Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0
It isn't. Well, not in the easy, user-friendly little hatch way like the 27" non-Pro iMac has, and that's weird/unfortunate. The 21.5" and the 27" Pro are sealed shut to regular mortals, but the regular 27" model retains the little access door. There's no consistency/rhyme or reason on this so you can't chalk it up to a "pro vs. not" issue or a size (21.5" vs. 27") one. You'd think a 27" iMac with "Pro" in the name would at least be as RAM accessible as its cheaper, non-Pro cousin.
|
It’s unfortunate. My guess is they ran into space constraints. (Which, frankly, are self-imposed. Nobody needed the iMac Pro to be this thin.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0
But Apple still sells notebooks with "Pro" in the name that come stock with 8GB RAM (even when the larger one comes with 16GB...what's that saying? That the 16" is more Pro-er/deserving than the 13"?)
|
Effectively yes. It also has a much beefier CPU and GPU.
They run into thermal constraints there.
They used to solve this in thickness: the 12-inch PowerBook was a fair amount thicker than the 17-inch to accommodate for the lack of horizontal space. I guess the sales numbers say that people who want that just go for the 15 anyway?
(RAM will improve. The next 13-inch is likely to get Comet Lake, and with it, LPDDR4. That should allow them to bump it up. This is one of the weird things where Intel has been lagging for years, even behind mid-tier phones.)