M1 MacBooks limits to 16Gb for now?

[anon85228692]

@rkaplan

So many reasons why both M1 computers and Big Sur are essentially still beta hardware/software. […] Not ready for prime time.

What are you founding this on? Do you have an M1 laptop and do you run Big Sur?
More to the point: why do you have such one-sided hate against this platform and Apple since the beginning of this thread?

[rkaplan]

@anon85228692

If Apple produces blazing fast computers with insane battery life

If the M1 computers are truly “blazing fast” then isn’t it curious that Apple did not demonstrate this or provide real-world Application metrics to prove it?

Seems highly unlikely to me that Apple would miss that opportunity.

[anon85228692]

Okay, correction: let’s revisit this thread in a few weeks when third-party benchmarks come out. I’m sure this will all be most enlightening.

In the meantime, you really do seem to have a one-sided animosity against that platform that seems more grounded in feeling that on the facts currently at our disposal.

[ChrisUpchurch]

Apple provided the exact same sorts of statements that they’ve made for previous Intel based Macs and for iOS devices: X times faster than (previous Apple product/competing product).

[ChrisUpchurch]

@anon85228692

My (unfounded) feeling is that the M1’s performances are going to force Microsoft’s hand. If Apple produces blazing fast computers with insane battery life that destroys most consumer-grade Windows laptops, and Intel doesn’t catch up (which it doesn’t look like it will in the near future), Microsoft will have to look to ARM (or other alternate solutions) to catch up.

The rest of the ARM world has probably been gaining ground on Intel, but I don’t know if they’ve surpassed them the way Apple has.

[anon85228692]

No matter how this all goes, I think this thread is going to be spectacularly entertaining in a few months time. Honest appointments taken, everyone?

What tech were you spectacularly wrong about?

Inspired by the “What Tech Did You take Too Long to Buy” topic – what tech were you spectacularly wrong about? Me: I thought cameraphones were a stupid idea. Why would you want a camera in your phone? That’s like one of those ridiculous gadets that makes coffee and toast and a sandwich all at the same time. It’s a gimmick – not something people will actually want. I thought Second Life was going to be huge, and we’d all run around with avatars.

[rkaplan]

@anon85228692

In the meantime, you really do seem to have a one-sided animosity against that platform that seems more grounded in feeling that on the facts currently at our disposal.

Yes, I think the whole Big Sur and M1 rollout has been quite premature and overhyped. But I will be quite happy to be wrong if it turns out that way.

Agreed - let’s see how it evolves

[webwalrus]

@ChrisUpchurch

The rest of the ARM world has probably been gaining ground on Intel, but I don’t know if they’ve surpassed them the way Apple has.

The real question, to me, is whether Mac’s market share (and percentage of Windows adoption - virtualized or otherwise) is big enough to give Microsoft a nudge in the direction of making Windows ARM license-able.

There might also be a push from the more “open” side as well, as my impression is that ARM-based Linux servers are becoming more widely available - and being able to run Windows on a Linux-hosted VM might be a Big Deal in the enterprise.

[rkaplan]

@ChrisUpchurch

Apple provided the exact same sorts of statements that they’ve made for previous Intel based Macs and for iOS devices: X times faster than (previous Apple product/competing product).

But given the emulation layer(s) and paucity of RAM, we do not have an apples to apples comparison this time (pun intended) - especially in a real-world situation with multiple applications open which use RAM and thus will need to be frequently swapped in a RAM-limited machine.

[ChrisUpchurch]

I suspect the percentage of Airs, minis, and 2-port 13” MacBook Pros purchased with more than 16GB of RAM is tiny. These comparisons are apples to apples for the vast majority of users.

[Christian]

The big difference to previous chip architectures is that everything happens inside of the M1, including the RAM.

Yes, we will have to see how it behaves in real world scenarios, but I am quite confident that this all-in-one enclosure with a 5 NM architecture will be able to handle a lot with “only” 16 GB.

And yes, I think that we will see more than 16 GB in 2021.

[rkaplan]

@ChrisUpchurch

I suspect the percentage of Airs, minis, and 2-port 13” MacBook Pros purchased with more than 16GB of RAM is tiny. These comparisons are apples to apples for the vast majority of users.

In that case performance is essentially irrelevant - the vast majority of those users probably do email, web browsing, social media, and word processing 95% of the time. So there isn’t any real point to discussing faster performance at all - that stuff already runs as fast as can practically be needed.

But losing the ability to run Parallels is a really big deal. There will be a non-trivial number of users of those machines who “upgrade” to an M1 machine, discover that their virtual machine no longer works, and now have a really big problem on their hands until Parallels comes up with some solution.

[WayneG]

@webwalrus

being able to run Windows on a Linux-hosted VM might be a Big Deal in the enterprise.

Microsoft already offers a Azure Cloud based Windows Virtual Desktop. Currently you can choose VMs running from a 4GB PC to a 112GB workstation.

It would seem the only thing needed to run that on any Mac, iPad, or ChromeBook, etc. would be the proper remote access client should MS decide to enter that market.

