Keep in mind that Apple now rolls-their-own SDD controller. Did you know that? I would bet that it and its macOS driver work hand-in-glove to both maximize SDD life (important when you solder the suckers in!), and increase speed (Apple has the fastest, or one of the fastest, SDD on the planet).
I do wish that Apple would have pushed the Fusion Drive concept more aggressively, instead of jumping on the SDD so fast. I think the only thing you can still get with a Fusion Drive is an iMac. SDD is still too expensive, and as you point out, still creeps people out (me included!) about longevity, especially with long-lived Apple laptops...
And I think that the wait for "a computer that suits your needs" may soon be over, if the recent "peek under the covers" roundtable discussion regarding the Mac Pro and iMac (and possibly Mac mini) roadmaps are any indication.
As for the "people who need more than 16 GB of RAM", that appears to be a pretty small segment, most involving Virtualization (VMWare-type, not Virtual Reality), where you simply cannot ever have enough RAM, and some large-scale 4k and above video projects (where again, you can never have enough RAM). So, for now, those people have to be content with an iMac or a Mac Pro. But it is likely that the next gen of MBPs will be able to address more than 16 GB (at least 32 GB), because by then, LPDDR4 will be allowed by the Gods of Intel...
And I am getting really frustrated by my iPad 2; so I lust after your iPad Pro. Glad to hear you are happy with it.
Maybe after I sell my Apple 1 next year...
Kaby Lake CPUs didn't come out at all until October 2016 and, when they did, all of the quad-core SKUs supported 64GB of RAM. That's irrelevant, though, as the Kaby Lake CPUs aren't what's in the 2016 MBP. The two prior generations (at least) supported 32GB. That includes the i5-6360U in the lowest-end 2016 MacBook Pro.
So, what's the excuse, again?
So, I went back and re-read some of the articles that came out at the time the 2016 MBPs were launched, and it turns out that I was sort of right; but not exactly right.
The real issue was that (if I got this right, synthesizing from a couple of different articles) the CPUs that were due to come out, but didn't, were due to support LPDDR4 (low-power DDR4) RAM, and when they didn't come out as promised by Intel, Apple chose to use a memory controller that supported LPDDR3 RAM (because that's all the CPU would support?), but limited it to 16 GB due to concerns with battery-life.
And that is a legitimate concern; because, if you visit the product-forums for the laptops that do support more than 16 GB of RAM, you will find scores of complaints about hideous battery life, whereas, Apple just got praised for being the only laptop manufacturer who actually generally meets or exceeds their battery-life claims.
No QUAD CORE, KABY LAKE's (or later) that supported more than 32 GB, sorry. That's what Apple was counting on.
Apple didn't need chips that supported more than 32GB in order to build a laptop with 32GB of RAM. Dafuq you talkin 'bout? And, even when they start using those CPUs with support for 64GB of RAM, you know they're only going to give us half of that.
Wait... Right, Apple does "need" a CPU that can handle 64GB of RAM before they'll sell a system with 32GB, because Apple artificially limits the quantities or RAM they'll sell in their systems to half of what the CPU can actually support.
Wasn't a big deal before they started soldering the shit to the gahdamn board.
Sorry that was a typo. Calm down. I meant "more than 16 GB". Sheesh!
Stop just spewing hate. And most laptop manufacturers are doing that with RAM (at least) these days. I don't like it either; but it's unfortunately an industry-wide trend. Not every laptop (yet!); but it has certainly gone from nobody to a lotta bodies doing it in the past few years. I'm pretty sure it is because of two factors:
1. Reliability. Seriously, in a laptop, it can matter if the RAM is socketed or soldered.
2. Outside of Slashdot, most people don't upgrade their RAM, they just buy another laptop. As I said, I personally don't like it much, either, especially with the typically-long-lived Apple laptops; but that is undoubtedly true.
And IIRC, your 2011 MBP only supported 16 GB after APPLE released a FIRMWARE REVISION.
Huh, they must have released that firmware revision on DAY ONE, then... Oh, wait, no... Intel makes the CHIPSETS that contain the RAM CONTROLLERS that DETERMINE HOW MUCH RAM IS SUPPORTED and APPLE'S FIRMWARE NEVER PLAYS A ROLE IN THAT.
By the way, it is very ANNOYING and REALLY DESTROYS YOUR CREDIBILITY when you type in RANDOM CAPITALS like you did throughout your ENTIRE POST.
Don't believe me? Ask yourself how annoyed you are and how credible you think I am after reading the above statements.
Funny; I just upgraded the RAM in a friend's mid-2010 Mac mini, and it required an Apple Firmware Update to recognize more than 8 GB of RAM. And the threads I was reading at the time also referred to that being necessary for some MBPs around that time-period.
