The definition of "Workstation" is pretty murky now. Not sure why a Xeon would be required unless you think a workstation requires ECC memory, and it's not clear to me why every workstation use case would.
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 Reverses Course, Recommends MacBook Pro Following New Testing After Apple Bug Fix
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The definition of "Workstation" is pretty murky now. Not sure why a Xeon would be required unless you think a workstation requires ECC memory, and it's not clear to me why every workstation use case would.
Yeah - I think it is pretty disappointing. The 15" MBPro could have stayed pretty much the same size/weight and nobody would have cared because there would have been a new 14" ultra thin model to rave about if you needed ultra portability. Apple missed a trick IMO.
The worse part is that there is NO WAY IN HELL that the the MBPro will ever get thicker again. Apple will NEVER release a MBPro that is even 1 mm thicker.
This means MBPro users are now stuck. Battery capacity and ports can only get worse from here on in the Pro model (unless there is a new tech change).
That is exactly what makes a workstation vs a standard desktop computer.
Apparently Dell classifies a 4GB RAM (non ECC) Core i3 with only integrated graphics a Workstation. Why? I do not know. There are desktops and workstations. That Precision should be a desktop. If we go by Dell's definition of a workstation, then these MBPs are already VERY GOOD workstations!
I do not know about you, but a Core i3 is not a workstation! You can barely get any production work done on those processors.
Last edited:
It can be to the right consumer.
As someone who would be carrying a laptop around wherever I go, why wouldn't I want it to be lighter and more portable?
You could say "then get a MacBook Air if you want a thin and light laptop". I would reply "I could, but then I would be compromising power for portability." What if I want both?
What Apple has done here is try to make the tradeoffs more palatable for us average consumers by creating a product which offers the best of both worlds. In the past, I would never have considered a 15" MBP due to its size and weight alone. Now, the 15" MBP is both powerful and more portable than before. The drawbacks don't really bother or affect me.
I am currently still using a 11" MBA, but the new MBP's weight feels reasonable enough that I am actually tempted to pick one up as my next replacement laptop if and when my current Air bites the dust.
Why is everyone arguing that the 2015 Macbook Pros perform better than the 2016? Just watch a couple of benchmark/video encoding videos and see for yourself. The 2016 is A LOT better.
Are you guys just referring to "features" as ports? That is the only thing a thicker laptop would give you. Please, keep that away from these systems. Single-use ports need to die....fast.
Are you guys just referring to "features" as ports? That is the only thing a thicker laptop would give you. Please, keep that away from these systems. Single-use ports need to die....fast.
But since you are currently using a 11 MBAir, you don't actually seem to require the power (I don't think many people do)...so why even consider the new 15" Pro?
Launching a 14" ultrathin/light with power akin to the 11" and 13" MBAir seems to me that it would have been perfect.
It would have been even smaller/lighter than the new 15" MBPro, so you'd probably like it even more.
But launching such a model doesn't mean anything had to happen to the current retina MBPro design (other than bump it's CPU/GPU/RAM specs).
Excuse me, but the 15" MBP was not meant for the average consumer. Could be the same reason why the drawbacks don't affect you.
The "best of both worlds" is Apple abandoning the "pro" niche one release at at time.
Sounds like Jony ive speaking.
No. no new products. We are getting very close to the dangerous point when Steve Jobs was gone and came back. He cut A LOT of useless products when he came back.
[doublepost=1484315155][/doublepost]
Um. I am able to perform video editing on these computers. How are they abandoning the pro niche?
Except the MacBook Air doesn't have a Retina display. Add a retina to the air and you've just crippled the battery life. To compensate you need a thicker, heavier computer to house a bigger battery. Boom. You have a 13" MacBook Pro.
The 12" MacBook had to make extreme sacrifices to get a retina screen with decent battery life...a core M chip with tdp of 4.5 watts!
Very few customers are looking for non-retina screens nowadays. Why would they want a screen that is terrible in comparison to the phone screen they look at?
