kenbrinkman
macrumors regular
Ok but the problem with your analogy is that the honda cost the same as the Porsche. If it was cheaper then the 20% differential would make sense. But in this case it doesn't. Which is why I'm returning mine.
Does anyone else feel like the MacBook is kind of slow and not very snappy?
- Thread starter Hieveryone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok but the problem with your analogy is that the honda cost the same as the Porsche. If it was cheaper then the 20% differential would make sense. But in this case it doesn't. Which is why I'm returning mine.
Hieveryone
macrumors 603
Great video. Your experience is along the lines of mine. I felt the in store model was a bit better though.
Regardless, I think the new MB is literally best suited for facebook, twitter, taking notes in class, watching 720p video, facetime chats, etc
I believe there is a market for the above. In fact, I use to use my PC for pretty much just the above. I think college students, and especially high school kids with rich parents would love it.
Also, the elderly would be a great market, if for whatever reason an iPad isn't enough.
If you have serious work to do, even if it's NOT video editing or anything demanding, I would pass.
The MBPr just feels like it can handle anything I throw at it without *ANY* lag, slowness, wait, nothing.
Everything just *snaps* the instant I click on it. It's almost like as soon as I think "I need to check my calendar" it's INSTANTLY popped up.
Last edited:
I think what most people are pissed off about is that you're getting Honda Accord performance for the price of the Porsche Panamera. To add insult to injury 3 of the doors are welded shut.
The machine is what it is. It can do things that an iPad can't do. It can also do almost anything a rMBP 13 can do albeit 20% slower. 20% may not seem a lot, but Intel has majorly sucked in the last 5 years or so and has been giving us half assed 5%-7% improvements with each generation in cpu. So that 20% sets you back in several generations of performance.
I've had pretty much every generation of Retina Macbook since the 2012 rMBP 15 intro, and this rMB is by far the slowest Retina yet. It's very noticeable in just moving windows around or scrolling web pages. I dunno if they can fix this with software updates as the GPU was the most gimped part of this CPU due to power constraints.
BTW my wife loves her new gold base model as it's strictly a Facebook/Pages/Youtube/Safari machine lol.
I just pray Apple doesn't further evolve this 'Thinness at any Cost' towards the rMBP line. I don't need a gimped dual core rMBP 15 with only 2 USB-C ports for the sake of thinness.
Last edited:
Hieveryone
macrumors 603
20% SLOWER ?!?!
That seems like a lot to me.
But for her use it's perfect and congrats on getting gold that's the best color
Hankster
macrumors 68020
Whoever said the rMB is suppose to run as fast as a MBP? The only people comparing the rMB to the MBP are people who have MBPs and wanted to upgrade to the rMB. Apple never - ever - said the rMB was an updated model to an existing laptop line. It's not. This is the issue. Consumers want something that does not exist, so they make up reasons or assumptions to support their negative attitudes.
The rMB is a small MBA with no ports and HD screen. You pay $ for the retina screen and the portable size. The rMB was never advertised as a comparable machine to the MBP, and anyone who tries to compare the two isn't using common sense.
JediZenMaster
Suspended
Then don't buy it. They have three product lines now so if this doesn't appeal to you there is the pro and the air. But what i have been noticing lately is a smug arrogance from the so called "Pro-sumer" Not everyone uses a mac for 4K video, etc.
I mean just because someone who is 6"10 can't fit into a mini cooper does that mean they are crap?
newellj
macrumors G3
What's 20% of nothing? Nothing, or so close as to be unnoticeable.
Hieveryone
macrumors 603
We know it's slower than the MBPr and not as good performance.
But how can you explain it being almost the same price then?
This isn't a $500 Dell here this is $1300 + tax + that dongle which is $79
I replaced an 11" 2014 MBA i5 1.4 processor with the 1.2 512 rMB and frankly I find it snappier. The problem with this thread is the author is comparing their purchase with a bigger model.
Apples to Apples!
Please!
But some just want to find fault, rather than enjoy the strengths.
Apples to Apples!
Please!
But some just want to find fault, rather than enjoy the strengths.
Hieveryone
macrumors 603
I labeled all the strengths first.
