So obviously Apple had an obscure bug triggered by a setting nobody uses, but I take more exception with CR in this. Nobody runs a browser with caching off. When you're conducting a battery test, why would I want to see battery results of a non-real world scenario??
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.
Consumer Reports Retesting MacBook Pro Battery Life After Apple Says Safari Bug to Blame
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am very happy with the same Mac
Maybe someone should create a support thread for those of us with the tb model. Obviously, we don't know what real happiness should be because we bought the tb model. We are taking whatever Apple shoves down our throats.
Yeah, little Apple apologists like us don't know what anything is really. I can barely type tbh.
You are assuming there are zero bugs in Mac OS now. Most likely a different bug causing that.
Apologies - I should have started my comment with "Please read with tongue-in-cheek".
Some people are just so serious......
I mean...
[Please read with tongue-in-cheek] Some people are just so serious.....
Because users WILL NOT be using the feature CR did. Its used for development purposes only, will load pages a lot slower and kill your battery since the pages aren't cached. Disabling browser cache isn't a 'pro' feature. It is for limited web development testing, not battery endurance testing. I for one am annoyed that CR is doing this. They are performing a non-real world simulation and publishing it as if it were real world.
The bug was not triggered by downloading pages. It was triggered by the "Disable Cache" setting. Actual users going from page to page were not affected by the bug.
It's an OK machine. It doesn't work for me but it seems to for others.
I'd say it's . . . unfinished. Seems as if Apple's usual polish is missing.
I'd say it's . . . unfinished. Seems as if Apple's usual polish is missing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Read the article and its sources carefully. They do this and other things on all laptop tests as it, and I quote:
The Fine Article said:
There's no way to run a test that is consistent with all users of a particular laptop. It's important when conducting tests, especially across brands and such, to use a consistent process so that no advantage is given to one particular model.
I'm sure automotive batteries are tested to extremes I'll never experience, but it doesn't make the test invalid.
Ya. Apple previously hiding the settings used to get better battery results outside normal Safari usage.
The bitching and whining by people who've never used this machine long enough to know whether it's good or not is hilarious!
I would expect more from pro users than to simply complain without at least a few days solid use with the machine.
I would expect more from pro users than to simply complain without at least a few days solid use with the machine.
It's funny that apple doesn't realize that having a 2mm thicker laptop with better battery, USB-A, HDMI and magsafe is better than a thinner laptop with less battery and only USB C with charging capabilities. The MacBook Air is compatible with my professional microphone which uses a USB A to plug in, rather than my current 15" MacBook Pro which I spent $4,000 which has a USB C port and I need to buy adaptors for.... Also I have had 4 replacements so far with this model because the keyboard keeps sticking and has extremely loud obnoxious clicks when typing if the CPU is getting hot. My battery is still not even that good running chrome.... Apple was so obsessed making this professional laptop so thin that they couldn't even give it good battery life.... Sad. My last generation MacBook Pro (2014 15") got sometimes 12 hours on light use!
Returning this laptop for good real soon! Hopefully apple will get the gist with the many complaints.
Returning this laptop for good real soon! Hopefully apple will get the gist with the many complaints.
So, you're saying some laptop(s) cannot take advantage of caching in a browser? I'm being serious.
There are app developers (the ones working on Safari) and website developers.
The app developers (the ones working on Safari) don't care about performance with caching disabled. Because that's not how people other than CR use their Macs. The Safari developers are interested in best performance and lowest battery usage when caching is enabled. Like a car manufacturer doesn't car about your mileage if you go in first gear at 6,000 rpm.
Apple's website developers probably use desktop machines or laptops with huge monitors, permanently plugged in. Where I work, I've never seen our website developers use a laptop on battery. So they wouldn't notice the problem.
Please for the love of Sweet Baby Jeebus stop. If you're not going to stop, at least attempt to present a factual representation of the situation.
