Hacker News Reader

Comment by ash_gti | Hacker News Reader

I'm a full time iOS developer and I think the new MBP will meet my needs. I'm looking forward to buying one and trying it out.

I'm disappointed it won't be configurable with more than 16 GB of RAM but that appears to be an Intel issue (I know you can argue they could choose a different CPU, but it is a mobile device and low power CPUs make sense in that regard).

I would love to hear from Apple what their plan is for the Mac Pro, but I'm planning on buying a new MBP soon.

View on HN

Is it really necessary to have over 16GB on a developer's machine? I know 16GB is not enough when one is into heavy data mining, but to write a code even if that requires to run several VMs? For example, I do occasional development on MacBook and 8GB is very OK.

Whether or not someone needs it depends on their circumstances. You may argue that a dev shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that some do.

Whether or not Apple produces a laptop with more than 16GB is up to them and what tradeoffs they make.

Easily done if you have a couple of VMs, a couple of IDEs with big projects, a SQL editor, 50 chrome tabs as well as the standard suite of programs (audio, calendar, email etc).

That's what I'm using right now. 16GB may be just about fine for this, but in a couple of years it would be nice to have 32GB just to be on the safe side..

Have you ever ran Xcode? :)

I have macbook air 13" with 4 gb RAM. I use it for app development using XCode.

Me too.

I've heard that the SSD drive makes it the XCode experience more tolerable when it has to hit the swap disk. Personally on my iMac without an SSD and 4GB it was unbearably slow, but it improved a lot when I upgraded to 20GB of RAM and no longer had to hit the swap disk.

I've used Xcode on my Asus EeePC with 2 GB RAM. It uses most of the free memory, but it doesn't crash or slow down.

This was probably 10.6 before they dropped Atom support in the XNU kernel or are you using a replacement kernel?

Yes, it's running 10.6.8.

I would look at how much memory it consumes. It takes about 2-3gb on my large 300kloc project.

Just wanted to point this blog article out. https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=6355

The author tested Xcode and ran "four production Objective-C projects, all cleaned and rebuilt."

Same guy also says you shouldn't use Chrome or Slack because they use lots of RAM (I guess it sucks to be the developer that has to use both of these). Apple's new "Pro" machines have similar specs to their three year old pro machines. They are a lot thinner, but that's not a Pro feature.

> A couple apps you won’t see on this list are Chrome and Slack. Both of these applications have widespread reports of being memory pigs, and in my opinion you should boycott them until the developers learn how to write them to play nicer with memory.

I got my 2013 Macbook Pro with 16GB of RAM and I'm happy I did, it has aged well. Will a 2016 MBP age similarly well? I guess we'll find out.

With projects which are purely code, Xcode works fine. Projects with large Storyboard files make the dev experience painful.

At the moment on my machine, I have 16 GB of RAM but I've already got 3.91 GB of swap being used. I'm on a MBP Early 2015 with the upgraded i7 CPU.

Xcode is currently using 4.15 GB of RAM (3.20 GB Compressed), its definitely my biggest memory hog. lldb-rpc-server is using 680.4 MB (387 MB Compressed), so that doesn't help with my memory usage.

I often watch for when my computer will start swapping so I can know to close some of the higher memory usage apps to reduce the swap death effect.

My 2012 MacBook Air has 8GB of RAM, drives three displays, with nine virtual desktops, and I'm usually running with Windows and Debian VMs simultaneously.

I do some heavy data mining, but any problem that won't fit in RAM gets offloaded to a cluster on AWS.

I write c++ and regularly run out of memory on my workstation with 32GB ram. Mind you, I'm not in the market for a laptop to do this on. If I had to compile my work projects on Mac, I'd be buying a Mac Pro.

My pc at home has 8GB, I use mostly for games. It's more and more commonly not quite enough.

I don't think products are designed on what's necessary. They have a core set of features designed for the 'mainstream' and a more specific set designed for the 'long tail'. Apple probably thinks the long tail is not so long or that their product is not competitive in that segment - which it isn't.

>I do occasional development on MacBook and 8GB is very OK.

What sort of development?

Not parent, but I'm working on a late '13 MBP, 8GB ram.

I spend basically all day doing Rails development, with MySQL, ElasticSearch, background job processing, etc. I'd be happier with 16gb, but tbh memory isn't the thing stalling my work (even with a lot of chrome tabs open) - it's usually waiting for my app to load to run some tests, or reloading my dev server.

I do mostly C++ dev work in Visual Studio, and occasionally run CAD/Engineering tools, in addition to processing large data files. ALso, I usually have 1-2 VMs running in the background (but they dont see much use). I used to think 16GB was enough, till I upgraded to 32GB. A lot of the benefit is derived from the fact that I never shutdown my PC, and so the cached data tends to stick around for a long time (last time I rebooted was around 75 days ago). I've run perfmon over the course of a week and watched my page faults drop as more and more stuff gets cached. I won't say its going to be the same for you but IMHO its worth a shot. You could at the very least test how much time you're spending on page faults over the course of a week or so since per-day savings would probably be minimal.

