Ok, I've asked just to log that you cannot provide proofs. 
Here are your reviews:
Here are your reviews:
Last edited by a moderator:
Amazing. Do you understand the difference between 13" and 15"? If you can't use Google, I expect you don't.Ok, I've asked just to log that you cannot provide proofs.
Here are your reviews:
View attachment 697024 View attachment 697025 View attachment 697026
I haven't seen any formal tests of the version that only has the Iris Pro, which is what I suppose you mean. It's not really a comparable machine to the versions that have a dGPU. Probably the results for internet browsing would be similar for the 2015 with dGPU, as the dGPU normally isn't engaged in that. I don't recall the details of the video playing tests, but they might not involve the dGPU either.i tried Google search, but didn't find any tests on rMBP mid2015 with Iris Pro and the new MacBook Pro 2016, both should be the 15". i would appreciate battery test with rmbp 2015 15", both iris pro and 370, compared to mbp 2016 with amd 450 and 460
No one has said Google is the source. Google will lead you to the reviews by Ars Technica and Notebook Check. This isn't nearly as hard to understand as some are making it out to be.Referring to Google is like picking out the crunchiest french fry at McDonalds.
Google is a source of information, but never the source.
Under certain circumstances? For sure.Can we please stop the bantering? The MacBook Pro 2016 does have 10:36 hour battery life.
http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/laptops/macbook-pro-15-inch
Under certain circumstances? For sure.
As did MacBook Pro 2015.
The only thing being discussed is that its battery life is on par or slightly worse than '15 and this hasn't been proven wrong yet. To prove this wrong you'll have to test them under same circumstances.
Such a test has been shown for 13" above by me. 13" '16 has almost 8% worse battery life than '15 there unfortunately.
@Sanpete claims he has such a test for 15" and we're patiently waiting when he provides the proof. Maybe he'll end the debate once and for all.
Oh! Amazing.But the debate is over.
Compared to the 2015
...
- quite the same battery life achieved
The 2016 15 inch is pretty much the same as the 2015 in terms of battery life according to both articles.
But it is pretty much superior in every other metric than the 2015. The speakers are quite amazing and loud for such a thin device. The screen is gorgeous and it is blazing fast.Oh! Amazing.
Oh, not again.But it is pretty much superior in every other metric than the 2015. The speakers are quite amazing and loud for such a thin device. The screen is gorgeous and it is blazing fast.
No. Your Laptop Mag link doesn't even compare to the 2015. If you do check their review of the 2015, it reports significantly shorter battery life (9:08 vs 10:32). I don't rely on that source, as it doesn't make clear the tests are the same, but it certainly doesn't conflict with what I've said at all.But the debate is over. The links I posted showed the same thing. The 2016 15 inch is pretty much the same as the 2015 in terms of battery life according to both articles.
Stop beating a dead horse. It's dead.
Oh, not again.There must always be a "But..." even though I've only agreed with you in my last post and nothing more.
Yes, the speakers are quite amazing and loud for such a thin device but to some they're barely different from the 2015 where they were quite amazing and loud as well. These 2 statements don't contradict each other.
Yes, the screen is gorgeous but to some it's barely different from the 2015 where it was gorgeous as well. The most noticeable difference - much better brightness - is said to be seen the most only under direct sunlight which is not the way everyone uses their MBPs.
Yes, it is blazing fast but this is barely different from the 2015 which was blazing fast as well.
Therefore all these things are marked as neutral and it is explained to better go check yourself before you buy near them.
No. Your Laptop Mag link doesn't even compare to the 2015. If you do check their review of the 2015, it reports significantly shorter battery life (9:08 vs 10:32). I don't rely on that source, as it doesn't make clear the tests are the same, but it certainly doesn't conflict with what I've said at all.
The PC Mag link also fails to make clear that the testing is carefully controlled from year to year. That's why I rely on Ars Technica and Notebook Check, which are more clear about that, and which seem to be more careful and thorough in the tests.
Using a notebook in front of a client unless you have no other options is not professional. Most people tend to put the notebook between them and the client which is rude and not personal at all. Use good old pen and paper or a tablet instead because you can lay them flat on the table so you can remain in contact with the other person.A friend who owns an ad agency ordered a few 2016s without checking them first in an Apple store. They all were sent back because the noise from the loud keyboards is not something he feels is professional to inflict upon clients nor does he want the racket in meetings even when clients are not present.
You see, I've had middle to top BTO late 2011, late 2013, mid-2015 and late 2016 MBPs 15". I've had all of them free of charge from my employers. Also I'm a tech savvy guy so I understand the most parts inside. So first - I can compare myself. Second - I don't need to justify money spent to be worth it since I've got them for free so my justification is entirely based on perception and not on money, I won't defend MBP'16 just because I want to show that I've spent money right. Third - I don't like claims made without technical explanation why it is likely so or without unbiased review from respectful organisation. To conclude, sincerely, I don't have a grudge against this machine. I think it's better than 2015 just not THAT much some want to picture it like. And after that I try to explain for possible future buyers who would spend their hard earned money what difference to check themselves and for what difference to rely on online information.You just seem to have a grudge against this machine.