Ok, it appears it was on the 2008-2010 MBPs; so yours was not affected. But Apple still may not have qualified their systems with > 8 GB at the time of release.
BTW, here's the link to the firmware (EFI) Update that allows the 2008-2010 MacBook Pros (and Mac Minis) to recognize more RAM than was "allowed" when the products were launched. Note that it also requires 10.6.6 or later; so it isn't just what the RAM controller can support that makes the difference:
https://eshop.macsales.com/sho...
Oh, and as for the "random" capitals. If Slashdot would get into the 20th Century (21st is asking too much!) and put a "rich text editor" in their Comments system (Macrumors has got the best one yet!), I wouldn't feel the need to resort to the old-skool method of "capitalizing for emphasis". It's a bad habit, I know; but my brain is old and grizzled...
Right, because Intel hasn't yet released any mobile chips that support 32GB in 2 DIMMs. Well, other than the i7 in my wife's gaming laptop, which was already an older model when I bought it for her more than a year ago.
Right, it's Intel's fault Apple doesn't sell laptops with the maximum amount of RAM possible. You know, just like the 2011 MacBook Pro I have sitting next to me could only possibly use 8GB of RAM (again, due to Intel's limitations, supposedly) but it's been running just fine with 16GB (and able to use all of it as well) of aftermarket RAM for 6 years.
No QUAD CORE, KABY LAKE's (or later) that supported more than 32 GB, sorry. That's what Apple was counting on.
And the much lower power consumption of the Kaby's was ESSENTIAL to Apple meeting the THERMAL BUDGET for the design.
And THAT was ESSENTIAL for the 2016 MBP's being able, unlike its 2015 predecessor, to run full-tilt, with NO THERMAL THROTTLING of the CPU nor GPU, making the new MBP MUCH faster in SUSTAINED high-demand Applications than its predecessor, EVEN THOUGH THE CPU IS ABOUT 8% SLOWER.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
And IIRC, your 2011 MBP only supported 16 GB after APPLE released a FIRMWARE REVISION. So perhaps it just took them a little bit to develop and debug the firmware patch, "Qualify" their memory controller with a good sampling of different memory modules, and get all the sign offs necessary to push out something as potentially catastrophic as a "BIOS" update. Perhaps they didn't feel they could get all that done by the initial engineering cutoff (freeze) date. So they shipped with an 8 GB limit at first.
So, sounds like "Engineering in the Real World" to me.
Or an upgraded Mac mini since 2012.
It's in the works as I type...
And you're still not getting a MacBook Pro with 32GB of RAM.
You will be, as soon as Intel makes good on their Product Roadmap's Delivery Promises.
Archive.org needs to respect copyright law and stop this blatant reproduction of protected works!
Unless I explicitly consent to archiving (or searching for that matter), my content should never reside on someone else's server.
Sounds like you shouldn't have put that information on the Internet in the first place.
I installed Windows 10, Kodi and NextPVR on a 2006 Acer Aspire Idea 500 that came with a 32bit 1.83Ghz Intel Core Duo, not long ago.
Runs perfectly well - boots up in about 30-45 seconds from the HDD. No problems with multiple tabs in Edge, even handles the video decoding for live TV from the built-in tuner (with the drivers installed automatically).
Meanwhile my sister's struggling to open Finder on her 2015 MacBook Air (4GB RAM) because she has two windows open in Chrome and a dozen PDFs in preview.
Chrome is well-known to be the hog-of-all-resources.
I have 4 GB of RAM in the 2012 MacBook Pro, and, using Safari, I could have more than that open without any performance issues.
The fact is, Apple is built on propoganda. Their total investment of an iPhone after it arrives in the store is only usd50.
The hardware is always 2 generations behind modern and the softwate is constricted to a seamless user interaction with software administrative privileges withheld from the owner or lessee.
Other non Apple manufacturers have tried this, like Samsung and LG claiming to own all data and the hardware itself, and they just look foolish when the software is 3rd party.
The original propoganda is that these are phones tgat can be searched under shitty "transmitting utility" codes that bring Unites States out of Washington DC. These are computers used less for communicating, a complete disrespect of concept even by Amateur Radio Relay League.standards.
100% LYING BULLSHIT.
FOAD.
Apple is incredibly anti-consumer and anti-environment to milk tiny amounts of additional profit. I am so shocked...
Yeah, that's why they keep winning customer satisfaction and environmental awards.
The best thing we can do is to resist the pressure to upgrade our gadgets. No we don't need to upgrade every year and no we don't need the new shiny gadget that will be put in the dump in a few months. The fix starts with us.
I hate to say it, but I think we've already lost this battle.