I use my MacBook 2015 mostly for my personal projects with few VMs running copies of web sites, compilers, QtCreator and Eclipse. This works nicely. On the other hand with things like Jupyter notebooks at work 16 GB is clearly a bare minimum when running algorithms on 100GB dataset..

My MBP drives a 32in display and these apps open on startup - 3 IDEs (Java, PHP, Python), excel, chrome, firefox, iterm2, sublime, slack, hipchat, oxygenxml, sqldeveloper.

The above open in desktops (Misson Windows). I do not do heavy data analysis. I never run low on memory with 16GB.

Performance is not a problem. I do open 1 VM form time to time and again no problem.

The VMs are a killer. I fairly often wish to debug our mobile app. This ends up involving spinning up both the client and server (which is a collection of VMs) plus both IntelliJ and Unity. 16GB isn't really enough to do this without being very careful about memory.

If VMs are Linux, try to activate zram there, it allows to reduce VM's memory significantly. With typical compression factor of above 2 this allows to shrink VMs by at least 30% with tolerable loss of performance.

Developer? I guess not. For a DevOps engineer? Probably yes. It's not impossible but having to spin up/down virtual and/or complex docker-compose configs to release RAM would slow you down considerably.

Even for a developer... When I'm in the middle of development I'm running two or three Vagrant / VirtualBox instances on my laptop, along with a handful of Visual Studio instances and that can easily chew up more than 16GB of RAM.

Doing Node development... Not such a big deal.

On top of that, they have the fastest SSDs in a laptop. It's not optimal, but swap is still extremely viable. Also, doesn't macOS have memory compression on top of that?

With my workflow the memory compression on macos does not help much. zram in Linux works much better. For example, few years ago I could run a couple of Eclipse instances and a browser with a few opened tabs on 2GB Chromebook, but 4GB Macbook Air with Yosemite struggled to run a browser, IDE and 1.7GB VM. It turned out that bumping VM size to 2.2 GB, activating zram there and running IDE inside VM lead to much more responsive setup. And it seems Sierra has not changed the picture, https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/52779

I'm an iOS and Rails stack developer, and 8GB on my last-gen MBP is just fine. Sure, now I do regret not making the upgrade to 16GB, but that's just thinking about the future, not the now.

That being said, I don't do microservices/many VMs/containers, etc.

What do you mean it's an Intel issue? There are other Skylake laptops with more than 16GB, e.g. the Dell XPS 15.

Edit: The Dell can have the same CPU i7-6700HQ with 32GB RAM.

The CPUs in question support up to 16 GB of LPDDR3 or 32 GB of DDR4, but do not support LPDDR4. Apple needs the LPDDR* variant to meet their power budget.

So... because the CPU that Apple chose doesn't support >16GB RAM in a way that's convenient for Apple to meet an Apple-imposed specification, it's Intel's problem?

It was a design trade off Apple made. They could sacrifice power efficiency for additional memory (LPDDR4 on the CPU is limited to 16 GB, DDR4 can go up to 32 GB).

I'm pretty confident if Intel's CPU supported more RAM they would of made it a configurable option. Apple still has configurable graphics cards, hard disk sizes and CPU speeds. RAM could of easily been another configuration they could of offered.

Like I said previously, the MacBook Pro is a mobile device so making a trade off for power efficiency makes perfect sense to me.

A largely Apple-customer imposed specification, and one which I, for one, welcome.

Sure, so am I. My Air has 4GB RAM and it's mostly fine - I was hoping to see an upgrade in October, but 8GB would suffice.

My only point was that this really isn't something that Intel does or even should care about, it's the result of Apple's decisions; isn't even necessarily their "problem".

Well, it kinda is, because low-power/long battery life is a reasonable requirement for a laptop, and it is a limitation of the Intel chipset that doesn't allow more than 16GB of low-power memory. Or in other words, how could Apple solve the requirement of low-power/long battery life together with 32GB RAM without Intel?

Also, if low-power, long battery life and low weight are not your requirements, maybe you're not in the market for a laptop?

Intel only supports LPDDR3 and DDR4, not the lower power variants of DDR4. Switching from low power uses a lot more battery (idle usage is especially low in LP).

How on earth is that an Intel issue when it was Apple that decided to put even less battery in the thing than the previous model?

Engineering is about finding a balance among opposing constraints; Apple clearly decided that a svelter profile was more important than larger memory sizes for its market.

Don't know why your comment is getting down voted. I think that's the core issue here. Everybody loves that Apple provides high quality hardware, and a neat operating system that is very dev friendly (unixy). It is the choice of sacrificing compatibility for thinner and svelte that pisses some of us off. The best would've been for them to choose DDR4 instead here and add more battery with the same size MBP as earlier versions. I'd have been perfectly happy. Again, that's just me. Looks like there are several others perfectly content with Apple's choices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com