Reply to post: Re: I'm in a similar dilemma with my 2008 unibody 13" MacBook 8GB ram 256GB SSD

Re: I'm in a similar dilemma with my 2008 unibody 13" MacBook 8GB ram 256GB SSD

>The blistering fast nvme ssd is a game changer. 3/2.7 GB Read/Write is unparalleled and mitigates future ram requirements as swapping ram to disk is so fast.

Sorry that's a rubbish idea because

1) Swap is a fudge, not an ideal to be aimed for. Using it on an SSD shortens its life (maybe that's the plan... /tinhat)

2) "Sorry we can't upgrade the RAM" is not a thing. Ok, it is a thing - its an Apple strategy thing, but it is not a technical thing.

Quite simply the "pro" is not a pros's machine, its a macbook up-sell for consumers who don't know any better.

For consumers, I doubt 16G RAM will be an issue for the lifetime of the machine. RAM requirements seem to be levelling out. I'm guessing the reason the RAM is not upgradable on the pro machine is that it would be embarrassing to have it non-upgradable on some machines but upgradable on others. I get that everyone has to make a profit, but this is not the way to do it. Apple is basically hoping that the rest of the industry follows suit so that it doesn't have to explain itself.

Magsafe data links might be technically tricky but the rest of it is well within their capabilities - they just chose not to do it. If Apple had left on a couple of USB2 ports, swappable battery, SSD and RAM and given us a new cable design for magsafe power with dual optical (or shielded electrical) thunderbolt3.1 links to the Apple version of the Razer Core with graphics and additional SSD slots, they would have made a lot of people very happy and people would be cooing over their "innovation."

If they had brought out a range of peripherals to take advantage of the high-speed ports, they would also have less flak. When they swapped floppy for usb drives, the actual USB drives were better. There's no apparent reason to have these new ports... except to sell more dongles so you can connect all the same kit you already have. If they had said, "Here's our new 10GbE Server/SSD RAID box. You can also get our 8/16-port 1GbE/10GbE switch that you can connect to the 10GbE link on your new pro." People would have said, "ok, its a pro box, I don't need it but I accept that its better than the old one and justifies the price hike."

I feel that consumer gear performance is probably impinging on business-system performance and the enterprise vendors don't want consumer pricing in their arenas. I'd love an 8-port switch which can take 10GbE or 1GbE SFPs. Thunderbolt interfaces can run at the right speeds, but no-one does the in-between bits to get to ethernet or the small switches. Everyone wants to do the 48-port version for $15k. Given that the complexity goes up exponentially, I would have thought a low port-count switch would have been a winner. We have PCIex16 slots going begging on most consumer desktops but where's the really high-speed networking and SSD arrays? No-one wants you to add another 256G SSD, they want you to throw out the old one and buy a new expensive 1TB one.

The problem is that my steam library is larger than many business databases and its very hard to segment the market when those who have a good reason to spend cash have the same requirements as those with no profit-motive for buying kit. This is why we are seeing a drop in innovation on the desktop. No-one wants to compromise their existing profit margins. And this is why we must tilt the playing field back towards companies who have nothing to lose and why IP laws (and the threat of IP litigation) have got to the point where they are damaging. If we stifle innovation via the law courts at home, the Chinese will do it and have the market to themselves. Sure, they'll be rubbish to start with - but so was the first iphone and so were Japanese goods in the 1970's.