I agree with you but even after all the fixes there are controversial topics and the reasons might be the same. When first problems arisen people started to talk **** about MBP'16 like "2-3 hours battery life". Of course this is not true - we see it now. But at the same time there were even bigger amount of butthurt fanboys (since 1% broken laptops vs 99% normal ones) on the defensive claiming more than there really is, like (I exaggerate) "I've worked in a dark room with lowest brightness on a Word document for 1 hour and only 5% of battery is spent thus new MBP'16 can achieve 20 hours of battery life! DAMN!" Of course we both understand this is not true either. Since then the consensus is slowly balancing up-down-up-down to real value. Reviews help this but the problem with reviews is that a lot of them make claims without providing the explanation of the testbed and one more problem is that testbeds on two review sites cannot be compared directly so one must find reviews of both '15 and '16 models on the same site and it should be trustworthy enough. Without doing it because it's quite hard (not really) people read just the review they agree with and carry this on to forum. It's called confirmation bias I believe. Let's try to fight it.There are way to many threads about people's thoughts on the 2016 MacBook Pro. Honestly, the main problems from this laptop was the initial batch did have a lot of issues. I had to send my first one back (and a lot of people I know had to do the same), but since then it has been perfect. USB-C is a dream, and to those going on about legacy ports, it has not been a problem and I work in a lab with A LOT of legacy crap. Never had an issue. Now if you want to talk about a problem, then discuss the lack of an upgradable hard drive or RAM. Those are big problems for 'Pro' machines, but Apple is not the only manufacturer doing this.
AppleInsider is biased. Their source is an even more biased Apple. So sorry but I disregard your link. HOWEVER.As to your speakers comment, that is blatantly NOT true. The 2016 have a MUCH better design and are 58% louder than 2015: http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...louder-built-in-speakers-thanks-to-new-design
Biased source - Apple. No technical testing. Sorry, disregarded as well. HOWEVER.The screen is also much brighter than previous models and can comfortably be used with full sun. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...pro-2016-review-apples-almost-perfect-laptop/
The screen is 67% brighter than previous models:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...pro-2016-review-apples-almost-perfect-laptop/
I agree. However 2015 was not bad as well. So the question is not "ultimately bad" vs "ultimately good" where there is a definitive answer (if you're not evilThe 2016 is a better laptop than the 2015 and this has been confirmed by just about every publication.
What stated in article is marketing ******** from a biased source. The same article might have been written about Samsung 960 Pro NVMe long before MacBook Pro came out to name an example.And it is certainly faster than the 2015 model because of the super fast hard drive: https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/01/2016-macbook-pro-ssd/
This is best advice IMHO. Don't listen to anything written here no matter from me or my opponent. If you have enough cash to freeze for 14 days - buy it, try it, return it if you can't justify the cost.Lastly, yes before you drop large amounts of cash on ANYTHING, you should definitely try it out for yourself if you can.
Amen.All of the Apple laptops did excellent. I call this case closed on battery life discussion since Apple has been very consistent with battery life.
I've just had a thought about Microsoft Surface Book commercial.Use good old pen and paper or a tablet instead because you can lay them flat on the table so you can remain in contact with the other person.
Unbelievable indeed. Again, the reviews don't say different things. Again, the reviews @JustinRP37 cited don't say whether they apply the same standards each year, for example, so they don't necessarily conflict. Again, the reviews I've very clearly cited do apply the same tests to both models.So different reviews say different things... Unbelievable.
The two sources you cited earlier don't describe the conditions of their battery tests, so we can't assume they're stringent, let alone the same from year to year. I five them some credence, but I prefer tests that are more specific about being controlled and consistent. (Laptop Mag has some bizarre test measures in other areas, so I'm a little skeptical of their results for other reasons.) The other Ars Technica review is here:I'm just confused. Battery life is not an issue with the 2015 or the 2016 model. They are both really similar from everything I have seen online. Both of the links posted have stringent tests as well. Ars Technica did not discuss the 2015 in the review I have seen: https://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch-bar-macbook-pros-reviewed/
All of the Apple laptops did excellent. I call this case closed on battery life discussion since Apple has been very consistent with battery life.
Stop beating the dead horse. It's painful to watch.Unbelievable indeed. Again, the reviews don't say different things. Again, the reviews @JustinRP37 cited don't say whether they apply the same standards each year, for example, so they don't necessarily conflict. Again, the reviews I've very clearly cited do apply the same tests to both models.
Finally you've provided the sources. Your 13th attempt to do it and you aced it! Congratulations, @Sanpete!The other Ars Technica review is here:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/0...e-2015-15-inch-retina-macbook-pro-reviewed/2/
The 2016 lasted for 933 minutes, the 2015 603 for the web browsing. That's with the screen set to the same brightness, which of course matters. Notebook Check is even more specific about the tests, with the version of the test and the brightness. Their findings are here:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...016-2-9-GHz-460-Notebook-Review.195702.0.html
They find 10:02 for the 2016 vs 7:12 for the 2015 for wifi surfing, and 8:36 vs 6:53 for HD video watching.
[doublepost=1492896296][/doublepost]
Not justifying the cost does not necessarily mean being in debt if you buy it.If you can't justify the cost then don't buy it. Period. If it is not part of the basics you need as a human then it is luxury. Debt for luxury is never worth it.
Can't tell if you're joking, but those aren't comparable tests. I've already listed the comparable results.