I found the old 15"rMBP was too big and heavy to be constantly carrying around or day and ended up with a 12" MB to do the job instead. The 15" ended up stationary in the studio. For me portability is more important in a laptop.
The 12" MacBook had to make extreme sacrifices to get a retina screen with decent battery life...a core M chip with tdp of 4.5 watts!
Very few customers are looking for non-retina screens nowadays. Why would they want a screen that is terrible in comparison to the phone screen they look at?
I found the old 15"rMBP was too big and heavy to be constantly carrying around or day and ended up with a 12" MB to do the job instead. The 15" ended up stationary in the studio. For me portability is more important in a laptop.
You can also use iMovie on the retina MacBook. That does not a Pro machine make.
Here's one, increasing the BTO RAM capacity to 32GB would nicely allow e.g. long sessions of Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects side by side without RAM warnings and beachballs, and also pander to the pro niche that they're not forgotten.
I agree its not CR's job to make Apple look good - but when your battery results defy the laws of physics (a battery cant last 18 hrs in today's world) then you need to do some follow up. They did a huge disservice to their readers publishing that article.
You can call the MBP a "workstation" as much as you want, but then the entire concept of workstation kind of loses its meaning...
True. They gave it faster CPUs, GPUs that are twice as fast, faster storage, a much better display, better speakers, better keyboard, faster and more adaptible ports (yes, the USB-C market is lacking now, but it will be very different just few months down the road) and better mobility. So many sacrifices.
But no, people are complaining because the laptop got thinner. Because you know, thinner automatically means less powerful, even if you use literally the fastest possible CPUs and GPUs that are available.
I don't need a 65" 4K tv, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate one, nor does it mean I won't have a use for it if I ever came into possession of one.
It's the larger screen size mainly. I work on a lot of documents as a teacher and the screen estate looks like it would be nice for typing. I basically want a 15" retina Air.
I agree 16 gb ram is probably overkill for me though.
And I need 128GB of RAM on my desktop. Which "Pro" laptops offer that much RAM?
On paper they did. Geekbench scores still pit the mid 2015 MBP higher than the 2016 (both single & multi core). I admit that the display quality is beautifully improved. Please don't downplay the ports as a concern: you buy a laptop for immediate efficacy, not to wait "months down the road" for it to mature. By the time TB3/USBc becomes standard, we'll need a new MBP upgrade anyway. "Better keyboard" is debatable. For plenty of users, the shallow butterfly keyboard is a hindrance.
They are not the fastest CPUs/GPUs available. Please. Not that we'd expect them to be, knowing Apple. It's the overall balance that's off.
Apple makes things thicker again when they need to. iPad 3 was thicker than the iPad 2. iPhone 6s was thicker than the 6.
Uhm.. what is the sense of your analogy? 32GB RAM is not an absurd expectation for a "Pro" laptop.
Last edited:
No argument. And Consumer Report's tests have clearly become less representative of real-life use as certain power-saving features disproportionally affect it. But other publications have run into the same problem. Arstechnica also reported 15+ hours of battery life in several of their tests.
my 15, an 13 are humming along with great battery life whilst I keep reading that the sky is falling on the comment's section on here
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Wait, my mate isn't getting that kind of battery life. Did that test the machines with no one using them?
ok it lasts 3-5, depending on the workload. But still. How should I prove it to you?
Frankly, I don't care much about Geekbench. Firstly, Geekbench reports the 2016 having lower RAM bandwidth, which is wrong (and other, more detailed benchmarks confirm it). About the general CPU performance:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/an-opinionated-cpu-benchmark-of-the-2016-15-mbp.2026475/
Name me any faster consumer CPU or GPU (sub 50W) that were available in November 2016. The 6x70HQ series don't count because a) they are clocked lower than the 6x20HQ and b) because their availability is basically zero. Yes, now there is a 1050 GTX (released last week) which is odd 20% faster than the 460 Pro, but which also consumes 30% or more power.