The confusion arises at it being the same price as a MBPr especially when u buy that dongle. For $79!
newellj
macrumors G3
I don't even have lag editing pictures. Certainly none at all with Word, Excel, Acrobat Pro, etc. Having it crunch 215 20mp photos, 4.5gb of raw files, is a very unusual task (for starters, because if I shoot 200 pictures in a day, the most intense use of the computer is hitting the "delete" key, not trying to build previews or export big jpgs).
NT1440
macrumors P6
There is no confusion. Just people on the internet that don't seem to know, or willfully ignore, that they are comparing apples to oranges....
"The confusion arises at it being the same price as a MBPr especially when u buy that dongle. For $79! "
It's not a MBPr and I guess I can't quite get a handle on why so many seem to think it should be based on price. The premium price is not about performance it's about the new size, redesigned battery, yada yada...
I own the i7 quad core 2012 mini, 16 gig memory, 1tb drive and 250 Meg SSD and it's fast except for one thing, the video is Intel 4000. My new rMB 5300 has more available specs than the Mini and yet the processing is slower. I expect that. But compare my Mini to the new Mac Pro models and the difference in price???? Wow, does my Mini perform!
I forgot to mention I use 1440 x 900 and there is one problem. On boot up the screen does some strange rectangle thingy until it comes to the desktop screen. The reason is scaling takes a bit of extra horsepower (CPU time) to set it up.
It's not a MBPr and I guess I can't quite get a handle on why so many seem to think it should be based on price. The premium price is not about performance it's about the new size, redesigned battery, yada yada...
I own the i7 quad core 2012 mini, 16 gig memory, 1tb drive and 250 Meg SSD and it's fast except for one thing, the video is Intel 4000. My new rMB 5300 has more available specs than the Mini and yet the processing is slower. I expect that. But compare my Mini to the new Mac Pro models and the difference in price???? Wow, does my Mini perform!
I forgot to mention I use 1440 x 900 and there is one problem. On boot up the screen does some strange rectangle thingy until it comes to the desktop screen. The reason is scaling takes a bit of extra horsepower (CPU time) to set it up.
newellj
macrumors G3
Not trying to be a PITA, but surely you recognize that there are things other than pure gHz or the port count that go into pricing? Spec the rMB equally with an MBA and you're either at the same price (13") or $100 below (11"), and you still don't have the retina display. You may or may not want the retina display, but it clearly costs more than the 2005 TN panel in the MBAs. Yeah, the Core M ticks fewer times a second than an i5, and for some tasks it will take longer. The tradeoff is that it's smaller and lighter than a legal pad, and it's also almost entirely new tech throughout, which has lots of associated R&D expense.
jazz1
macrumors 601
Given the price and design, it is easy to want this laptop to perform better than the Macbook Air. I'm hoping most people will think hard about what they really need, and of course what value for the price they are looking for.
After less than a week with my 1.2 Macbook I find it suits my needs well. But it is not my only Apple device. I have a 2012 iMac, a work supplied late 2008 Macbook Pro, an iPhone 6,and an iPad Air. Each one meets a need for me. In many cases the 2015 Macbook is the device I'll probably use most for mobile use. It is small, light, and OS X lets me get more done while I'm on the go. The screen is great, and frankly I didn't go with an Air because of the screen quality of the Macbook Pro 2015.
Would I like the 2015 Macbook to be as powerful as a 15" Macbook Pro. Sure I would!!! But technology is not there yet. In the end I'm willing to compromise. Many are not. So the good news here is Apple offers a good number of alternatives if you want to stay in Apple land. I know I do.
After less than a week with my 1.2 Macbook I find it suits my needs well. But it is not my only Apple device. I have a 2012 iMac, a work supplied late 2008 Macbook Pro, an iPhone 6,and an iPad Air. Each one meets a need for me. In many cases the 2015 Macbook is the device I'll probably use most for mobile use. It is small, light, and OS X lets me get more done while I'm on the go. The screen is great, and frankly I didn't go with an Air because of the screen quality of the Macbook Pro 2015.
Would I like the 2015 Macbook to be as powerful as a 15" Macbook Pro. Sure I would!!! But technology is not there yet. In the end I'm willing to compromise. Many are not. So the good news here is Apple offers a good number of alternatives if you want to stay in Apple land. I know I do.
