Do you really need more than 16 GB of RAM in a MacBook Pro?

I don't disagree. I wish I could have had 32Gb as an option for the new MBP I ordered, but it wasn't enough of a deal breaker for me to hold off for a year - I need to replace my aging 2013 MBP asap. Curious.... is your 64Gb machine a desktop, because I don't know of any MacBook that supports that. Portability always comes at a premium and with limitations. Even though the cost increase stung a bit (a cost bump is somewhat customary with design updates but in this case more so), I'm still going for it. Obviously YMMV.

It is a desktop machine, but my main point is that I want some power in my portable machine. I use windows workstations and mac laptops for the same applications. When going from a 64Gb machine to a 16G machine makes a HUGE difference in performance when your working on large models that will turn a weak laptop into a slug. This is usually because of memory. Yes, it can be worked around, but NOT FOR $3000 laptop! I'll just pick up a Windows laptop that has what I need. It's just about logic and price. There is nothing I can do a mac that I can't do on my windows machines, Mac laptops are well built and have great battery life, but when I am spending $3000, I am not willing of compromises in performance.

Yea. Windows machine can probably be had with Quadro or FirePro cards for a similar price. Like Apple products, but I returned the MBP I bought last year because of buyers regret for that reason. It cost over $100 more than Gaming PC with twice the storage, a faster processor, 50% more upgradable (and faster) RAM, premium sound, a better keyboard (mechanical, amazing), and lower-high-end discrete nvidia graphics. I was basically paying more for worse hardware... and OS X. OSes are basically app launchers to me these days. I literally don't care what a PC runs these days, as long as my applications are supported. It sits there connected to external displays, etc. To get a comparable MBP, I would have been paying almost twice the price. Don't care about battery life. I edit video and audio on that machine (often multitasking media editors and plugins). I didn't buy it to sit in the park and chat. It's a workhorse. Pro = Workhorse, to me.

You might not care about the OS but most people do, and a lot of people here have a great dislike for Windows. There's a lot more going on under the hood than just an "app launcher". I used Windows for a countless number of years all the way back from Windows 95, and have been using macOS only for about 3 years, yet I already greatly prefer macOS for a wide variety of reasons

"Why not have 32Gb of RAM in a PRO machine?!" Because Skylake doesn't support more than 16 GB of LPDDR3 or LPDDR4 RAM, and neither does Kaby Lake. Cannonlake won't be available in the ~25-30 W or 45-50 W TDP that the MacBook pro usually uses, so the earliest chip that might support it is Coffee Lake in 2018. Intel's roadmap kind of sucks right now.

What about these Lenovo Skylake laptops that can take up to 32GB of RAM? http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/01/big-ram-laptops-are-abundant-as-l...

> Why not have 32Gb of RAM in a PRO machine?! (1) Because it is notebook designed to be battery powered. Intel doesn't currently support this configuration on their mobile CPU. If you *really* need this much RAM, why are you considering a notebook instead of a desktop? (2) All this extra RAM which is rarely if ever needed for an effective working set consumes power being refreshed. (3) It's not cost effective. Much faster SSD and memory compression offer more bang for buck. Spending 10% more on RAM for a 3% performance boost is a waste of money. (4) There's little market for Applications that need more than 16 GB of RAM to deliver effective user experiences. The focus of innovation is moving in the opposite direction. Chrome-books and iPads have far less RAM. The idea that in 5 years there is going to be a huge market for applications requiring 32 GB RAM is an old paradigm that no longer makes much sense. Enjoy!

+1

You need cores and fast graphic cards more than 32 GB of RAM. That's what makes PS and 3D software run faster. Like your 5 year old laptop has 32 GB of RAM. Do you even know what you are comparing?

They're using slower CPUs, GPUs, RAM, and have lower RAM capacity. What's your point? To agree with the detractors? And lots of Pro applications frankly tell you 16GB is a recommended minimum requirement for their software. In the real world, outside of iMore. Where people use more than Safari, Vesper, and Slack.

