Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Next Generation MacBook Pro

Next Generation MacBook Pro (Page 2)
Thread Tools
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by gooser View Post
what optical drive? i don't see anything that says any of the new macbooks have an optical drive. maybe i'm just missing it though.
The discussion was for a poster who had an existing 17" MBP. Also, the "old" MBP 13" and 15" retain the optical drive.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, Washington
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 03:53 PM
 
I've had great experience and support from OWC as well. Their prices generally aren't the greatest, but they once replaced an out of warranty external HDD enclosure for me, no questions asked.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Why do you say that? I have gotten great service from them for 20 years, including free presales advice as to workable retrofit choices.

Once they even took unopened RAM back after two months.
Back in the day when they were selling G4 upgrade kits and you needed help to figure out which to buy, sure. Or G4s were really touchy with RAM timings and they were the same prices as Crucial, OK.

These days they're selling standard parts and mediocre house brand for a 30% markup over retail.

Extending a return window by 30 days once is nice, but not compelling.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
The Apple USB SuperDrive is not supported on previous MacBook Pros.

As for 3rd party USB optical drives with dual-USB connectors for additional power (…)
Arg, I should have written 'USB units that come with an external power adaptor', hence my reference to the added bulk. Sorry, that was entirely my fault.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Illogical analogy sarcasm. Try this, no sarcasm:

Fuel injection is a superior way to feed gasoline to gasoline-fired motor vehicles. Carburetors are therefore defunct.

SSDs are far superior for computer boot drives. HDDs for boot are therefore defunct.

Edit: At some point SSD/HDD combinations will probably work really well but IMO we are not there yet.

-Allen
Its just that you say these things as if people don't realise SSDs are faster. I think everyone who knows there are two choices knows this now.

Some people only have one drive and need lots of data so HDDs as boot are not completely defunct yet.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
See next post instead.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jun 12, 2012 at 07:13 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 07:10 PM
 


Maybe it is removable. It looked soldered on the video but there does appear to be a socket there. You'd be mad to buy an 8GB one though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 07:39 PM
 
The SSD is removable and looks like a mSATA card; the new MBA is the same (the old one was a proprietary mSATA-like card). You're probably not going to have a lot of options like 2.5" SSD do, but some depending on the allowable dimensions of the card. Some reports at least some of the stock SSDs are using the Samsung 830 chipset, so these should finally be the first good offered by Apple.

The RAM appears soldered. Ouch.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 08:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Some people only have one drive and need lots of data so HDDs as boot are not completely defunct yet.
Those some people would be me. I still chose SSD - - plus external drives for large amounts of mass storage, and replacement of the optical drive with an HDD for more on-board storage.

IMO SSDs are so much preferable for OS/apps/scratch operation it makes sense to consider HDDs for boot to be defunct, and then adjust purchase decisions accordingly.

-Allen
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Land of Enchantment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Just watching the video of the keynote, the MBPTNG has soldered RAM and soldered flash storage. I am not impressed. This is a stupid, stupid idea. Its fine for disposable toys like the MacBook Air, but for a Pro machine?!

For shame Apple. There is no upgradability on this machine whatsoever and once its out of Applecare, bad RAM or irreparable disk corruption means you need a new logic board. This is not the way to go for a £2000 machine.
Gosh darn it to hell, here Apple goes again and shuts down a machine to customer servicing. What if the SSD fails, i have to lug it in to Apple when I can replace the thing in 10 minutes? And the RAM, it's been upgradeable since forever, at least, I think since the Performa. So I was really psyched, after having read that the MBP:TNG looks great at 1920x1200, so that I could ditch my 6+ pound 17" MBP. In fact, apparently one can adjust the res on the fly, so for close up stuff I could go to 1680, then back up. So now, do I want to give up a part of what I consider my ownership of a device, namely the right to fix it? For the first time ever I will use the http://forums.macnn.com/images/smilies/bang.gif this how utterly frustrated I feel.

