Apple Says New Macbook Pro Has Only 16Gb Of Ram To Save Bat

Apple says new MacBook Pro has only 16GB of RAM to save battery life

If battery life was their real concern, couldn't they keep it the same thickness as the previous generation and use all that extra space for more battery storage?

Going into the article thinking "16GB for a base model makes sense"Turns out this is the maximum you can get...ouch

This new MacBook Pro has the same maximum, un-upgradeable amount of RAM as the 15" Retina MBP that I bought in 2012. Kinda ridiculous.

Maybe this wouldn't be an issue if they weren't so focused on creating a laptop suitable for a clean shave…

I don't think "pro" means what they think it means.

Who is the person that is still there saying "Let's make it thinner! Thinner is a must!" as opposed to "We can make it the same thickness- or even a bit thicker- and *double* the battery life while increasing cooling capacity!"I would be 100% cool with having a mbpr that was the thickness of the mbp's from 2-3 years ago (with the optical drives) if it meant that the battery lasted 20-25 hours. How hard is that to understand to these people?

THEN OFFER A THICKER VERSION THAT HAS A BIGGER BATTERY AND MORE RAM, FFS.

[removed]

Well, at least no one is going to be doing anything graphically intensive on a MacBook Pro, like the entire design industry. /s

Apple made a laptop that can't connect to an iPhone out of the box. You'll need an adapter.

So, the maximum RAM of a 2016 MBP is the same as my old 2010 MBP Core2Duo... uhmmm, ok.

Question:
> Does ~3GBps bandwidth to the SSD make this a moot issue? I.e. memory paging on a 16GB system is so fast that 32GB is not a significant improvement?Answer:
>To put more than 16GB of fast RAM into a notebook design at this time would require a memory system that consumes much more power and wouldn't be efficient enough for a notebookHow about you stop making shit so small you can't put a decent sized battery in it? This is supposed to be a MacBook PRO, not a fucking MacBook Air.

Why do I feel if they added 3mm of thickness back to the computer they'd have more than enough battery life for 32+GB of RAM? Seriously this is a Pro computer. you have the 12" MacBook aka the "Manager Book" ultra thin option. I need a PRO computer that can do PRO work. - A long time Mac user.

It's not so much that they limit it to 16gb of ram. It's that they make it impossible to add more later. They've gone from a company making expensive products for professionals to people now make expensive products because they can sell them.The keynote was fucking embarrassing. The marketing lady they brought up at one point was terrible. The "funny" guy is old and not funny.They have become the very kind of company they made fun of in their commercials for years. How the times have changed.

I'm just about fucking sick of this "thinner, but shitty battery life" nonsense. Thin has next to zero value except aesthetics, long battery life has real value.The first company to produce a reasonably sized laptop with a 24 hour battery is going to change the paradigm significantly.

But wouldn't that extra little screen/bar eat more battery life than a stick of RAM?

[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/59yrxg/the_true_reason_the_mbp_doesnt_come_with_ddr4_or/) is the entire explanation.TL;DR: Intels Skylake processors, that the new MBPs use, doesn't support more than 16GB LPDDR4 (LP = Low Power).Edit: As u/extreme_kiwi said below, Skylake does not support LPDDR4. Thanks for pointing that out!
Apple says on their website that they use 16GB LPDDR3 in the new 15" MBP. There is no limitation for not using 32GB of LPDDR3 RAM (as stated in the post i linked) except for maybe sacrificing battery life. So the headline in this post may not be so "sensationalist" after all.Edit2: I checked out the XPS 15 and it seems to be using 32GB of DRR4 memory, so I am a bit confused now.

This may be well beyond my level of understanding but if battery life is an issue how do some manufacturers (e.g. Lenovo) manage to make laptops with Xeon processors and 64 GB of RAM?

These new MacBooks are just horrible, I'm sorry, but they are. Mac users waited almost two years for *this*? Some gimmicky touch bar, ports that require even more adapters and dongles, and an even more inflated price tag then it already was? For what? The touch bar!?

Why are they constantly worried about the size of their notebooks?They sacrifice a better keyboard, memory and battery, to save a few millimeters of thickness, it makes no sense. The pro series should be true powerhouses, and not a slightly better regular macbook.Edit: I totally forgot about the port configuration. In terms of business usage, the pro series was really the only choice apple gave business users, but with the new port configuration, that's ruined. I have been to quite a few business meetings presenting stuff from my notebook, but now I need to carry an adapter with me at all times, if I were to get a macbook pro.

Turns out real courage is releasing shitty hardware and pretending you have good products.

I should be able to choose upgrades and make battery decisions for myself. That's BS and I'm a "fanboy".

lol.https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/cat/Surface-Trade-In/categoryID.69758400

This is coming from a PC guy that doesnt know much about macs, but is 16gb of ram not much? Thats as much as my desktop pc...

[removed]

Pro is supposed to stand for professional. Not ultra light. Not ultra thin. But built for professionals. This prosumer attitude is affecting every corner of their business. Dell here I come.

I thought the Pro line was supposed to appeal to the creative industry like musicians and artists.Where am I supposed to plug in my electric guitar interface?If you think I'm making recordings with all my equipment hooked up to a special lightning "dongle" you're fucking high.

Modern DDR4 RAM is very energy efficient about 1 watt per stick of RAM when using the low power stuff common in ultrabooks. Compared to DDR3, if they are using low voltage DDR4, they can do a dual channel config within the same power envelope of a single stick of DDR3.They likely went with this design so that could avoid the cost of having to do different PCB layouts, and instead have a single board where they just fully populate it, but differentiate between models by simply using higher or lower capacity packages depending on the RAM selected.It is either that, or to maintain a certain thickness and battery life, they have to make the PCB as small as possible, in order to make the battery wider, instead of slightly thicker and getting the best of both worlds, as this is another trend that we have seen with macbooks.Over the years, they get thinner, and the battery gets wider, while the PCB gets smaller by making sacrifices such as soldering the RAM and SSD directly to the PCB, and reducing the number of packages on the PCB.

I'm happy I got my older model stuff. 2012 macbook and iphone 5s. I don't think I'll ever bother upgrading unless apple stops shitting the bed.