How much more of a condescending c*** can you be? Plenty of people on iMore are Mac users that use Pro applications. Can you show me some examples of Mac applications where 16GB is the minimum?

The equivalent of what you can get on sale in the Windows ecosystem for upwards of $100+ less money, with a workstation PC price tags. But specs that aren't even that good for an entry level gaming laptop...

No one rationalizes anything. Here is your mistake: "The more RAM, the better the machine performs!" That is an urban legend dating from the MS-DOS days. The truth is significantly different today. Even if you put a lot of RAM, the operating system will not give it to you. RAM is the property of the operating system. You own the hardware of your laptop, but you don't own its RAM usage. Can you allocate a desired amount of RAM to an application? No. Then you have absolutely no control on how the RAM is used. All your application can do is to spread into the wired memory, which is not swappable. Even in this case the operating system will kill your application or set it aside if it doesn't obey the strict RAM usage rules dictated bu the operating system. In your reply above you say "This is usually because of memory". Not necessarily. If a 16 GB laptop becomes a slug under similar load, this is most probably tied to several other factors and the RAM is the least effective reason in that sluggishness. This is also why your PC dealer will tell you to upgrade the hard disk to a faster one or an SSD at first place. This is because the outcome of the RAM upgrade is totally unpredictable in today's modern operating systems.

+1

This is NOT an issue of whether everyone needs 16GB, but if there are only a few users who really want it, they should offer that SKU, and can place all the warranty exclusions you want about heat, loss of battery life, whatever. Likewise, Apple can just flat refuse, and people can go elsewhere with their money. I've heard so many "excuses" for why Apple is doing this - thermal, battery life, lack of the necessary Kaby Lake chips - well both HP and Dell top of the line pro devices offer Kaby Lake and up to 32GB ram - if they can do it, surely Apple can do even better. This is simply a case of hubris - Apple knows better and will sell plenty of their version of a "Pro" device and you can line up and pay or go elsewhere. Microsoft is doing the same with the Surface Book line as far as top ram (16GB). We just have to let our pocketbooks do the talking.

Well said..../spot on Sent from the iMore App

Heat & power may mean they can't even get 32Gb to work in the existing chassis. This is way more complex that you appear to think it is. There is almost nobody that actually needs 32Gb either - they are deluded.

Very good point. Going thin does limit it. I do not care what kind of fancy fans you install. It depends on your needs. 16G may be fine, but music editing with Pro Tools, or any good DAW, the more ram, the better. I would rather have a thicker Pro with 32, or 64G choice. Sent from the iMore App

Deluded people calling others deluded. Go edit some 4K video while multi-tasking Premiere Pro, After Efrects, and Audacity or SpeedGrade. Those people live in the real world, not Renee's rhetoric bubbled Apple excuse factory.

16GB is fine for those tasks…

If HP or Dell offer Kaby Lake then it's only the dual-core 15 W or 4.5 W variant because those are the only Kaby Lake chips available right now. The only way to offer 32 GB of RAM is by using desktop-class DDR3 or DDR4, which consume a lot more power and generate a lot more heat, resulting in huge fans that make the laptops sound like jet engines and kill the battery in 2-3 hours (instead of 10+ hours).

I bet people want 12h battery life on gaming laptops, too. Oh wait. This isn't a MacBook Air. The battery life argument is weak if these machines are designed for the users who want it. And of course they could use the slower ram at lower capacities if they wanted to. The people who need 32 GB don't care about battery life. This is a non excuse for them, because the kind of work they do make it impossible to be productive off the charger for any extended periods of time, anyways. Also, Windows Laptops are getting battery life just as good with 32 GB.