Did not read your post mduell, if you are right THANKS!
( Last edited by jmiddel; Jun 12, 2012 at 08:59 PM. Reason: did not read mduell's post)
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2012, 10:12 PM
 
From what I understand, it's pretty simple to change the SSD in a MacBook Air. Thus I suspect it'd be just as easy on a MBP:TNG.

I'm not overly surprised about the soldered memory, since that's the same in the MacBook Air. No biggie, as the MBP:TNG comes with 8 GB built-in anyway, and the CTO upgrade to 16 GB is only $200 more.

If I were buying one today, I'd just get the 8 GB. I have 4 GB in my MBP and it's fine for me, but that's because it's not my primary machine. (I have 12 in my iMac.)
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 02:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I'm not overly surprised about the soldered memory, since that's the same in the MacBook Air. No biggie, as the MBP:TNG comes with 8 GB built-in anyway, and the CTO upgrade to 16 GB is only $200 more.
"Only" $200 more? Most 2x8GB kits on Newegg are around the $100 mark right now. In a year or two they'll all be under $50.

Not long ago, buying 2 4 GB modules to max out a MBP cost around $200. Nowadays, even Crucial is just $45. What you do is to buy the laptop and hold off on maxing out the RAM until partway into its life cycle, but with soldered RAM that won't work. I guess the only thing to do is to hold off on buying the laptop.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 06:20 AM
 
Yep. Only a fool would would buy one without 16GB in it, but only a fool would pay $200 for the extra.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 08:47 AM
 
It's irrelevant what RAM modules cost, because the memory is soldered to the mobo. In that context I would just get the 8 GB, as I do my heavy lifting on my iMac.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 09:19 AM
 
Thats short sighted. Personally, I want my laptops to last more than a couple of years at that price.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 09:58 AM
 
Meh. I'm still using a 4 GB MBP from 2009 and it's been totally fine for my usage. 8 GB would be the sweet spot though. 16 GB is simply overkill for a lot of people, so it's foolish to spend $200 extra if you don't use it.

Furthermore, this machine doesn't have 802.11ac, so there's incentive to upgrade it sooner rather than later anyway, if wireless transfer speeds are important to you.

The other consideration is that you don't get much of your money back on resale when you max out your memory. The best way to ensure good a good resale value on a percentage basis IMO is to buy the lowest spec machine possible in a given tier. Fortunately, in the case of the new MBP:TNG, the lowest spec is a whopping 8 GB, enough for a lot of people.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 11:32 AM
 
Thinking last year's memory needs IMO is seriously flawed purchase decision analysis. One needs to plan purchases around future life cycle needs, not 2011 usages.

It used to be one could just buy adequate slots for the life cycle then add RAM as prices fell. Now we need to buy all the RAM up front but

a) we do not know what 2013+ RAM demands will be, just that RAM needs are now quickly growing;

b) buying max RAM today means we lose the option to buy cheaper when we actually need it and

c) Apple always way overcharges on RAM pricing.

Soldered RAM is seriously bad degradation of the MBP product. It will definitely make me extend the life cycle of my current MBP rather than jump to a newer model. Most of us here are techies others come to for purchase advice, and I am advising folks not to buy June 2012 MBPs unless they need a retina display.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jun 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM. )
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 11:40 AM
 
If you're that concerned, you can simply pay the extra $200 to max out the RAM. $200 is less than 10% of the cost of the machine. It's not as if it'd be an $500 premium like it might have been several years ago.

For me, I don't care, since my laptops are my secondary machines anyway. And if by some very slim chance 8 GB is inadequate in 2015, I'd just buy a new machine. I don't think my laptop RAM needs have been growing that much quite honestly though. Like I said, 4 GB has still been fine for me on a laptop.

However, if I made my money off of computing and the laptop was my primary machine, I'd get the 16 GB right off the bat given it's only a $200 premium.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
If you're that concerned, you can simply pay the extra $200 to max out the RAM. $200 is less than 10% of the cost of the machine. It's not as if it'd be an $500 premium like it might have been several years ago.
That is a good point, and exactly what I would do if I needed a retina display. However it does add cost unnecessarily, which is why I recommend that folks who do not need retina seek out pre-June-2012 MBP choices for better value.

