On that note, instead of dropping prices, if they had announced they were going to give everyone the multiport dongle to help with the transition, I think it would have also smoothed things over. Like a, "hey we believe in the new design, but we get it, and going to help ease the transition". At least it would give the impression they were listening and valued customer input.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Complaints About the 2016 MBP Underpowered Justified?
- Thread starter Mr. Dee
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macbook pro;
- Sort by reaction score
On that note, instead of dropping prices, if they had announced they were going to give everyone the multiport dongle to help with the transition, I think it would have also smoothed things over. Like a, "hey we believe in the new design, but we get it, and going to help ease the transition". At least it would give the impression they were listening and valued customer input.
True, but almost every Thinkpad out there had atrocious TN panel which was a dealbreaker for many. I know some users just don't care, but aside from the vintage T60 and tablet X200 with decent IPS panels, Thinkpads were pathetic to work with. it wasn't just TN, but the lowest quality TN. In 2012 it was Apple who put a 2x density high res IPS screen in a mass-produced laptop and it was the biggest revolution in laptop market at the time (on par with mobile 65nm Core architecture and SSD adoption)
Gosh, and here I was thinking software development was still a thing. I guess not.
... p.s., where's your grammy/emmy/oscar?
The super high-resolution thing is... sort of a tradeoff. I actually don't like it. My 2001 ThinkPad had a 1600x1200 display, and I don't think it was IPS, but it was quite livable. I wouldn't call it low-quality at all; it still works just fine and it's better than most of the pre-IPS Mac displays I've ever had. And I've never seen anyone but you complain about poor-quality displays on ThinkPads.
And I wouldn't consider it remotely comparable to the impact of an SSD. Retina display is, for me, a significant downgrade. It's glossy and reflective, which I hate, and it is always slightly fuzzy unless it's set to a painfully low "looks like" resolution so it can be integer scaling at 2:1. I'd rather have a native 1680x1050 than a retina-scaled 1680x1050. SSD, on the other hand, dramatically improves battery life and performance.
EDIT: I went and checked specs. The A31p ThinkPad was an IPS display. Which I guess I knew because I looked at it from funny angles and it looked fine.
This was a machine I got in 2001. I still have it.
I have to say, to actually work on it, at least in the IT industry (which is a huge laptop consumer), this is completely irrelevant. It doesn't factor in the purchase decision. I've never heard a complaint about a ThinkPad screen.
I had company ThinkPads which were all fine, and my personal old T61p had a 15.4" with a 1920x1200 resolution and I personally really liked the screen. It was just great for coding, it could fit a lot of information without it being a hi-res display with the associated scaling problems.
These things are always a matter of taste, but high-end Windows trackpads were pretty much at the MBP15's level (ie brands with a glass pad). The new one for me (its absurd size, patchy wrist recognition, and hollow cheap sound) make it a massive step backwards for me for the hour or so I've used one from the MBP15.
That definitionally makes it worse than Windows equivalents at the MBP15 level.
Last edited:
Sure. You might get some quibbles about maximum ssd speeds or something like that, but it's a reasonable comparison. It's not as easy to go between Apple and another brand between one generation and the next. People sometimes go to weird lengths to convince themselves that they're buying the right thing.
No, they are just not made for professional use. They are well built but with limited specs. Don't twist words if the responses don't match up with your reality. It makes you look bad.
Yeah, right. Who needs a good screen anyway? it's just the main way to interact with a laptop, totally irrelevant to getting "the work" done.
I want a 2x 1680x1050 retina as well. it's on my main wishlist. And scaled retina is a bit annoying, but still better than native low-res imo (but YMMV here, I don't use scaled retina at all for a reason)
And its not the point, I still think windows high dpi laptops appeared so fast mainly due to 2012 rMBP.
Saying that retina is a downgrade because it's glossy is just as retarded as saying that SSD in general is a downgrade because of TLC write endurance. And a lot of people can't stand matte screens with sparkling effect and reduced clarity, ya know? And in my experience rMBP's finish is among the least reflective glossy screens out there.
Also the biggest drop in Thinkpads' screen quality happened under Lenovo. Let's not take the machines older that 10 years into consideration, ok?
didn't bother to quote, sorry
P. s. just because your favorite brands used (or still uses) crappy screens no need to try diminish the importance of it. It's the same fanboyism reversed - our trackpad suck beyond belief - of course true power users don't need it and must use mouse 100% of time. When Macs had problems with external screen spaces management everyone bragged at how important it's for them. Now that rMBP has the best external screen support and window management capabilities out of ALL laptops, it's suddenly irrelevant because laptops are meant to be used on-the-go only etc etc etc
[doublepost=1480536693][/doublepost]
Each time a new MacBook is announced everyone on MacCancer suddenly becomes a professional who needs flagship GPU and various hardware "experts" begin to refer to 700$ laptops that are miles better that the new overpriced rip-off from a fashion accessory maker.