The battery life argument is not weak, it's a MacBOOK, a laptop, a machine that's designed to be portable. If you don't care about battery life then you don't want a portable machine. Also I'd like to see these "Windows Laptops" you're referring to

Can you please give and examples of a dell or hp laptop with kaby lake (quad core) and 32 gb of ram. The only kaby lake processors out now are the ones found in ultrabooks which would not be powerful enough to be in a "pro" computer. This is why most of the updates to laptops still have skylake processors

You need to learn the difference between an "excuse" and a "reason" unless you're part of the Apple hardware team designing these MacBook Pros. They seem like perfectly logical explanations to me. Of course other brands have done it, but either with a bulky case, excessive heat, or battery life that of which you can barely classify it as a laptop. Possibly even all of these things at once.

Well put Rene. Most insightful and rational thought I've read all week thus far. Definitely made me think differently about this.

I don't really need it but I upgraded to it in my 2015 MBP just in case. The extra bump in price wasn't an issue for me and I never know if I will need it in the future

Great job sifting through the sea of thoughts and rants, Rene!
Having used every class of MacBook Pro and being a video editor which pushes and punishes my MacBook every day, I, for one, am very excited for this new machine and believe that it will work for my Pro level needs.
I defeinitely understand the disappointment in the choices that Apple made for this new design. My only comment which is inline with the subject of this article is that I believe we are jumping the gun if we condemn something on the basis of performance when the unit has not even been released into the wild. Let the high-end power users put it through its paces and report back to the community.
My sense, from what I've seen and read regarding the total I/O bandwidth and speed, is that the new SSD performance is going to have a huge impact on overall performance and make up for the smaller RAM allocation.
I appreciate everyone's thoughts and insights and hope that the machine will be all that Apple has claimed.
Thanks again, Rene!

I have a mid 2015 MBP pro 15 with an i7 processor and 16GB ram - I'm always running low on memory. I would have considered upgrading, but I was looking for a 32GB or even 64GB. No interest at all in the new machine. I feel that Apple has lost touch and doesn't care about those needing high end computing.

How on earth are you running low on memory? My only guess would be 8000 Chrome tabs? (press 'Bookmark All' - BINGO). Even if you're swapping out - swapping is VERY fast on SSDs.

Always remember, not everyone only uses a laptop for browsing the interwebs.

Although everyone uses a laptop for browsing the interwebs at some point, and for some reason people think they can have Chrome open with 100 tabs and do professional editing at the same time. Memory management people, 16GB is plenty if you don't abuse it

All of my computers are workhorses, I work with a lot of data, have many apps running and I have my machine plugged in most of the time because I get around 4 hours on battery and it runs so hot, I think it heats half the house :)

Other Pcs have SSDs as well. Why is that supposed to matter. Plus doing more writes obviously means the drive will wear faster.

Large data set simulations in R, DNA sequences analysis, genomic data processing, video tracking needs lot of RAM.

1% of people do any of these things - max. (and when you say large, you mean LARGE). It's not worth Apple making machines for < 1% of people who could otherwise use cloud services or a desktop. Awful battery life, on the other hand, is relevant to most users. There will always be edge cases.

And that 1% wants that kinda stuff to work in a machine labeled PRO considering the price tag. Posted from my Nexus 6P

Are you actually saying you want Apple to cater to 1% of people? Come on now, that's silly. Stuff like that anyway should be done with a desktop Pro machine, not a laptop

Yes, but Apple also gives you the power of full UNIX. Don't use off the shelf applications, write your own programs, there are a lot of open source science packages. Science is command-line based. With that nifty utility called "Terminal" you can leverage the whole planet Earth, dear Archimedes...

Also I haven't seen any scientist doing "Large data set simulations in R, DNA sequences analysis, genomic data processing, video tracking" on the road. Buy an 64 GB iMac if you want to use off the shelf scientific applications.

+1, why would you use a laptop for that kind of task?

The one saving grace of an overpriced Mac is that it can be both a Mac and a Windows PC at the same time via Parallels or Fusion. A VM can can use up to half the physical RAM in a Mac so a 32 GB Mac has 16 GB for Windows. 16 GB works well for my Windows app development needs but 8GB is way too restrictive since I run both the development environment and the app I am developing. I have been using 32 GB on my iMac for the past four years. 16 GB is way too restrictive. I agree with everyone else. 16 GB is not "Pro".

