Yeah could not really say no...I mean it is (the price) less than the 13 inches at the end of the day, so considering the larger display, the faster could and the video card .....
Indeed. Fortunately the new MBP offers more connectivity, by a lot, in terms of capacity and flexibility.
Why are you scared about battery life? It's the best it's ever been for the 15" for light to moderate use.
There's a lot of mythology out there, much of it repeated here by people who should know better. Stick to reliable sources, such as review sites that do carefully controlled tests. For light use, such as web browsing with Safari and streaming video at moderate screen brightness, you should be able to match Apple's spec of ten hours. It may take a few days of indexing, operating system break-in, and a couple battery cycles for battery life to settle into a predictable groove.Scared because reports are saying the opposite, smaller battery and low life..Hopefully it is good enough
You're right but by the same token, other computer makers offer more ports for less money. The 2016 model has less ports then its predecessor and for me it impacts my usage. To others, it doesn't and that's fine.
Yeah, not much of an issue for streaming movies to watch, but it might be useful for those editing in 4K with h.465. I don't know how well FCPX handles that already, though.
I don't know if there's much point to watching 4K Youtube videos on a 15" screen. Even if the MBP screen were 4K (which it isn't, and probably still won't be), you still wouldn't be able to see the difference from lower resolution without fogging the screen with your nose, if then. Pretty much any 4K TV, which would be a suitable screen, will stream 4K video all by itself. For HD video, Kaby Lake doesn't offer nearly as much of an advantage for viewing.
Your user case would of held a modicum of water until you noted you added an "adapter" with 3 ports for your current configurationSaying it impacts your usage is perfectly fine. You're not wrong. I am not claiming this is somehow better for you, but you don't see it. However, the fact that it's worse for you (and that is really up to you and no one can claim otherwise) does not mean some objective facts are not as they are. It does have less "port openings" than it's predecessor, true. However, it does not have "less ports", depending on your usage. Because, I had a previous MBP for three years, and I only had 2 USB ports there, which meant I had to unplug either my Wacom or my tethered iPad all the time. Now I can attach 4 devices (I use one pass-through adapter with an usb port and hdmi, the rest are usb-c cables).
Again, this does not mean it's better for you. But, surely, you can see it's not "less ports" for everyone. I literally can attach more devices than before. With one small adapter, I have charging, usb and hdmi on one port, and three more usb ports. Now I have both my iPad, my Wacom and my HDMI external monitor attached, one external drive (that I couldn't keep plugged in before) and one port to spare.
Oh, and the fact that I can charge my Switch with my MacBook charger is just a plus
So, you see how this is not 'less ports' for me, in fact it's a great value. There is no universal truth here, it all depends on the user.
but agreed a nicer solution but nothing to do with value, just an advantage in some scenarios.
No, for me it is not the best and fully bugged... I used one for 15 days and i sent it back to use again the 2015.
I think you're splitting hairs.
With that comment I agree. Have a good morning
Depends completely on what matters to you, which you know better than the rest of us.
Oh dear
being paranoid has never been an attractive trait (Which had nothing to do with 4 screens etc etc) I even agreed that your current configuration was much more elegant solution and agree with more potential but the fact is you still need adaptors in both scenarios ............. The End.