[ChrisUpchurch]

@rkaplan

But losing the ability to run Parallels is a really big deal. There will be a non-trivial number of users of those machines who “upgrade” to an M1 machine, discover that their virtual machine no longer works, and now have a really big problem on their hands until Parallels comes up with some solution.

It’s a big deal to a small percentage of users. I suspect it will be quite a while before we get Windows virtualization on M1 Macs. Frankly, it’s quite possible we’ll never get it (it depends much more on what direction Microsoft decides to go than on Apple or Parallels). We may well go back to something like the PowerPC era where running Windows on a Mac involves full x86 emulation, rather than just virtualization.

[rkaplan]

@ChrisUpchurch

Frankly, it’s quite possible we’ll never get it

If true, there will be a sizable group of users who never upgrade and/or who make a lot of noise. The ability to run Parallels or VM fusion in Coherence mode or similar is a valid and serious dealbreaker for many Mac users.

[anon85228692]

“Many” is extremely subjective and, as has been repeatedly pointed out since the WWDC announcement, Apple probably has the numbers and decided it would be ready to lose those customers.

Sure, it sucks when you depend on that, and that might be a dealbreaker for you, but that’s not a dealbreaker for the vast majority of users. A given use case is not everybody’s use case.

[Joost]

Not irrelevant but perhaps not “as important”. Everyone likes a snappier computer and everyone likes working with a computer that promises to be faster than the model one had before - even if one does not actually use that memory/speed.

More importantly, a battery that lasts much longer is a big deal for that segment.

But this M1 is just the introduction of Apple moving into this computer processor field. And true to Apple, they do this very thoughtfully and measured. Had they introduced the M1 on an imac pro, a 16g ram limit would have been met with much wailing and nashing of teeth (and rightfully so). For the computer segment they use the M1 for, it is just right and gives them a chance to kick the tires on their design. Additionally, they give the software chances to grow into this as well without requiring all mission critical apps (for the pros) to support this new cpu right away.

Having designed (CCD) memory in the (distant) past, i know that adding an extra address line for twice the memory is not a problem. But memory die size is comparatively large and dissipates heat. So handling twice the size is something that must be given attention. Apple may not have wanted to make product for the general market with larger memory perhaps because of that chip’s production failure rate, perhaps of their marketing approach (just speculating, i have no insight knowledge)

I, for one, am quite interested to see the success of this M1 architecture. A cpu has many processing bottlenecks but two important ones are cpu to ram and cpu to long term storage such as ssd. To overcome some of the immediate lack of speed through these bottlenecks, processors implement local, high speed cache (Often referred to as L1, L2 etc memory). These caches are fast but they are small and eat no EAT power. Apple has essentially build a cpu with 16Gbyte cache (albeit perhaps not as fast as the one inside the cpu) and kept the whole dang thing under 10watt. That. Is. Crazy. Impressive.

When Apple moved to computers with fixed memory we were required to spec at purchase, there was much crying and the death of the mac was predicted. Well, we got fairly good at picking our - cannot change memory - macs, so not really a problem. Now it almost feels like that was a marketing experiment to prepare us all for picking the right processor up front - i am predicting it will be a non issue.

And this supposed 16g limit? It just feels like politics and positioning that probaby doesn’t matter in a year when M2 is presented. In the meantime, if the new macs with M1 is not for you, it does not mean it is not for anyone nor that it is the end of the mac.

[anon85228692]

@Joost

there was much crying and the death of the mac was predicted

Absolutely. I think we should all remember that Apple’s doom and death has been predicted a million times and it never came – quite the contrary, ridiculing literally decades of pundits. (Oh, some reviews of the original iPhone have NOT aged well. ) Before thinking we know better, maybe let’s be humble, consider that we absolutely don’t know jack about their plans, we don’t have their numbers and that it’s their goddamn job to think this through.

[rkaplan]

@Joost

More importantly, a battery that lasts much longer is a big deal for that segment.

I agree there - huge plus for many people in this segment

I suppose the answer is that Apple realizes the M1 limitations and that is why they are still selling a 16" Intel MacBook Pro as well as Intel iMacs and Intel Mac Pros. Hopefully before they eliminate those, these issues will have been resolved, including a solution for Parallels or VM Fusion.

As for me, I have not updated my MacBook Pro in a long time due to the butterfly keyboard fiasco. I held off when the new MacBook Pros were introduced, anticipating I would buy an Apple silicon laptop. Now that I see these issues, I will buy an Intel 16" MacBook Pro - Parallels is way more important to me than the ability to run iOS apps on the computer.

[ChrisUpchurch]

@rkaplan

a valid and serious dealbreaker for many Mac users.

Definitely a valid and serious dealbreaker, but “many” is way overstating it. The number of folks who run Parallels/VMWare Fusion/Boot Camp (and I’m one of them) is a very small proportion of the Mac user base.

Loosing the ability to virtualize Windows was a clear and obvious consequence of moving away from x86 processors. I’m sure Apple considered the impact. But weighing the impact of that on a small portion of the Mac user base against the advantages of faster processors, longer battery life, not being beholden to Intel’s schedule and process woes, being able to integrate Apple’s own processor tech like the Neural Engine, and “to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make,” I’m not at all surprised by Apple’s decision.