I ran Visual Studio in Windows on a Mac in a Parallels VM in 4Gb ram (total - 2Gb each OS) until I upgraded to an 8Gb MacBook this year. It ran absolutely fine (it swapped a lot - but swapping to SSD is fast). I now run Visual Studio & SQL Server on an 8Gb MacBook (4Gb per OS) and it flies - it's super fast. Have you actually tried using less RAM and found it doesn't work - or are you just assuming it won't? I think most complaints about these new laptops are perceived and not rooted in the real world.

The people complaining about these laptops are the people that haven't used them. Typical

No one needs to run both OSes unless they're a Mac developer. You can totally replace it with Windows and go about your life. Just avoid buying into Apples Pro Software and you will retain that flexibility and freedom. You can run Linux on a Windows Macine. That isn't a "saving grace" in the event the price/value ration is way off, there, either.

The Mac Pro apps are great though, so long as you're going to be primarily using macOS I'd recommend them

I couldn't agree more - I think almost everyone except very extreme edge cases of people are complaining without actually trying to use 16Gb. The vast majority of people can do everything they need in 4 or 8Gb let alone 16. Until this year I ran Visual Studio & SQL Server in Windows on top of OS X - I'm a windows developer - it ran extremely fast in 4Gb (2Gb per OS) on an 11" Air - which was my only computer. I now use a MacBook with 8Gb and it's very fast. Very few people have needs even as extreme as mine. Now we all have very fast SSDs - swapping out also isn't much of an issue even in the rare situations when it's required. More than 16Gb will only even be filled with data for I would guess 1% of MacBook Pro users. This lack of RAM is all in everyone's head; it's nonsense; a meaningless number (higher is better right?). Higher is not better if you're killing your battery on a laptop no.

+1, it's the "specs wars" all over again. People just compare to Windows laptops, see that a Windows laptop has 32GB of RAM, then complain about how the MacBook Pro doesn't have it, not taking into account whether they need the RAM, macOS memory optimizations as compared to Windows, some Mac specific apps using less memory than similar apps on Windows.

Speaking as a "pro" (Adobe CC suite mostly), 16 gb in a laptop is okay for me. Because I currently use a 8 gb 2012 rMBP and I don't see the problem with it. The SSD’s controller (in fact the whole storage stack) on my machine is so fast that virtualizing the RAM is nearly indistinguishable (and sometimes I see up to 50 gb virtualized by Photoshop - so 32 gb of RAM wouldn't even be enough anyways). YMMV of course...

Start of "Adventures of Captain Obvious." (But it should be said, so...) IMNSHO: The two key words are: The Future. WE take it as given (so far…) that Mac machines have a longer working life.
We ALSO take it as given that memory requirements (BOTH RAM and storage) go in one direction - UP. It should follow, then, that a good machine should be designed to be
(1) upgradable, and
(2) EASILY upgradable
…unless it is going to be designed as a "disposable" unit (OOPS - that's as evil as the phrase "planned obsolesce" is - OR IS IT?). Since we don't know what Apple (or anyone else) is planning next re: OS or applications, we need at least the POSSIBILITY of more elbow room. That means that the question "Is more RAM possible?" should generally be answered, "Yes!" Apple, please don't lock us down! That's my view ($0.25 worth). YMMV, of course…

I have a mid-2012 MBP 2.9 processor and upgraded to 16GB from 4GB memory for 4 years now. There are times that a lot of my apps were open at once including Adobe Premiere Pro and still it is working fine. One of my best defence is CleanMyMac (not trying to advertise it) that clears up to 45% of the memory. Battery time is great, no complaint. The only thing that really bring my MBP down is when I use Parallel with Windows/Solidworks in it. It still run but like a snail-mail. This is just because I tried to run some of my work from my work Windows 7 laptop to which MAC doesn't carry. So, I just removed Parallel/Windows completely. I'm close to upgrading into a SSD drive to which I'm sure will add to speed plus add a bit to my battery life (read this on another blog). In the end, my MBP/2.9/16 is still working just like when I bought it while my Windows 32GB-memory laptop, we have to refresh it about every two years to get the full speed.

