I was excited until I read 8GB max... that can't be right can it? What modern developer machine would have an 8GB cap?
For me it's all compared to other ultrabooks, like the MacBookAir which also does 8G max.
I hope I'll never need to carry a classic-full-size laptop anymore, ever.
I haven't seen an ultrabook I'd prefer over it, especially when I rule out ones that use a tapered design.
If you want more memory you have to go to the T4XXp series, and probably buy the RAM yourself as the premium charged is considerable: 16GB on NewEgg is $120, while the premium payed for 16GB out of the box is $340. The T440s also maxes out at 12GB.
Had 8gb before, machine was swapping too much, become unresponsive, etc.
Maybe not every single day, but easily 3 days a week. Personally I could never consider owning a primary work machine with less than 32 GB of RAM, as that is just about enough (with some swap) to do something reasonable with a moderately sized data set in reasonable time, without having to try to get too clever. That being said, I currently have an MBA with 4 GB of RAM as a secondary computer to complement my workstation at work, and that's fine for most of my day to day programming tasks.
Suffice to say, you probably don't represent the average developer, or power-user. I can write code just fine without having to resort to 32GB data-sets. I think most other developers can too.
Not saying I don't acknowledge that some people may have such a need, but I don't see this is a big enough issue for enough people, to think it warrants making the already expensive developer edition even more expensive.
If you need 3-digit Gigabytes of RAM, have you considered just remoting into a server which has all the juice you need instead? In the age of the cloud, why on earth do you need all that power in your laptop? That just seems awfully backwards.
Sure, I agree. And I'm sure I'd be happy with this machine as secondary coding machine. But I do dream of one day getting a single laptop that covers all my needs.
have you considered just remoting into a server which has all the juice you need instead?
I do the few times I need 100+ GB of RAM, and to be honest it's a bit of a faff. Getting your tool chain set up, copying huge data sets back and forth, working out how to install proprietary software and the licensing there of. I'm unbelievably ecstatic that the option exists when I need it, but I'm equally glad every time I don't have to deal with it. Most of time my data sets aren't that big and all my work fits comfortably in 64 GB of RAM.
I'm currently on an 8GB machine and regularly have to pare down my working set to avoid swapping.
I had to sit on my hands to keep from giving Dell my credit card number reading that review.
If I'm not doing development with a cluster of VMs though, I rarely go over 8GB.
Edit:MBP82, created new user accounts, reboot, login, launch Firefox, load CNN, wait 2 minutes. Did this twice each Fedora 21 Workstation (Gnome) and OS X 10.9.5. Fedora free -m used = 614MB. OS X top PhysMem Used = 2866M, Activity Monitor Memory Used = 3.69GB. I suspect Activity Monitor includes "wired" which top splits out. shrug Anyway, it's not a tiny difference. Omnomnomnom.
Displayport, Dockingstation, 8GB Ram and 512GB SSD all below 1200g, that is to be beat. I hope for a 16GB Ram version for the next Surface Pro 4.
I run daily into swap, having just one VM open, Photoshop and PHPStorm...
If not, I expect it may take over a year before it's ubiquitous -- Intel isn't including USB 3.1 in Skylake, so it will require an extra chip, something manufacturers are very hesitant to add to laptops.
Luckily, I run a remote VM most of the time and can get away with 8 but if I need to do anything locally that involves a VM I start running short.
Edit: saw your pointer to the Asus UX303LN. Interesting.