I was hoping the TNG MBPs would support 16 GB DIMMs to add potential for upgrading later in the life cycle when 16 GB DIMMs become more reasonably priced.

-Allen
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
If you're that concerned, you can simply pay the extra $200 to max out the RAM. $200 is less than 10% of the cost of the machine. It's not as if it'd be an $500 premium like it might have been several years ago.
Well, there's a few other problems to consider.

1. If any of those soldered RAM modules fail over time, the whole computer is bricked, since it's no longer a simple replacement.

2. Because of #1, you need AppleCare, a $350 add-on.

3. Unfortunately, since there are no user-upgradable parts, opening the case will probably void #2. This means that you want to upgrade the SSD, you'd better do that at the time of purchase, too.

4. Naturally, to upgrade #3, you need to upgrade to the model with the higher processor for $600.

What this means is that to have a properly future-proof MBP, you have to spend an extra $1150, for a grand total of $3350. I just can't afford that.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 01:57 PM
 
They could have at least included one RAM slot surely? Like the iBook used to have.

I expect you'll be able to upgrade the SSD to a 3rd party unit without permanently voiding warranty, but you'll have to keep the original and put it back in if you ever want it serviced for free.

Blocking upgrades while moving to an annual OS update is taking enforced obsolescence way too far for machines with these price tags.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 02:52 PM
 
Is there a particular reason why the RAM has to be soldered? Is it not made to be a user accessible part?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Is there a particular reason why the RAM has to be soldered? Is it not made to be a user accessible part?
Space. I also wonder if it saves them a few cents here and there.

Plus, it stimulates the upgrade cycle.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 05:34 PM
 
Ram isn't any thicker than the SSD, the extra battery life you get from dropping the RAM clips is NOT worth the payoff. It might save them a few cents but it makes them a stack because anyone with foresight will get the RAM upgrade and then there is the forced obsolescence.

This is great for Apple but bad for Apple customers. Why not simply install a small plastic sack full of liquid designed to explode its contents all over the guts of the machine and void the warranty at first boot? Then everyone has to buy a new one every time they turn it on.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 06:06 PM
 
You'd be surprised at how much they try to save on space. In fact I suspect one of the main reasons they dropped Ethernet was to save space, although in this case it's case thickness.

Apple just won a proposal to introduce nano-SIMs in phones, after some hardcore back-and-forth arguments with the likes of Nokia and RIM. Apparently, micro-SIMs are just not small enough.



Count on nano-SIMs to appear in a coming iPhone. If not the iPhone 5, then perhaps the 5S or 6.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 06:28 PM
 
iFixit teardown - MacBook Pro with Retina Display Teardown - iFixit

1/10 for repairability... pentalobe screws, soldered down RAM, glued down battery cells, fused together screen assembly.

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 11:19 PM
 
I am good at killing these kinds of threads. I sent this to tcook@apple.com


Dear Tim,
I hope you will allow me to wear two hats in this email. A computer consultant and a stock holder.

Hat #1:
As a computer consultant since 1997 who takes care of both Apple hardware & PC's I have much respect for quality gear. I have also been a mac user since 1988 when my mom met my step dad, who was already a mac user. He used the Mac to run his psychiatry practice as it still does today. I remember going to the UCLA computer store when I was 9 or 10. I don't remember how many thousands of dollars were spent on a 20MB hard drive and an Apple LaserWriter Select 360 Printer. I later continued to used this printer when starting my own business 8 years later with my Apple talk adapters over phone lines. I have the utmost respect and gratitude for what Apple has been turned into since your start in there in 1998, and the time you spent with Steve. But realistically Apple has been ahead of it. I feel perhaps its moving a little faster then it should.