Disabling the cache did not cause a loss of battery life. Because if it did, the laptops would have experienced consistently low battery life. The laptops experienced wildly varying battery life, not just low. None of the other macbooks, that passed the same "cacheless" tests btw, experienced the issue. The '16 MBP is the only Apple laptop to fail the test. So blaming disabling cache is an unnecessary red herring. The Safari bug was found, corrected, and the MBP should be fine. Bugs happen. No need to try to assess blame.
Funny, that's exactly how Apple tests the battery. Reloading the same pages again and again and again.
"Testing conducted by Apple in October 2016 using preproduction 2.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based 15-inch MacBook Pro systems with a 256GB SSD and 16GB of RAM. The wireless web test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing 25 popular websites with display brightness set to 12 clicks from bottom or 75%.
Getting new content from the network tests a multitude of things, including NIC chips. You'd be amazed how much of an impact a network chip makes in the performance of a system. For example, we regularly use Intel NICs and bypass Broadcom whenever possible.
Ive had 6 macbook pros, 3 macbook airs, the most recent MacBook, and now the new 2016 MBP.... and countless Windows rigs. This new 2016 MBP is by far the best Ive ever had. I think the bulk of the crybabies are the ones don't have it, can't afford it, and like to bitch about everything or regurgitate internet bs. If they had their way the rig would have desktop graphics, desktop cpus, desktop ram, a 100w/hr battery (max allowed on airplane) that would be lucky to get 2-3hrs of light use with that hardware, every port known to man even though most people don't hang tons of things off their rigs, and cost 1200 bucks.
Ive had my rig since launch, I get ~8hrs of real world use a day which includes being vpn and rdp'd into work. Also running occasional VMs. If you need to, the machine charges up surprisingly fast too. Of all the Apple portables I've owned, this system is just as good as any of my priors on battery. To date the only 2 things Ive ever needed to plug into the USB-C ports are power and a lighting cable.
It could be that a laptop with more RAM can take _more_ advantage from website caching than one with less RAM. I'm not saying it would, but CR probably thought it could. Also, websites can change. So one browser might run the test while websites change, and another might run the test while the website doesn't change. With caching disabled it doesn't make a difference.
The problem was because of a bug, not because of the use of a hidden setting or being used wrong.
If CR was wrong in using that setting, why is Apple releasing a fix?
Again, Apple fan or not. MBP fan or not. USBc fan or not.
For a group to run a few tests with WILD variations in data and stop there and call themselves scientific is a joke.
Consumer Reports is in it for the attention. They seem to get plenty of attention for themselves even when there is no substance.
For a group to run a few tests with WILD variations in data and stop there and call themselves scientific is a joke.
Consumer Reports is in it for the attention. They seem to get plenty of attention for themselves even when there is no substance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are there any reports that the 2016 15" MBP engages the discrete graphic card more frequently than the mid 2013-2015 models? Apple did switch from using processors with the Iris Pro embedded graphic processor in the 2013-2015 models to the less powerful HD version (the 13" MBPs still use the Iris version). This could explain a more frequent use of the discrete graphic card. But it can also be tested, so if there is a noticeably different triggering when using the same software for the same tasks, then this could be an important reason for the relatively low battery time of the 2016 15" MBP (so only for the 15" model, as the 13" doesn't have a discrete card to switch to). This puts up the question, are people complaining about the battery life with both the 13 and 15" models?
That really depends on how frequently a user needs 4+ hours of battery life. I like the idea of a long battery life but it is only in rare circumstances that I actually need it (all places where my MBP goes to more than a handful of times per year have chargers, I am not a couch user, all my regular travelling takes less than 4 hours).
I think theyre both culpable. Apple for the bug, but CR for running a non-real world sim to test battery life and publish as real world.
There is always a point at which you have to stop trying to figure something out and deliver some 'product'. CR didn't say the MBPs have a short battery life. They said that they were unable to measure the battery life with anything approaching a reliable estimate. The question is, should they hold back publishing the rest of their results or publish them with an asterisk saying that they do not have reliable number to publish for the battery life?