GOODBYE, APPLE.

[flat five]

Yep...flat "nobody needs more than 640KB" five knows better.

Now what about all those other points I mentioned?

the points are irrelevant to my original point.. you seem to be completely accepting of the fact that if someone says "apple is stupid because 16GB ram laptop" then that person needs or uses more than 16GB ram in a laptop.

well, ok then but i definitely disagree with you.

This we agree on. That doesn't, or at least shouldn't, exclude people from voicing their dissatisfaction with them.

why not find something satisfying and voice your opinion on that?
it's just a more enjoyable way to live i've found than sitting around being negative all the time.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

why not find something satisfying and voice your opinion on that?

The forum exists to discuss the Apple ecosystem. It's not perfect. And IIRC you do not even own a Mac Pro, correct? Awfully presumptuous of you to (try) and tell folks what they need. Laughable, really.

 

[flat five]

The forum exists to discuss the Apple ecosystem. It's not perfect. And IIRC you do not even own a Mac Pro, correct? Awfully presumptuous of you to (try) and tell folks what they need. Laughable, really.

i own a cmp

 

[scm6079]

i asked about the software and specific usages though..

huh? this has definitely not been answered:
"does anybody have a real world usage case showing them pegging 16GB ram and needing more?"

Try to keep an open mind. I understand that YOUR usage pattern may not require more than 16GB ram, but that doesn't apply to everyone. Not everyone uses their Mac just for Adobe products or basic apps. In the Adobe case, I'd argue that it may not be necessary but would likely improve performance if they wanted to run the apps you listed together by having more than 16GB (e.g. premier + photoshop + after effects is a common one for our marketing dept. who does run with 16GB).

My needs are different. I need to be able to run large simulations and also maintain virtual machines (not typically at the same time). For example, #3 in this chart is a wave electromagnetics problem solved with the default iterative solver of Comsol (https://www.comsol.com/). Moving into swap space makes performance unacceptably slow.

In any case, you simply look ignorant claiming that there is no practical need for more than 16GB of RAM.

I'm only here because I need to make a purchasing decision for next year, and am trying to determine if it is worthwhile to undergo the pain of a platform switch away from Mac-- which will be a necessity if Apple does not update their hardware to keep up with the increasing technical demands of projects that continue to increase in size. I'd prefer not to, and all *I* need is an incremental bump to their MP product line to keep them viable for us. I'd have personally loved to have seen a 32GB laptop too, opening up smaller sims to be run anywhere and letting our devs run all the VMs they need.
Out of curiosity, why do you need a Mac Pro, and why are you commenting here if 16GB is fine? You sound like a perfect iMac or iPad customer instead.

 

[ITguy2016]

the points are irrelevant to my original point.. you seem to be completely accepting of the fact that if someone says "apple is stupid because 16GB ram laptop" then that person needs or uses more than 16GB ram in a laptop.

Why shouldn't I be accepting of their requirements? Unlike you I don't pretend to know people's requirements better than they do.

well, ok then but i definitely disagree with you.

Which, again, leads us back to what I originally said:

"Why? So you can tell people they really don't need to do what they're doing?"

why not find something satisfying and voice your opinion on that?

Good question for you: Why are you hear commenting on this? How does someone voicing a very real concern affect you? I suspect it doesn't. So...you're here why?

it's just a more enjoyable way to live i've found than sitting around being negative all the time.

Fine...please take your negativity elsewhere.

 

[Rookbird]

Apple needs to have a twice a year update schedule. Almost like Intel's tick-tock schedule. Once a year they can have a major update but they need to update the specs a little in between each yearly major update.

 

[flat five]

Try to keep an open mind. I understand that YOUR usage pattern may not require more than 16GB ram, but that doesn't apply to everyone. Not everyone uses their Mac just for Adobe products or basic apps. In the Adobe case, I'd argue that it may not be necessary but would likely improve performance if they wanted to run the apps you listed together by having more than 16GB (e.g. premier + photoshop + after effects is a common one for our marketing dept. who does run with 16GB).