You can rationalize and make excuses for anything. Most people don't NEDD 2tb of storage on their laptops. Most people don't NEED a glossy finish that scratches if you look at our wrong. But guess what people want it.
Furthermore the amount of RAM would not be as big of an issue but it is soldered on and cannot be upgraded later on.
Last but not least, due to the inability to upgrade this very expensive machine, some people would like to invest in more power and specs than they currently need so that later down the road they will still be fine.
My 6 year old Mac came with 4gb of ram which was fine for the time but then I upgraded to 8gb 3 years later and currently find even that inadequate.

Currently leaving the MacBook environment and going Windows 10. I fell in love with a Dell XPS 15 I played with at Best Buy. It has 16gb of ram, though they do offer 32. I'm leaving because of price -- the machine I'm ordering is $2300 with Sky Lake, 1tb ssd, touch screen, and more. I went to my local Apple Store to order the new machine, but hated (violently!) the new "flat" keyboard, the price is rediculous, and the computer felt uninspired and a total ripoff. The lack of ports will portend "dongle ****" -- the Dell has them all, including the newest Thunderbolt 3. I'm still using my iPad Pro, love my Mac mini, iPhone 7+, yada, yada, but Apple has lost their way in laptop computers. Sad.

I love my XPS 15, I hope you'll like yours as much as I do.

There's no lack of ports on the new MacBook, they're USB-C ports, next generation ports on a next generation laptop. You can use USB-C for video/audio/data transfer/charging, all in 1 type of port, how can you argue against that? Dongles are only temporary. The reason why the MacBook Pro doesn't have 32GB of RAM is because it would use too much power or create too much heat. I'd like to see how the battery life of the new MacBook Pro compares with the XPS 15

This is the reason I'm holding back from upgrading my late-2011 MacBook Pro. Aside from graphics card differences, hardware hasn't really changed it seems. I put 16 gb ram and a 1tb ssd into mine and barring anything dieing it's good until 32 or 64 gb ram is available, or a decent cpu update happens. I virtualize along with run different apps concurrently (multitasking, not backgrounding) along with it being my only computer. People telling me what's good enough for me reminds me of bill gates saying 640k should be enough for anybody.

It's a bit different than what Bill Gates was referring to. He was saying that 640k should be good for a long long time, I don't think Apple are stating that. 16GB should be fine for a few years, of course it all depends on the tasks you're dealing with. 16GB of RAM is enough for 4K video editing, and 4K is going to stay around for a while as it's still making it's way out there. Apple's done a lot of memory optimization in the OS so it actually uses less than previous OS versions, so in some cases, memory usage is actually going down instead of up. It will go up eventually, but for most, 16GB will be fine for at least a few years

Having read the article as Rene suggests, I note that he didn't run any video editing software, and that he chose not to run Chrome and Slack because, wait for it, they use too much memory!
That throws the whole argument out the window right there. People are complaint about the memory limit because they want to be able to run memory hungry apps.

I know Chrome uses an excessive amount of RAM, not sure about Slack, but yeah part of maintaining your machine is balancing your RAM. Video editing software is going to use a lot of RAM, that makes sense, but should you really have Chrome open with 16 tabs (probably with some Flash content) at the same time? Just because you "could" if you had the RAM, doesn't mean you should. If people memory-manage responsibly, 16GB will be enough for the majority of Pros

No, it won't be 'enough'. Talk to real pros (like in the film industry -- you know, die-hard Apple fans) and they'll tell you that they need those apps open simultaneously... that's the whole point of, wait for it, MULTITASKING... something the Mac was shaming the PC (Microsoft) on since 1984. If *you* want to manage RAM on *your* computer, you should go right ahead and do it -- I'm not sure why you keep insisting on telling other users how they should use their systems and software and manage their workflow. You expect editors to load/unload 4/5/8K video on an NLE because they need to use Photoshop and/or Chrome? You know how time-consuming that is? You know how many resources that kinda resolution takes up? That's why pros are upset; they were OK with less battery life on a 32GB MBP -- knowing Apple, it'd still be hours -- but they need the resources.