Regarding the new MacBook products, I approve. The retina Retina MacBook Pro look awesome. I think in the way the iMac revolutionized computing by ditching the floppy and adding USB it is the same as the Retina MacBook Pro ditching the optical drive.

The problem I have with what I am seeing is in Apple's product road map. It seems that the subset of pro-sumer users and pc converts that desire an ability to be able to use some off the shelf products in their machines is going to be killed. My main concern being hard drives and their current common form factor, secondly, soldered RAM. I realize that probably 4-6 years from now there will be a much smaller footprint of designs that are generic brands that are commonly available across product lines. Much the same way hard drive hight has changed in the last 20 years with 2.5 inch drives and thickness. While Apple is competing with competitors, it is still handy to best utilize some common rules and components that the other guys use. Perhaps until the time that its cost effective for Apple licenses their designs to your versions of components it is a bitter pill to take to see that it might be difficult to get a 3'rd party hard drive for a Apple Computer. The quality and thinness found in the MacBook Air product is not found on competing brands, a great lock on that market. The trouble with consumers and consultants is that it sucks giving people bad news when your stuck with too many proprietary parts or don't have an adapter to read a hard drive outside of a dead computer. It doesn't do good for anyone except making Apple look elitist and not "compatible". It is a selling point and an achilles heal. I have replaced hard drives in MacBooks Pro's(I like the size of the 13 inch MBP, add in a retina screen!), PC's and the Air. While I know that 3'rd party providers do offer high end replacements for the MacBook Air it is not a common part and it is expensive to replace and troubleshoot. I know Apple's bottom line is helped by this, both in replacement and your network of stores. It is a piece that upgrades are essential as hard drives and controllers have changed so much in such a short amount of time that needs to be considered. Apple can not keep up with us geek's.

Soldering the ram is just a low blow for the consumer.

To put it bluntly, I see the end of MacBookPro's without a standard sized hard drive, not allowing further RAM upgrades. My current Macbook Pro 13 early 2011 got upgraded with 8GB of RAM for $200+. 16GB upgrades are available for $150. I've changed hard drives severals times, now testing different SSD drives. I have seen them fail. It is a computer, not an ipad. Some generic items are needed, much the same way the mac pro's exist. I think this would not be ideal for professionals and multimedia users who need the flexibility in these two common parts that should be upgradeable.

I hope there is a Macbook Pro product that still is freakish and old school, but totally cool and based on Apple's design. That has all the ports and things are that common now with no compremise except just extreme weight loss! Multiple internal HD bays, optical drive, SDHC Card slot, more ram slots(2), USB, FireWire, Ethernet, Thunderbolt, DVI/VGA(at least 1), HDMI(good addition aside from the mini!). Make a computer that is totally cool and awesome. Where pushing design limits is key because you are fitting in no compromises except for thinness. A consumer digs the heft of a totally solid product.

I also see that ipad(original) is not supported or mentioned with having iOS 6 support, yet the 3GS is supported. I am guessing this has to do with the fact they are still for sale. Yet the ipad is based on the A4 chip and the 3GS is not. It is frustrating to see such early planned obsolescence, a premium priced product and one that is still very useful and well made. It seems wasteful. I was using my ipad more recently when, ironically the hard drive cable died on my macbook pro.

I think you see the trend.

Hat #2:
Ingenious.

Thanks,
Mike
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2012, 11:39 PM
 
The $2200-2800 base MBP:TNG contains less than $34 worth of RAM.

They're doing well at driving the next upgrade cycle.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Ram isn't any thicker than the SSD,
No, but the SSD can be placed rather freely inside the case, while the RAM has to be close to the CPU, which in turn has to be place in a position where it can be cooled. The SSD is attached to the edge of the motherboard - while one might conceivably do the same to the RAM to have it slotted without losing too much space, that would introduce another restriction in the design.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
the extra battery life you get from dropping the RAM clips is NOT worth the payoff.
Most regular computer users would disagree with you. Anyway, get ready to start welcoming our new soldered RAM overlords - Haswell will start the process of integrating RAM on the CPU, if the rumors are true.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 05:35 AM
 
One thing occurred to me:

When a Mac gets unstable, 9 times out of 10, it’s bad RAM (usually aftermarket).
By soldering it down and factory-testing it, Apple removes a huge source of user frustration with their products.