My needs are different. I need to be able to run large simulations and also maintain virtual machines (not typically at the same time). For example, #3 in this chart is a wave electromagnetics problem solved with the default iterative solver of Comsol (https://www.comsol.com/). Moving into swap space makes performance unacceptably slow.

tbh, whether or not macs are the right choice for running VMs is of no concern of mine.. i'm a creative and that's pretty much all i care about regarding computers (for perspective).. personally, i feel if i was into that sort of thing, i wouldn't be using macs to begin with and instead would be using manufacturers who specifically cater to these types of uses.

regarding simulations, i do that too. (fwiw)

In any case, you simply look ignorant claiming that there is no practical need for more than 16GB of RAM.

i didn't claim that.. in fact, i specifically said in the first post -> "idk, not saying it doesn't happen.. more curious about what the software & exact usages are that bring it over 16GB."

like, are you complaining about macs because they're not capable of doing something they're designed (and even marketed) to do? ...or complaining because you wish they could mow your lawn even though the designers aren't even considering this usage nor targeting your specific work when designing the machines?

I'm only here because I need to make a purchasing decision for next year, and am trying to determine if it is worthwhile to undergo the pain of a platform switch away from Mac-- which will be a necessity if Apple does not update their hardware to keep up with the increasing technical demands of projects that continue to increase in size. I'd prefer not to, and all *I* need is an incremental bump to their MP product line to keep them viable for us. I'd have personally loved to have seen a 32GB laptop too, opening up smaller sims to be run anywhere and letting our devs run all the VMs they need.
Out of curiosity, why do you need a Mac Pro, and why are you commenting here if 16GB is fine? You sound like a perfect iMac or iPad customer instead.

look, my work entails some of the most demanding tasks out there in creativeProLand.. that being 3D CAD with renderings and structural analysis simulations.. in the past, i needed a mac pro because it had the cores necessary for the renderings/simulations..
nowadays, for all of that heavy lifting stuff, i use cloud (autodesk).. both renderings and simulations can be run on their computers way (WAY!) faster than any sort of personal computer configuration can do it and at a much (MUCH!) cheaper cost.. like, if you're doing this type of work and you're not at least considering exploring cloud based services (ie- 36,000 core super computers that you can access anytime) then you're doing yourself a disservice and certainly wasting money on buying last decades paradigm 12+ core personal computers.

further, i don't only work in one place.. having all my eggs in one basket "oh, sorry, i'll have to wait to get back to my city/desktop to generate a rendering" is another letdown of investing in a dedicated workstation/joke-of-a-renderfarm.. i can do full size high quality renderings on a laptop in under a minute these days.. this is insanely advantageous over last decade's workflow where, to get the same image, i need to wait hours (upon hours) on a computer of greater expense.

so yeah, iMac's are super sweet for me now.. they're the fastest macs out there for running CAD (which are all single core operations) and they don't waste money on 'multi core' cpu.. multicore PCs are a joke to me now. entirely laughable.. so an imac in conjunction with MBP is pretty much perfect for me these days..

it's not that i'm what you want to insult me as 'consumer' or 'iPad' user (i've never owned an iPad.. no software yet).. it's that these computers in conjunction with the right software and workflow, are thousands of times faster than the past that so many people seem to be stuck in.. literally, thousands of times faster.. so it's funny to see people fighting to the death over 4% performance discrepancies between this gen and last gen hardware etc.

 

[ITguy2016]

Apple needs to have a twice a year update schedule. Almost like Intel's tick-tock schedule. Once a year they can have a major update but they need to update the specs a little in between each yearly major update.

I don't believe they need to have a yearly update schedule. But I do think that they should update their systems in a reasonable timeframe given the ability to do so (i.e. the availability of parts to enable Apple to do so).

 

[flat five]

Fine...please take your negativity elsewhere.

woe is me

 

[ITguy2016]

tbh, whether or not macs are the right choice for running VMs is of no concern of mine.. i'm a creative and that's pretty much all i care about regarding computers (for perspective).. personally, i feel if i was into that sort of thing, i wouldn't be using macs to begin with and instead would be using manufacturers who specifically cater to these types of uses.

You didn't ask about what you needed more than 16GB of memory for. You asked what others needed more than 16GB of memory for. You've been provided more than one answer. The fact you're dismissive of them does negate them.

i didn't claim that.. in fact, i specifically said in the first post -> "idk, not saying it doesn't happen.. more curious about what the software & exact usages are that bring it over 16GB."