I am curious as to the use case that Apple had in mind when designing the spec for the MBP.
If Apple were a car manufacturer then the MBP is not aiming to be a performance device like a F1 car trying to break a particular performance envelope or a Ferrari/Bugatti.
Apple are clear that they are aiming to build reliable out of the box machines to cover most everyday uses for most people as a prestige manchine at s prestige price.
To be MBP is the equivalent of a Mercedes E class. A prestige car at a premium price that performs with a minimum of problems.. The issue in my mind is that people confuse Pro with performance. Professionals want a reliable workhorse that works consistently and you would not be upset to be seen with. Think of how you feel as a driver of a limo service. You would be happy to be picked up in a Mercedes. Sorry if this upsets readers but if you are looking for performance or state of the art then The MPB is not for you. If you are looking for a consistent workhorse then I think MBP will fit the bill.

The only reason the MacBook Pro doesn't go all-out on performance is because it's a portable machine, and Apple has to make sure it can be classed as a portable machine. I've seen so many powerhouse Windows laptops, but they're bulky, heavy, hot and last about an hour on battery, to me that isn't what a laptop is, that's a desktop PC shoehorned into a portable device

Read this and get back to us: https://www.slrlounge.com/an-open-letter-to-apple-from-the-actual-workin...

Anyone doing heavy 4K video with effects will need the RAM. This posting is asking a rhetorical question. Any proposed explanations simply don't matter, cause the facts are clear. A media creator centered Pro laptop should offer the option. Those who are willing to deal with the detriments to be able to do their job can make that decision for themselves. Right now, this is looking like a worse Pro machine than some alternatives that cost half the price.

You can do 4K video editing with effects with 16GB of RAM, otherwise Apple wouldn't advertise it as being able to do this

apple won't say it can not rendering 4K video. even if it takes 4 hours longer the MacBook still can do it. is like walking from new jersey to buffalo. you can get there walking or take an airplane .but you still can

More RAM isn't going to help with the rendering time, that's the processor at work

so if u have 4G RAM with a fast CPU, u think it will still be faster ?

Tired of the path Apple has been going down lately and with all these brainwashed Apple blog sites that justify apples stupidity. They charge tons more than anyone else and each release they remove more and more. What am I buying? I feel like the emperor wearing no clothes every time I use Apple products. I'm not purchasing another MacBook. Will be looking at a beefy system 76 or the newer Dells with tons of power and tons of memory all for just slightly over a thousand dollars. Not paying close to $4k for a half-dilapidated laptop that will be outdated in just 6-10 months. Bye Apple Sent from the iMore App

Have fun with your bulky plastic "laptop" that lasts an hour on battery

my MacBook air last longer then one hour.

That's what I'm saying, MacBooks (all models) are designed to have good battery life because they're laptops, yet Windows laptops where high specs are shoehorned in will last about an hour, and it's hard to class that as a portable machine

Never used a dell have you

If it's got beefier specs than this MacBook Pro I'd like to see how the battery life compares