But where are those ingenious experts when I'm swimming through a pile mediocre mid/high end windows laptops trying to find one that stinks the least?
I know it's trendy to criticize only Apple, but perhaps if you put all that energy into feedback to Dell, Lenovo, HP, Microsoft or Razer, one day they'll bother to fix their various issues and make them more competitive to the benefit of absolutely everyone? Eh?
I want a 2x 1680x1050 retina as well. it's on my main wishlist. And scaled retina is a bit annoying, but still better than native low-res imo (but YMMV here, I don't use scaled retina at all for a reason)
And its not the point, I still think windows high dpi laptops appeared so fast mainly due to 2012 rMBP.
Saying that retina is a downgrade because it's glossy is just as retarded as saying that SSD in general is a downgrade because of TLC write endurance. And a lot of people can't stand matte screens with sparkling effect and reduced clarity, ya know? And in my experience rMBP's finish is among the least reflective glossy screens out there.
Also the biggest drop in Thinkpads' screen quality happened under Lenovo. Let's not take the machines older that 10 years into consideration, ok?
didn't bother to quote, sorry
P. s. just because your favorite brands used (or still uses) crappy screens no need to try diminish the importance of it. It's the same fanboyism reversed - our trackpad suck beyond belief - of course true power users don't need it and must use mouse 100% of time. When Macs had problems with external screen spaces management everyone bragged at how important it's for them. Now that rMBP has the best external screen support and window management capabilities out of ALL laptops, it's suddenly irrelevant because laptops are meant to be used on-the-go only etc etc etc
[doublepost=1480536693][/doublepost]
According to this logic, only 15-17" DTRs with Xeons, M5000M at least and 64GB ECC memory are made for professionals. Right?
Each time a new MacBook is announced everyone on MacCancer suddenly becomes a professional who needs flagship GPU and various hardware "experts" begin to refer to 700$ laptops that are miles better that the new overpriced rip-off from a fashion accessory maker.
But where are those ingenious experts when I'm swimming through a pile mediocre mid/high end windows laptops trying to find one that stinks the least?
I know it's trendy to criticize only Apple, but perhaps if you put all that energy into feedback to Dell, Lenovo, HP, Microsoft or Razer, one day they'll bother to fix their various issues and make them more competitive to the benefit of absolutely everyone? Eh?
Last edited:
You are undoubtedly a power user - creative professions demand high performance workstations. Hopefully a new Mac Pro in 2017 keeps you on board, but if you decide to switch to a Windows-based system there will be hundreds of newcomers to the Apple line that replace your revenue stream many times over. Apple has an obligation to their stockholders, and you can't blame Apple for their superb marketing (not saying you are, just reiterating the original point of the thread).
Is your Mac maxing out it's ram, or is your Mac efficiently using your available ram? just because it looks like your ram is being used it, it doesn't mean it's hitting a brick wall.
I have 16GB in my MacBook and have the following open right now:
Photoshop [A very big A2 file], Affinity Designer, Safari[2 tabs], Chrome[4 tabs], Tweetbot, iMessages, Franz, Chrome, PHPStorm, Atom, Transmit, Clear, iTunes, Sequel Pro, Linux in a Virtualbox VM and Vagrant.
Background Apps: Creative Cloud, CloudApp, Caffeine, Magnet, Splice, CleanMyMac and Dash.
It's not even close to breaking a sweat, still lightening fast, memory usage is fine... no lag, what so ever, no memory pressure.
The bigger problem at Apple is that it seems to be run by marketing dolts like Phil Schiller instead of engineers. There's a lack of Bob Mansfield presence, and we get what we get. Sigh.... The only chance is that Microsoft continues to develop its surface line and put more pressure in high-end market.
Max spec'ed 2016 model, 15-20% Slower than the 2015 model... Same 4K files, same version of OS/FCPX:
I have taken the time to read everyone's opinions on here and contrary to belief, I am not smug about a thing, nor am I in disagreement about the merits of other laptops out there in certain regards. Let me be as concise as I can:
We are all actually on the same page but with wildly different expectations. Of course there are greater Nvidia card based laptops out there with 32gb of RAM and user upgrade options aplenty. However, the point is that MBPs continue to be versatile laptops that can very well cater to work projects (design or otherwise) and basic gaming. The friction occurs when people believe it should be a far greater jack of all trades as I do not feel this exists anywhere in the current market. If you go on Dell/Lenovo/Razer forums you will notice a plethora of complaints regarding screens, build, heat issues and real life performance. This is because there is no objective holy grail of laptops - it's all in the eyes of the user and his/her requirements in conjunction with the model received and whether it is free from defects.