You're certainly implying as much. If you acknowledge there are use cases for more than 16GB of RAM then I don't understand why you're asking people for examples. As I already answered: People need more than 16GB of RAM for the same reasons they need more than 16GB of RAM on the Mac Pro. You ignored this answer...why?

 

[singhs.apps]

nowadays, for all of that heavy lifting stuff, i use cloud (autodesk).. both renderings and simulations can be run on their computers way (WAY!) faster than any sort of personal computer configuration can do it and at a much (MUCH!) cheaper cost.. like, if you're doing this type of work and you're not at least considering exploring cloud-based services (ie- 36,000 core super computers that you can access anytime) then you're doing yourself a disservice and certainly wasting money on buying last decades paradigm 12+ core personal computers.

I did consider that in a recent project, after seeing my render time shoot up beyond the 30 minute per frame mark, but I had to abandon due to the client's concerns.
Another option was going the GPU rendering route, but I couldn't just get a new PC workstation configured, delivered, setup in time for the project deadline ( yes Windows !! )
I see no harm in getting a good solid system for local work without having to go the cloud route.

 

[flat five]

I did consider that in a recent project, after seeing my render time shoot up beyond the 30 minute per frame mark, but I had to abandon due to the client's concerns.
Another option was going the GPU rendering route, but I couldn't just get a new PC workstation configured, delivered, setup in time for the project deadline ( yes Windows !! )
I see no harm in getting a good solid system for local work without having to go the cloud route.

neither do i.. i often render locally with indigo renderer which has recently been re-written in openCL...
on an imac with 4GBvram gpu, i get about 25x faster results than i used to get with indigo on my cmp.. again, minutes instead of hours.

the real speed improvements are coming from software and workflow.. not hardware. until we see an entirely new type of hardware, we're not going to see huge performance enhancement from generation to generation.. it's just a trickle of enhancements when focusing in on that and, imo, a misdirected vision of determining factors as to what makes a good computer system.

 

[singhs.apps]

Ohh.. Indigo. How is it ? Or should we take the rendering talk elsewhere ?

 

[ITguy2016]

neither do i.. i often render locally with indigo renderer which has recently been re-written in openCL...
on an imac with 4GBvram gpu, i get about 25x faster results than i used to get with indigo on my cmp.. again, minutes instead of hours.

the real speed improvements are coming from software and workflow.. not hardware. until we see an entirely new type of hardware, we're not going to see huge performance enhancement from generation to generation.. it's just a trickle of enhancements when focusing in on that and, imo, a misdirected vision of determining factors as to what makes a good computer system.

What part of "It's not about flat five" are you having a difficult time understanding?

 

[Flint Ironstag]

i own a cmp

Are you the same guy who has it gathering dust in the closet?

And regarding indigo - I have not used it. But indulge me here. It appears to be GPU accelerated from a quick googling. How would your cMP stack up with an upgrade of say 2 GTX 970s vs your iMac? Assuming the cMP can run this app - you might be sitting on a cMP 1,1 and this is what's informing your PoV.

 

[flat five]

Are you the same guy who has it gathering dust in the closet?

And regarding indigo - I have not used it. But indulge me here. It appears to be GPU accelerated from a quick googling. How would your cMP stack up with an upgrade of say 2 GTX 970s vs your iMac? Assuming the cMP can run this app - you might be sitting on a cMP 1,1 and this is what's informing your PoV.

it used to be gpu accelerated (via openCL or CUDA).. now, it's (what the devs refer to as) pure GPU rendering.

i quit using the cmp for work when it lost OS support.. i know i could do a slight hack to get it going again but i'm not interested.. so, with those cards in a supported cmp, i reckon it would run indigo great.. definitely faster than my imac and possibly faster than a nmp w/d700..

but more to the point i was making earlier, the comparisons between different gpus running the application will be weak while the comparison to the past versions of the software to the latest version of the software will be much more prominent regardless of hardware.. it's the software/coding which has given the noticeable increase in performance and not so much the hardware it's being run on.
[doublepost=1478480626][/doublepost]

What part of "It's not about flat five" are you having a difficult time understanding?

what's your problem.

the dude singh said he understands there are improvements by way of cloud services but that doesn't necessarily mean we don't need performance at the local level..
to which, i agreed and expanded on the thought using personal experience to expand.

like, that's an example of productive communication between he and i.. not really sure why it's so upsetting to you other than it seems like you'd just rather keep everything negative.


