There are two lines of 13" MacBook Pro, the two-port and four-port versions. The two-port always lagged behind the four-port, with older CPUs, less RAM, etc. The four-port (which has not yet been replaced) is configurable to 32GB of RAM.
Web developers and photographers are the opposite of 'prosumers', kind of by definition. Plus, think of the size of a full res photo coming out of a high-end phone, never mind a DSLR.
Most of the professional photographers that I work with have PC workstations with 64gb to 256gb of RAM. Retouching a 48MP HDR file in Photoshop needs roughly 800MB of RAM per layer and per undo step.
Old undo steps could be dumped to SSD pretty easily.
And while I understand that many people are stuck on photoshop, I bet it would be easy to beat 800MB by a whole lot. But so I can grasp the situation better, how many non-adjustment layers do those professional photographer use? And of those layers, how many have pixel data that covers more than 10% of the image?
From what I've seen, quite a lot of layers are effectively copies of the original image with global processing applied, e.g. different color temperature, blur, bloom, flare, hdr tone mapping, high-pass filter, local contrast equalization. And then those layers are being blended together using opacity masks.
For a model photo shoot retouch, you'd usually have copy layers with fine skin details (to be overlaid on top) and below that you have layers with more rough skin texture which you blur.
Also, quite a lot of them have rim lighting pointed on by using a copy of the image with remapped colors.
Then there's fake bokeh, local glow for warmth, liquify, etc.
So I would assume that the final file has 10 layers, all of which are roughly 8000x6000px, stored in RGB as float (cause you need negative values) and blended together with alpha masks. And I'd estimate that the average layer affects 80%+ of all pixels. So you effectively need to keep all of that in memory, because once you modify one of the lower layers (e.g. blur a wrinkle out of the skin) you'll need all the higher layers for compositing the final visible pixel value.
Huh, so a lot of data that could be stored in a compact way but probably won't be for various reasons.
Still, an 8k by 6k layer with 16 bit floats (which are plenty), stored in full, is less than 400MB. You can fit at least eleven into 4GB of memory.
I'll easily believe that those huge amounts of RAM make things go more smoothly, but it's probably more of a "photoshop doesn't try very hard to optimize memory use" problem than something inherent to photo editing.
So why are you blaming the end user for needing more hardware specs than you'd prefer because some 3rd party software vendor they are beholden to makes inefficient software?
Also, your "could be stored in a compact way" is meaningless. Unless your name is Richard and you've designed middle out compression, we are where we are as end users. I'd be happy if someone with your genius insights into editing of photo/video data would go to work for Adobe and revolutionize the way computers handle all of that data. Clearly, they have been at this too long and cannot learn a new trick. Better yet, form your own startup and compete directly with the behemoth that Adobe is and unburden all of us that are suffering life with monthly rental software with underspec'd hardware. Please, we're begging.
> Also, your "could be stored in a compact way" is meaningless. [...]
That's getting way too personal. What the heck?
I'm not suggesting anything complex, either. If someone copies a layer 5 times and applies a low-cpu-cost filter to each copy, you don't have to store the result, just the original data and the filter parameters. You might be able to get something like this already, but it doesn't happen automatically. There are valid tradeoffs in simplicity vs. speed vs. memory.
"Could be done differently" is not me insulting everyone that doesn't do it that way!
I should wait for a 64 GB option. I've already got 16 GB on all my older laptops, so when buying a new gadget RAM and SSD should have better specs (you feel more RAM more than more cores in many usage scenarios).
It was surprising to see essentially the same form factor, the same operating system and not much to distinguish the three machines presented (lots of repetition like "faster compiles with XCode").
BTW, what's the size and weight of the new Air compared to the MacBook (which I liked, but which was killed before I could get one)?
Seeing two machines that are nearly identical reminds me of countries with two mainstream political parties - neither discriminates clearly what their USP is...
Apple's solution for upgradability for their corporate customers, is their leasing program. Rather than swapping parts in the Mac, you swap the Mac itself for a more-powerful model when needed — without having to buy/sell anything.
Apple doesn't care about your upgradability concerns on the notebook lineup. Once you get past that, it has traditionally done fairly well at covering a wide spectrum of users from the fanless MacBook to the high-powered MacBook Pros.
I have a late-2013 13" MBP with 16GB of memory. Seven years later I would expect a 13" MBP to support at least 32GB. I can get 13" Windows laptops that support 32GB of memory. The Mini is a regression, from 64GB to 16GB of memory. The only computer worth a damn is the new MBA.
Pretty sure my 2014 ish 13inch MBP with 16gb and 512 storage cost me around £1200, today speccing an M1 13inch MBP to the same 6 year old specs would cost almost £2000.
They already disappeared, I switched to Windows in 2019.
I use MacStadium for compiling and testing iOS apps. I was wondering if the ARM machines would be worth a look, but they are disappointing. If I was still using Macs as my daily driver, I would buy the new MBA for a personal machine.
The memory is on package, not way out somewhere on the logic board. This will increase speed quite a bit, but limit physical size of memory modules, and thus amount. I think they worked themselves into a corner here until the 16” which has a discreet GPU and reconfiguration of the package.
It's fair but if they choose fast but expensive and unexpandable technology, possibly the choice is failed in some perspective. I think most people who buy mini prefer RAM capacity than faster iGPU.
Can you actually link to a product, not a search ? Because none of the items coming up there are DDR5-5500, they're all DDR4-3600 or worse, as far as I can see.
