How many people work away from power for more than 5 hours at a single stretch?
As a MacBook Pro+-, the one with 32 gb ram but only 50% battery life? Or just a note on the site that this device only gets up to 5 hrs of battery life? In my eyes, the number of people confused and/or pissed of by that would be far higher, than of those who need 32 gb and would be okay with 50% less battery life.
Really, it feels like a MacBook not a MacBook Pro. Non power users are going to be happy with 16GB of RAM and get a lot more from extra battery life.
PS: And yea, I was one of those people ready to upgrade who kind of scratched their head and decided to skip this release. I was thinking of getting a new Mac Pro, but they did not upgrade that at all even though the current model is over 2 and a half years old.
And something you should never forget. Those 5 hrs are 5 hrs when you buy the device. 1,5 - 2 years later you may end up with 3-3,5 hrs. If those 5 hrs were what you need, you'll already need your first battery replacement.
> Non power users are going to be happy with 16GB of RAM
That hurts btw. :( Let's agree on "non ram power users", because I would probably consider myself a power user but i'm quite fine with the 16 gb of my MBPr 13 from last year.
If Apple doesn't want battery life sacrificed, they don't offer the option to put 32GB of RAM in. Then if the user makes the choice to put in more RAM (because the PowerBook lets you put in more RAM as it does not have it soldered), it's their responsibility that battery life suffered.
A user-serviceable MacBook would be larger, heavier, and have less battery life.
All things I'd be willing to deal with to have a powerful workstation - I'm not saying the current thing and light devices would have to go, after all.
Obviously Apple wouldn't just drop everything to go and make me a Big Fat Laptop, but it doesn't mean I can't be unhappy about Apple's 2016 computers grid looking like [this](https://twitter.com/SilverEzhik/status/800191799566299136/ph...).
I did this by using the extended battery (which stuck out from the back), and by buying two of them. On long trips, I just swapped the batteries.
[1} Ultra-portable model with no floppy drive and no CD-ROM, but a wonderful IBM keyboard.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This whole MbP experience feels rushed; Like a new tech release. You see the possibilities but it just falls short...
As for the "Pro" moniker, the new machines are pretty high performance (especially on the video front). That doesn't preclude Apple making some tradeoff and/or leaving some performance on the table.
Anyone making that flight on a regular basis is going to have access to a power outlet.
Any run-of-the-mill consumer isn't going to be working and will be just fine with a tablet or a book.
Folks will complain no matter what. No version of the Macbook Pro can be everything to everyone.
Having said that, what I find most interesting about these recent debates is the back and forth about how much people actually need. The argument that "well, it's no problem for me, and I do x, y and z!" is not really a good rebuttal, in my opinion.
Everyone is different and everyone has had different experiences.
The people defending the new Macbook Pros need to remember that the complaining isn't coming from outsiders (Windows users) trying to stir the pot -- it's coming from people who love Macs and genuinely want better Macs.
It's important for these people to dissent, because if they don't, Apple will never know if they might have made a decision that negatively affects a significant number of people.
I guess what you're saying is just the fact that there is a limit is an issue?
This reminds me of a question I once read in Maxim magazine, about 10 years ago or so. The reader wrote in asking why speedometer on cars go so high while there are few places in the world you can drive that fast. The answer was that if car manufacturers would limit the speedometer, there would be an outrage from the general populace.
There have to be Mac users who are looking for workstation class laptops and have a legitimate need for more than 16GB RAM.
They may be a tiny population, but making presumptions that their complaints are invalid because you can't create a situation that taxes the Macbook isn't constructive.
People have been going on and on supporting USB-C only as future proofing the Macbook Pro (even though it's not even an ubiquitous standard now, and maybe not even for two years). Given how software is constantly requiring more and more memory, limiting RAM to 16GB is doing the absolute opposite of future proofing.
Totally agree with you, in fact I know of several Mac users who genuinely require a beast of a workstation. These folks (movie production industry) are willing to drop 4-5K on the most powerful machine possible and the 16GB limit is hindereding.
I shared an anecdote that came to mind, with no intention to dismiss your comment or downplay its significance.
How has it come to this?
It's actually "more efficient resource utilization per instance". Perhaps, with increased capability comes increased utilization. While before one would run only one or two VMs and try to run all their apps within that, now one can run many containers.
----
That, and shareable memory across host and guests.
But I guess that works only if the host and guest run the same kernel. Docker and vagrant on OS X still have to dedicate some RAM to the Linux VM running as docker host, and I don't know how efficient other facets of docker on OS X are; but on Linux, I find containerization's memory usage almost at par with running the apps directly on the host.
For me the issue comes down to lack of choice. Previously lack of choice from Apple was not a concern because the choices I would make were inline with what they are offering. This is no longer the case.
For those that asked, I am replacing 10 years of using MBP's with a System76 laptop. I don't have it yet so I can't comment but I am excited for the change as have been growing more and more frustrated with Apple.
You would also be able to forego the VMs since you can run your containers on the metal.
It's a highly configurable, professional machine.
http://shop.lenovo.com/gb/en/laptops/thinkpad/p-series/p70/
The Dell Precision M6800 (no longer available) supported a 4 drive configuration if one was a Mini Card plugged into a slot on the motherboard, It had three 2.5in drive bays. You could have a look at the current Dell models, or an HP Z Book.
I feel like I'm tired of being on a machine with a centralized system anyway. I want something basic with OSX images - an OS X just for work, and OS X just for finances, and OS X just for music work, etc. As it is I have multiple user accounts for different clients - I get some isolation that way but things still get in the way in a few ways. Strange IntelliJ bugs, occasional homebrew permission conflicts, etc. When I find myself considering buying multiple laptops to be free of all that, it's reached a ridiculous point.
Most likely he's been getting by with workarounds (not running everything simultaneously) and expected the new model to be more capable.
Most trips in a car are less than 100 miles. Yet nobody wants to purchase a low range EV. Extended battery life is useful on the occasions you need it.
As the article is at pains to say, 16 GB of RAM only consumes 1.49 A, while the CPU is 4.61A, and the display is a very big power hog.
I am not in a position to prove it, but I suspect that increasing the RAM from 16 to 32 GB would only cut the battery life by 10%; maybe 15% at the outside.
I've got a MacBook Pro with 16 GB of RAM sitting here on my desk right now, the same spot it's in 95% of the time. Sitting right next to it is a 3.5 year old ThinkPad with 32 GB of RAM.