Hieveryone
macrumors 603
Then why isn't the price apples to oranges?
Hi
Price is just factor in the purchasing decision. I went and looked at the Apple watches for fun and they are basically priced from $500 - $10,000. I asked the salesman what the differences were and they said this, "None when it comes to function except the $10,000 one is Gold plated."
If I purchase the $10,000 version expecting to get a greater performance for price I would be only kidding myself. But the MBs are not in the same category as the watches because there are differences in performance and design between the models. The new rMB does have a slower CPU and video processor than the latest 13" MBA and rMBPr, however those are not the pricing reasons to purchase the 12" rMB. It is to have the latest, lightest, and most capable OSX based device in its category.
Here's the Apples to Apples; if speed is an issue over size then purchase the speedier model. If screen performance is the issue then get the one with more scree performance. I think the issue is obvious, don't compare price, compare performance and needs over different models. But if price is an issue, go on Craigs or the refurb Apple store and get last years model.
-------
BTW Hi... the scaled version 1440 X 900 is not as "smooth" as the native resolution, I agree but really didn't notice until your posts, which made me go back and make careful observations. But I like the extra space of the scaling. The retina display with scaling is by far clearer than my old 2014 11" MBA!
Price is just factor in the purchasing decision. I went and looked at the Apple watches for fun and they are basically priced from $500 - $10,000. I asked the salesman what the differences were and they said this, "None when it comes to function except the $10,000 one is Gold plated."
If I purchase the $10,000 version expecting to get a greater performance for price I would be only kidding myself. But the MBs are not in the same category as the watches because there are differences in performance and design between the models. The new rMB does have a slower CPU and video processor than the latest 13" MBA and rMBPr, however those are not the pricing reasons to purchase the 12" rMB. It is to have the latest, lightest, and most capable OSX based device in its category.
Here's the Apples to Apples; if speed is an issue over size then purchase the speedier model. If screen performance is the issue then get the one with more scree performance. I think the issue is obvious, don't compare price, compare performance and needs over different models. But if price is an issue, go on Craigs or the refurb Apple store and get last years model.
-------
BTW Hi... the scaled version 1440 X 900 is not as "smooth" as the native resolution, I agree but really didn't notice until your posts, which made me go back and make careful observations. But I like the extra space of the scaling. The retina display with scaling is by far clearer than my old 2014 11" MBA!
Last edited:
newellj
macrumors G3
There is one aspect of performance that affects 100% of work done on the rMB in which the rMB is clearly superior to the MBA: the display. If the TN panels in the MBA don't bother you, that's terrific. If you want or need better, your only choice was to go to the rMBP. Now we have a second choice. I would guess that if you could track the time each day when the CPU on my computer is doing anything, it'd be a tiny fraction of the day. The display, on the other hand, gets used *all the time.*
Newtons Apple
Suspended
While a better screen is always welcome, performance is also.
I will have to admit the spinning beachball looks great on the retina screen!
Tubamajuba
macrumors 68020
Because it costs a lot to miniaturize the internal components. Some people value portability, and the price of the new MacBook is more than worth it. Some people value power, and the price isn't worth it.
The people in the latter group need to just realize that the new MacBook isn't for them, and won't be until at least the next generation.
newellj
macrumors G3
Yeah, but the funny thing is that I never see that on the rMB. On my Mini, yeah, so it's not like I don't know what I'm looking for...
It's a bit more like a Fiat 500 or Mini Cooper vs. Ford Ranger. The first two cost more, and can haul less the third.
----------
10% is commonly viewed as the threshold of noticeability. I find the rMB noticeably slower than my 13" rMBP from 2013, but fine for what I've been using it for. It's comparable to the 11.6" 2012 MacBook Air that I used before the rMBP, and even more portable than the Air, with a screen just as nice as the rMBP.
dexterbell
macrumors 6502a
Its your internet speed or its all in your mind. For fun I set my MacBook up on my desk and opened tons of things at the same time as my Late 2013 3.4GHz iMac. Web pages loaded the same time on both as did most apps. PS CS6 opened way faster (about 5 seconds faster) on the MacBook which is odd. Anyhow, with web browsing, opening apps and streaming video, its just as fast as my iMac.