After seeing the new MBP 15" on last Friday I can say it's one of the coolest laptops ever, and I almost missed it. I had TWIT running on iPad (with Jason Calacanis and Peter Rojas) while working in my friends office. In the other end of the room my friend had a meeting with ad agency that is doing several high-rise size banners and 4k videos. In some point the ad agency guy Mr. Xu asked what's going on with the TWIT, "Who are those guys who are so clueless about the MBP." I told him it's just guys that are trying to guess what the MBP is, and it looks like it's a slow dog with too little RAM and some kind of new gadget bar, and Microsoft has a better PC now, so Apple is toasted. "What do you mean, they don't have the MBP, what's the point of talking about it then?", "I suppose nothing else to talk about". "Well, if you like to see the new MBP come here". It turns out Apple has given some big clients several of them for testing a month a go. What did he say? "They have tweaked the memory management quite a bit, it basically has the same performance as desktops with 32GB, we have done comparisons. CPU speed is good, even you keep pushing it continuously. We do very large file renderings, also some 3D and VR. It really feels like tricked up machine, it's not supposed to be fast but it is. We will have more than 30 of these next month and will use them to replace several desktops. The main reason we have them now is just that, can they be used to replace the desktops so there is no need for two machines, just one extra display." Another thing I noticed was the cables, no dongles, just USB-C cables to external HD (with USB3), iPhone 7 and to our 30" display. His comment was:"Why would you use dongles, just buy the cable for the same price". BTW, those four ports are badly needed, with the power cord they were all full. He also had a USB-C> multicard reader/USB3 hub. The touch bar is something I finally understand after seeing it. I thought it's like a strip from old music keyboards. Not quite. It really is like a long Apple Watch and it will get long time to get used to it. According to the ad guy:" Once you get your brain wrapped around it it's a real killer, a big time saver. For example, we always work with at least one external monitor, sometimes with a video projector and large audience, all the controls are right there. There is lot more to it, you should talk to our music editor". About the new Microsoft Surface Studio which I think is awesome. The Ad guy again: "You know, I used to design silk cloth patterns, we had those pen pad displays similar to the SS. They are great for that purpose, but I think the SS is a bit too cumbersome to use. The best thing is to work with a smaller 12" iPad with an external 40" monitor that you can see the full image once in awhile. That's my opinion, but I did that for 2 years. I think the SS will find its users but the pen use might disappoint. I do have a friend who has actually tested it. They are not for everybody, not even for every designer or artist. They should have called Surface Exerciser, you will feel it in your arms". I think he said it was hi-res HP display similar to the SS that he used, or was it Viewsonic. I still have no idea what kind of thingy that would be. "You know, light box, just like sorting out slides". Now I'm really getting sweaty palms over the new MBP and I'm thinking, can I really save $2 every day the next 3 years to afford it. Well, it would have probably ⅓ resale value left, so per day amount is lower, but still, it would mean I would need to prepare my lunch for work at home every morning. Or eat cheap local Chinese food from a styrofoam box. I think thousands of Chinese are thinking the same.

After talking with the music editor who also turns out working for China Central TV 4k projects I learned this. The new MBP is fine with 8GB of RAM for 90% of the users. For the music and 4k production 16GB is enough. When you press PLAY on some bigger Logic project with lot of amp simulators, plugins and 29 channels you would expect the new MBP to gough, but it doensn't. Apparently the SSD Page Swap is fast enough so that it can act like RAM and there is definetely some magic involved how macOS is now handling the data with the new MBP. The same with 4k video, it works, even PCs with 32GB RAM have problems. USB-C is the way to go, I checked out two different style multi port hubs. It's cool that you can use your old cables, but within couple of months nobody buys dongles, people will just replace the old USB cables with new with one end USB-C and other what ever is needed. At the same time I was wondering what Apple will do with the Lightning connector, probably nothing as it's used to charge the Apple Pencil, iPods and whatever new products are coming out that require very small connectors that can also be updated fast.

So, basically, you're saying "Apple is fragmenting their brand over something as stupid as a 16gig RAM cap, and that's fine". This isn't the consumer Mac, so you shouldn't limit it as such.

YES next question

get as much as you need. I guess with today's devices components being non-replaceable, it may be good to shoot for more, and if u don't use it, the its spare memory/storage etc... BUT the price is also a factor, at least it is for me.. I only go for 8Gig and will always until Apple forces me onto something else.. If u an unsure, get the max u can afford if price is no object, but if u *know* u are never gonna use it all, then why pay for it ? People know what they do with their phones right ? short term and long term... not in all cases... 16Gig for me on iPhone/iPad as well.