Apart from shaving a couple mm off the ’Book due to the lack of sockets.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 06:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Most regular computer users would disagree with you.
I really doubt anyone would notice that much extra battery.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jun 14, 2012 at 06:41 AM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 07:26 AM
 
It adds up. I saw a calculation of the gain a switch from micro-SIM to nano-SIM would give Apple - it's less than percent of the battery volume. They fought much harder for that.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
It adds up. I saw a calculation of the gain a switch from micro-SIM to nano-SIM would give Apple - it's less than percent of the battery volume. They fought much harder for that.
Also, it may allow for more freedom in component placement, which could end up net a lot more volume for a bulky component like a battery.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 07:58 AM
 
Oh, I just realized there still isn't an option for matte glass.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 08:11 AM
 
There is no glass at all, same as the Macbook Airs. The display panel underneath is not treated to be matte, but removing the glass makes a big difference.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 08:21 AM
 
The TNG MacBook Pro is really more like a 15in MacBook. A Pro machine really needs to allow users to upgrade RAM and storage as their needs increase. As photography moves towards 50mp cameras and video to 4K the 16GB ram you buy today may not be big enough, even buying a 756GB sad may well not be enough. A decent pro machine would allow users to upgrade to 32BG RAM and 1/2TB hdd as they come on line.

Luckily I suspect that the retina display will pretty soon filter down to the other macBook Pro's which will allow for this kind of user upgrade.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 10:08 AM
 
Not so sure about that, I think the regular MBPs are doing the way of the dodo eventually. There may possibly be space for a slim HDD in the 15" TNG, though, although it obviously costs battery
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 10:19 AM
 
Yeah, it is kind of interesting. Just when Apple finally made the first true desktop replacement (DTR) box they immediately start to kill it off with the very next generation. Heat production in ever-slimming designs may mean we never see boxes with 32 GB RAM, SSD + TB HDD. I got my 2011 17" just in time.

-Allen
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
The TNG MacBook Pro is really more like a 15in MacBook. A Pro machine really needs to allow users to upgrade RAM and storage as their needs increase.
I agree, but for different reasons: I don't know about the current breed of MacBook Pros, but usually the RAM ceiling is dictated by the RAM modules available upon release. This is 8 GB per stick right now, so even if the user could replace RAM, the RAM ceiling wouldn't be any different. It's just that the user has to decide on purchase what amount of RAM is right for him/her. Practically, to me, there is no difference anyway since I've always maxed my Macs on RAM.

I think the issue is serviceability: what happens if RAM goes bad? I haven't had very good experience with that, my first laptop and Mac, a PowerBook G3 Kanga died this way: some RAM that was bolted on the motherboard died and the whole motherboard had to be replaced.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 11:08 AM
 
What is the RAM ceiling on the motherboards these days? My 2007 white MacBook system is limited to 3 and a bit GB of RAM, but you can (and I have) fit 2x2GB sticks to give it 4GB, even though all of it isn't used, its a matched pair.

Just thinking that a maximum RAM option of 16GB might be an Intel motherboard issue rather than an Apple issue.

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 11:32 AM
 
Well the iMacs have a higher RAM ceiling than 16GB and they are running the same CPUs if I'm not mistaken. You'd have to use higher density chips which would cost a fortune and then you'd end up with a motherboard that costs $3000+ by itself.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I agree, but for different reasons: I don't know about the current breed of MacBook Pros, but usually the RAM ceiling is dictated by the RAM modules available upon release. This is 8 GB per stick right now, so even if the user could replace RAM, the RAM ceiling wouldn't be any different.
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
What is the RAM ceiling on the motherboards these days? My 2007 white MacBook system is limited to 3 and a bit GB of RAM, but you can (and I have) fit 2x2GB sticks to give it 4GB, even though all of it isn't used, its a matched pair.

