What boggles my mind is how many of them max out at 8G. I couldn't care less about CPU, and I'm flexible about storage, but 8G RAM is ridiculous. I'm currently using a couple of MS office apps and a web browser on my 2015 MBP and it's using 12G. I had a 2011 (or earlier, but I think it was the 2011) MBP that was happy to accept 16G. I'd gladly settle for a 12" MB for most work if I could just get >8G in one.
You can't take the RAM usage reported in Activity Monitor and extrapolate performance. If you were running the same apps on a recent Mac laptop with 8GB RAM, you'd see them taking 6GB of RAM and running just as fast as they do for you.
The only way to tell when you need more RAM is to load down a machine until it swaps too hard to keep up--then you know you need more RAM. And one of the things to keep in mind about new Mac laptops is that they have very fast SSD I/O, which also helps mitigate swap slowness.
8G RAM is not ridiculous. Statements like this just show how far out of touch people are. Many workloads benefit from more RAM. And for some it's a hard requirement (e.g. VMs), but web browsing and a bit of office is not one of them. This is why virtual memory/swap space is a thing - and with an SSD that's also not as horrible as it used to be.
To offer a line of laptops with 8GB of RAM as the max in 2017 is ridiculous.
Some people do actually need a lot of ram. Specifically, I work on kubernetes and docker and it's a hard requirement. I'm severely limited in my work now and have to continue using aws+gke for full blown dev environments when if I had the proper amount of ram (what I've had on my desktop for years) I could have full blown testing on my laptop which is always plugged into monitors and a keyboard.
Sure, I'm %1 of the market but I will pay the money if it's available. Next year if I can't get an OSX laptop with 32gb of ram I'm going to wind up traveling down other roads.
Besides, I don't buy it. I also use VMs. And the underlying host doesn't really matter, i.e. it doesn't really matter where the VM is run. So I don't quite understand why you'd spend $$$ on a beefy laptop instead of a nice laptop and a server. Maybe if your internet connection is really bad?
Evidently I missed that this was about the Macbook and not pro, I couldn't care less about the Macbook.
I'm on a fully loaded i7 2015 MBPr and need a new one stat, new as in more ram (limited to 16gb).
It's maybe not for everybody (e.g. photo/video editing), but pretty underrated IMO. Further advantages: RAID, easy to replace the laptop if you lose it or it gets damaged, server are easier to set up with fast, reliable connections (intra or internet) for pulling VM images. Disadvantages: More maintenance/admin?
For many years, a $2000 MacBook Air was cheaper than its competition because there was no competition.
But today the PC vendors charge less than Apple once again. The universe is back in order and Apple's tech lead is confined to mobile phones.
Oddly, it's a self-inflicted wound. The totally useless expense of wedging a long, narrow Apple Watch into every keyboard is driving Apple's prices way, way up.
Not only that. Also Apple's anorexia, making a useless gigantic trackpad, providing a DCI-P3 screen which is useless for most people, etc.
Probably the best on the market.
The problem I had was cost - they are over-priced.
Yes, I've heard the argument that if you want 'x RAM with y CPU' etc it will 'cost just as much' - but this is just no longer true. The Macs with 16G memory are crazy expensive.
My Mac has 200-ish G hard-drive which is f-ing retardedly small. They should all have 1T. But if you want those upgrades you have to pay massively more.
I fundamentally believe the issue is simply price.
If you could get a sub-$2K macbook with 16G RAM, good CPU and lots of disk-space - this conversation would never be had.
I really do think Apple has the best boxes, but they are barely worth it, and just not worth it in many cases.