I run a Galaxy Note 3, and have done so since about its release date back in Sept 2013. For me, it's flawless - 4 monster CPUs, a great OLED screen, thermometer, barometer, hygrometer, great camera (with 4k video), LTE/MiMo, running CM13 (Android 6.0.1). I have no reason or desire to upgrade. None. I'll still be using this phone for 3 or 4 more years unless I break or lose it.
Here's the trick: I'm on my third replacement battery.
This behavior costs the incumbent manufacturers money, and they have put a stop to it by gluing batteries into devices. They all do it now. It's disgusting. And we allow it. And don't be surprised if they start chipping and authenticating the batteries in the future.
This is the battleground, and very few people seem to understand it. Gluing batteries into phones encourages users to replace them at least every two years (as they typically start just long enough to last a day, and after two years, can't do that anymore). Replacement is mandatory, for many users, after 3. Forget about 5, 6, or 10 years.
The practice should be illegal as it is a huge waste of resources, recycling or not.
If Samsung would stop overcharging their batteries, they'd last longer. That's a fact.
My iPad 2 at 5 years old and HEAVY use daily, still has nearly 100% of the battery life it did brand new, nor has the charge time changed in any noticeable way.
My iPhone 4s (although I don't use it anymore), went into the drawer with no appreciable battery life or charge time difference from new.
My current iPhone 6 Plus, going on 3 years now (I think), still lasts about 4 days of general use, and again, I haven't noticed any degradation of battery life or change in charge-time.
Samsung just beats the hell out of their batteries, and guess what? They don't last under those conditions.
No we don't need to upgrade every year
With crap like forced updates and batteries that can't be replaced, the companies are certainly trying to rectify that little weakness in their plans.
Liar.
Apple does not force updates. I ran iOS 7 on my iPad for forever, and I still run OS X 10.9 on my MacBook Pro.
As for batteries: They are replaceable. Just not as easily as you would like.
You're not the fake Tim Cook - you're the real one!
COURAGE!
God, I wish!
$8MM salary, the ability to make Apple do what I want.
Yeah, I'd take that!
Like the dead one apple keeps beating with their products?
You mean like the dead one that the Apple Haters keep beating with their (tired and incorrect) memes.
Not necessarily, it could have been a gift. From a horse.
True.
Then you get TWO gifts: The Mac/iDevice from the horse, AND the (former) iLife and iWork Applications from Apple.
What's not to like?
Welcome back to customer lock-in central.
Funny. I don't participate in any iCloud stuff with any of my Apple gear.
It requires a hardware key to activate which is available with an RS-232 connector. USB-C to RS-232 dongles sold separately.
(Playing along with the joke) Unless you have an XServe. It has an RS-232 connector.
You didn't get them if you were running an older device. For example, I still use a 2011 Mac Mini at home and it had the older version of these apps it came with, but I paid for the upgrade to the couple I actually use.
Despite the jokes, Mac users don't really have to upgrade annually... Until a few months ago, I was using a 4s phone!
I run a G5 Tower as a Security Computer, FTP Server and iTunes Server in my living room.
Make sure you read the new ToS!
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Make sure you're not giving Apple rights to all of your creative works by using their "free" apps.
It's NOT Free. You bought an Apple hardware Product at some point.
Relax, buddy. We are breaking Samsung's balls because they are a bunch of assholes and because it is fun to stick to the man - especially when the man is a complete asshole.
Well, you'll have no argument from me, there, LOL!
Years ago I had a Motorola K1. It's a little flip phone that could (in theory) connect to the Internet via a dialup connection. Because Motorola wanted to push all that crappy dialup stuff, they put a whole button (on a crowded keypad) for getting onto the Internet. It was so absurdly slow to load the browser, much less dialling up that I found it easier to go online in other ways than to ever use it. Some of the other buttons could be remapped - but not that one. Shame, I could have used that real-estate to do something useful.
I still have that phone - I use it as an alarm clock. I've remapped all the keys to make it as 'fat finger friendly' as possible, but even though it's in aircraft mode, and had a dead sim in it, one little press of that button still tries to load up the browser. It still annoys me some 10 years after they came out with that phone.
...and your point being?
I'd love a remote that I could move the buttons around or at least reassign them.
Steve Wozniak invented one back in about 1985. Didn't sell very well, unfortunately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And today's smartphones are general purpose computers.
For VERY limited values of the Term "General Purpose".
As I said; just because it has a Microprocessor/Microcontroller, DOESN'T make it a General Purpose Computer, sorry.
GP doesn't, because Apple does his thinking for him.
Not only are they geniuses, they have proxy-geniuses located in retail outlets right near your home.
Bullshit. I'm and Embedded Developer. I know how easy it would be to allow User-Programmability for that (or any) Button.
But it isn't always NECESSARY or even DESIRABLE. And that's the difference.