--------------------------------
----------------------
-------------
-------
---
-


[doublepost=1478481006][/doublepost]oh, hey.. regarding indigo..
*brag alert*

i bought it when it first went commercial back in 2009.. one of the first 100 to buy which means i have a lifetime license (at a discounted price to boot)

 

[zephonic]

Apple needs to have a twice a year update schedule. Almost like Intel's tick-tock schedule. Once a year they can have a major update but they need to update the specs a little in between each yearly major update.

I guess you haven't look closely at Intel's release schedule? No way they do updates twice a year. They aim for annual cycles, but more often than not their releases are delayed.

At the rate x86 tech is going, I think updating Macs bi-annually is defensible.

 

[flat five]

@Flint Ironstag
hmm.. just checked the indigo site and it appears the current available product is Indigo3.. that's the gpu accelerated version.. v4 is in public beta and has been so for a while now.. that's the 'pure GPU' version.

 

[singhs.apps]

I guess you haven't look closely at Intel's release schedule? No way they do updates twice a year. They aim for annual cycles, but more often than not their releases are delayed.

At the rate x86 tech is going, I think updating Macs bi-annually is defensible.

I think he meant once in two years.

 

[jeff7117]

i asked about the software and specific usages though..




doing what though, exactly? and to what effect if you had less than 64GB ram?

RAM previews in AE will take all you have. The more RAM you have, the more you can preview. It might mean the difference between working in 1/4 and 1/2 or full resolution with 4K footage. I normally keep Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects open when I work, and bounce around between them. 16 Gigs was barely enough for HD work.

Yes, it's not an ideal scenario, but in a pinch, a laptop will work for motion graphics and editing. It's not ideal with 16 gigs, and would be much better with 32. It's enough of a limitation that I'm not upgrading my current MBP.

 

[Beer Wig]

Looks like this is how Apple "convert" the Macbook Pro to a MP 7,1.

View attachment 668449

The lowest value proposition of this diagram is the MPB.

 

[scm6079]

regarding simulations, i do that too. (fwiw)

look, my work entails some of the most demanding tasks out there in creativeProLand.. that being 3D CAD with renderings and structural analysis simulations.. in the past, i needed a mac pro because it had the cores necessary for the renderings/simulations..
nowadays, for all of that heavy lifting stuff, i use cloud (autodesk).. both renderings and simulations can be run on their computers way (WAY!) faster than any sort of personal computer configuration can do it and at a much (MUCH!) cheaper cost.. like, if you're doing this type of work and you're not at least considering exploring cloud based services (ie- 36,000 core super computers that you can access anytime) then you're doing yourself a disservice and certainly wasting money on buying last decades paradigm 12+ core personal computers.

I'd like to believe you, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it's the Internet forum that is creating a communication gap. As an actual user, your statements don't make too much sense. Are you suggesting you use Autodesk Fusion for professional simulations? Or are you running Inventor in a VM, as Autodesk's core pro software does not run on OS-X?

Assuming you are running Inventor, you'd know they recommend having at least 20GB RAM, and that it needs the RAM locally to create the simulation setup before you submit to the cloud, and that cloud processing from them is not free. It seems odd to me that the same user would be programming a simulation in C/C++, using CAD professionally, video editing, using Photoshop and apparently frame rendering something (video, 3d art??)

As a professional (as in performing these tasks for a paycheck) moving platforms (including to the cloud) is all about what is the most cost-effective for the business. We do use the cloud for projects where it makes sense and is cost effective. That is by no means all projects for all users. Apparently, in your world 36,000 core super computers can be used for free by anyone... What's your cloud bill?

Having run the projections for my company's cost to move to the cloud NOW, it is more cost effective to continue to do cloud processing combined with workstations. Due to changing market conditions, I need to purchase new hardware soon and want to see Apple release a refresh of the line that convinced us to make an investment in them to begin with. I'm hoping to have conversations with other professionals in similar situations to determine what may be the best move for my business.

In the end, what is your point?

 

[AidenShaw]

i asked about the software and specific usages though..