What I do take issue with as a matter of principle is the lack of curtesy some have shown on here in posting on a Mac oriented forum simply to do down those who are content with their purchases, having shelled out hard earned money, as simply - contrived, smug, misinformed and the like. This is plainly spiteful and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. If those of you who are so convinced of the MBP's implausibility as a strong laptop want justification, by all means walk away and join your comrades elsewhere in the knowledge that you have avoided our mistaken beliefs. Otherwise stay and help continue to make this place a fantastic resource for shared ideas and advice.
WWHG.
PS My post about the board room melt-down was a light hearted joke. You know - a joke?
We are all actually on the same page but with wildly different expectations. Of course there are greater Nvidia card based laptops out there with 32gb of RAM and user upgrade options aplenty. However, the point is that MBPs continue to be versatile laptops that can very well cater to work projects (design or otherwise) and basic gaming. The friction occurs when people believe it should be a far greater jack of all trades as I do not feel this exists anywhere in the current market. If you go on Dell/Lenovo/Razer forums you will notice a plethora of complaints regarding screens, build, heat issues and real life performance. This is because there is no objective holy grail of laptops - it's all in the eyes of the user and his/her requirements in conjunction with the model received and whether it is free from defects.
What I do take issue with as a matter of principle is the lack of curtesy some have shown on here in posting on a Mac oriented forum simply to do down those who are content with their purchases, having shelled out hard earned money, as simply - contrived, smug, misinformed and the like. This is plainly spiteful and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. If those of you who are so convinced of the MBP's implausibility as a strong laptop want justification, by all means walk away and join your comrades elsewhere in the knowledge that you have avoided our mistaken beliefs. Otherwise stay and help continue to make this place a fantastic resource for shared ideas and advice.
WWHG.
PS My post about the board room melt-down was a light hearted joke. You know - a joke?
It's slightly slower in part because Apple configured the 2016's to drop the CPU TDP down to 35W, from 45W max, after the temps have been at T junction for a minute or two. The impact of the lower TDP is never seeing the CPU go to its max possible turbo boost. Most it gets to under those conditions is about 2.9GHz, instead of the max 3.6GHz, on the 2.7GHz 15".
I finally found that data while watching a streamer benchmarking one of them a couple days ago with Intel Power Gadget running.
It's not surprising to me. In fact, I kinda expected it. But knowing now gives me the data to make a more informed decision about purchasing one of these things.
I am not begrudging anybody's decision to buy one. As apple shifts from computer company to a more profitable consumer electronics company its leaving a lot of loyal buyers in the dust who bought into a completely different designed and marketed experience. I expect to see more debates as the demographic changes. They can extol the virtues of closed systems and reduced capacity while I grumble my way to what works for me. If people ask why...then dismiss the responses as merely being cancerous as OP has done, expect some raised hackles.
. Its rarely a per file basis. Most instances are when I've got to run batches of files that are 2 to 3 times larger than an A0
Understood , and appreciate your candid and well thought out response.
As you said we are on the same page, apologies for the smug remark.
I don't know where all that anger comes from, but I assure you that - in my opinion - I've never actually seen a laptop (or otherwise) screen that I'd call "crappy". I've seen crappy CPU performance, crappy disk performance, crappy network performance, but actually "crappy", as in, not fit for purpose screens, never. Not functional ones anyway.
So I'm really confused as to where you're coming from. Yes the new Macbooks have very nice screens, but lots of other laptops also have very nice screens.
And I can do my work on any screen that's currently on the market. For me, resolution and size are very important. Yes, I like a good quality IPS display - I have a 5k IPS which is really nice - but it's just the cherry on the cake, not the cake.
If you need a particularly colour-accurate, calibrated etc display for professional photo/video use, that's something else. If you need a super-low-latency screen for gaming, again, that's something else. I was specifically talking about IT work, and we can even use (and have used) monochrome stuff for a long time
So when I say that screen quality doesn't factor when IT companies buy laptops, I really mean it. I never heard of anyone in the IT world - and I have plenty of experience there - complaining about Lenovo, HP or Dell screen quality.
I shouldn't have to replace parts in my computer to have hardware as fast as what Apple puts in their computers.
[doublepost=1480545785][/doublepost]
It's not at all the same spec computer, but ok.