Just thinking that a maximum RAM option of 16GB might be an Intel motherboard issue rather than an Apple issue.
32GB per Intel ARK
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Practically, to me, there is no difference anyway since I've always maxed my Macs on RAM.
Practically, 2011 and previous there has always been a huge difference in RAM at release versus RAM later so very few folks maxxed out RAM at day 1; and one could not max RAM via Apple anyway.

E.g. my 2011 MBP was fairly expensive to upgrade to 8 GB RAM via third party early last year. Apple did not even offer 8x8=16 GB, and even via third party the upgrade to 16 GB would have cost more than $400. Today I can get 8x8=16 for ~$150. And a year ago I did not NEED 16 GB, but today I need 12 GB so I will probably add one $80 DIMM. Then next year when I need the full 16 GB I will buy another DIMM, probably for $50 or less.

Or maybe it turns out that after 2 years the box is obsolete for my needs due to early-2011 GPU, so I sell it before I ever actually need 16 GB RAM. Or maybe 12 GB continues to provide zero page outs (like 8 GB did a year ago) and I never upgrade further.

Apple's soldered-RAM policy would have a) forced me to live with 8 GB RAM forever and b) meant at Apple's prices I needed to spend ~$300 just for 8 GB RAM in my Q1 2011 MBP. And today, just one year later I would be suffering page outs with no upgrade path. Note that a year ago 8 GB RAM had zero page outs on my workflow and was widely considered more than adequate for my workflow.

Soldered RAM sucks.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jun 14, 2012 at 01:37 PM. )
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You'd have to use higher density chips which would cost a fortune...
Yup, cost a fortune today but will be cheaper in a year or two. Why soldered RAM is a horrible idea.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
Just thinking that a maximum RAM option of 16GB might be an Intel motherboard issue rather than an Apple issue.
Typically Apple has been offering only half what is actually available; e.g. only 8 GB max RAM in 2011 MBPs.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 02:30 PM
 
How would we expect the specs to differ between the 15'' MBP Retina and its 13'' counterpart probably due this fall? 2 core vs. 4? One less thunderbolt port? No HDMI port?
     
Eug  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by jszrules View Post
How would we expect the specs to differ between the 15'' MBP Retina and its 13'' counterpart probably due this fall? 2 core vs. 4? One less thunderbolt port? No HDMI port?
I'd expect the 13" to come out next spring.

I'm hoping for two thunderbolt ports. While I'd like to have an HDMI port as well, it should be noted that Thunderbolt to HDMI adapters are available so lack of an HDMI port wouldn't be the end of the world for most people.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I'd expect the 13" to come out next spring.

I'm hoping for two thunderbolt ports. While I'd like to have an HDMI port as well, it should be noted that Thunderbolt to HDMI adapters are available so lack of an HDMI port wouldn't be the end of the world for most people.
saw a rumor article today that it may debut in October. 2 core? 4 core?
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Practically, 2011 and previous there has always been a huge difference in RAM at release versus RAM later so very few folks maxxed out RAM at day 1; and one could not max RAM via Apple anyway.
I don't think that is correct. My first-gen MacBook Pro, for instance, had a 2 GB RAM ceiling. Later models were limited to 3 and 4 GB. The chipset in my current machine limits the RAM to 8 GB -- which the machine came with. Even in the PowerPC times, my machines almost always came with the RAM maxed out (e. g. 640 MB for my iBook 800). I agree that before, I usually did upgrade the RAM myself after getting machine, thereby saving €€€, but in principle, the machines came with the RAM maxed out from day 1.
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Soldered RAM sucks.
I agree, although for different reasons.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2012, 05:45 PM
 
The early 2011 Thunderbolt MacBooks Pro can take 16 GB, but Apple still lists them as 8 GB maximum.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2