And your "ask" is completely irrelevant after I've shown you incontrovertible evidence from two systems using way over 16 GiB of RAM, one of them a ThinkPad with 32 GiB of RAM and 50 MiB unused.

Why does it matter "what" I'm doing?

 

[Flint Ironstag]

I think he meant once in two years.

bi-annual (bi-ennial???), semi-annual, always get them mixed up.

 

[flat five]

I'd like to believe you, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it's the Internet forum that is creating a communication gap. As an actual user, your statements don't make too much sense. Are you suggesting you use Autodesk Fusion for professional simulations? Or are you running Inventor in a VM, as Autodesk's core pro software does not run on OS-X?

Assuming you are running Inventor, you'd know they recommend having at least 20GB RAM, and that it needs the RAM locally to create the simulation setup before you submit to the cloud, and that cloud processing from them is not free. It seems odd to me that the same user would be programming a simulation in C/C++, using CAD professionally, video editing, using Photoshop and apparently frame rendering something (video, 3d art??)

hmm. not quite.
I'm a design/build outfit.
i use Rhino first and foremost.. that's my main application and the one i use for just about everything.. a few years back, i brought CNC into my flow and if you're familiar with this stuff, mac is incredibly limited regarding software for generating toolpaths/gcode.. this is how i found Fusion360.. once i became familiar with fusion CAM, i also started to use it for rendering simply because the UI was so advantageous over all the stuff i've used before.. like texturing and lighting/environment etc can be set up so quickly compared to older rendering apps that it became a huge advantage to me.. i could set up a scene in under 10mins where as i might spend an hour doing the same in a different app.. that's my own time and it's what's most important to me regardless of how fast the computer can process the frame.. then autodesk added cloud rendering to fusion which just made it that much better and i'm still simply amazed at how fast i render (from start to finished image) compared to the same thing 5 years ago..

fusion also has a simulation workspace.. for what i need, it's GUI is suitable and i'm not programming simulations in C/C++.. i certainly consider myself a professional but definitely not 'professional simulation coder'.. (that said, if this is what you do, look out for a very soon to be released fusion360 'ultimate' version which will gain:
""Fusion 360 Ultimate will have additional functionality in the areas of advanced FEA (buckling, non-linear FEA, event simulation etc.) and advanced machining (simultaneous 5-axis machining).""
..albiet at 1500/yr.. not sure if this is along the lines of your work but maybe worth keeping an eye out for..
anyway, these simulations can be run on the cloud leaving your local computer free for tasks requiring your attention while the number crunching is happening elsewhere on a dedicated setup.. same for rendering.

so for clarity, professional CAD user that makes rendering for sales purposes and some simulations for engineering peace of mind.. coding knowledge is limited to scripting Rhino via python (Atom.app) as well as GUI coding via Grasshopper.
no video editing or photoshopping (though i do use pixelmator for occasional editing of renders and/or other minor graphics work when need be).
some spreadsheet stuff using numbers.app..
and that's about it.

As a professional (as in performing these tasks for a paycheck) moving platforms (including to the cloud) is all about what is the most cost-effective for the business. We do use the cloud for projects where it makes sense and is cost effective. That is by no means all projects for all users. Apparently, in your world 36,000 core super computers can be used for free by anyone... What's your cloud bill?

about $20/month.. between 100-150 rendered images per year i'd guess.

[edit]well, the software itself is on subscription so there's that cost.. so if this is to be included in my 'cloud bill', along with data hosting/backup, we're looking at ~$50/month[/edit]

In the end, what is your point?

my point is that there are so many more beneficial ways to improve computer productivity than via hardware purchases.
and that it's more interesting and beneficial to discuss ideas and/or improvements in UI,workflows,software,I-O devices/etc than to sit around on a forum talking about how apple sux every single day.
[doublepost=1478483540][/doublepost]

And your "ask" is completely irrelevant after I've shown you incontrovertible evidence from two systems using way over 16 GiB of RAM, one of them a ThinkPad with 32 GiB of RAM and 50 MiB unused.

Why does it matter "what" I'm doing?

so if mbp had 32GB ram, would you use one?
no?
didn't think so.

you'd just find something else to complain about.. like "oh jeez, mbp only has 32GB ram.. what year does apple think this is?!"

broken record aiden.. everybody already knows what you're going to say prior to you even saying it.