Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Hands-On With Apple's New 16-Inch MacBook Pro

Howard2k said:
I assume you’re not because I think if you were you would know of faster mechanisms than 10Gb/s Ethernet.

Again, possible I’m wrong and 10Gb/s is the upper limit, I’m just saying I’m incredibly skeptical that this is the case.

I did read your comments on RAID.
Click to expand...


Read my comments again, the speed limit IS NOT on the 10gigE, and FoCE is being phased on in the enterprise due to move to converged ethernet... Mac OS has no native support for enterprise level iSCSI (nor "home user" level to be honest)... Whant to try again?
 
theluggage said:
Nonsense. They use the RAM that matches the specs of whatever standard Intel chipset the machine is built around. There are only about 3 actual DRAM chip manufacturers worldwide, so any 3rd party RAM you get is quite likely to have the exact same chips as Apple use.

For the machines that you can upgrade, e.g. the 27"iMac:

Apple price for 8-16GB upgrade: $200
Crucial price for 16GB kit (that's 2x8GB sticks): $69.99

Just to re-iterate that, Apple charge $200 for an upgrade to 16GB, crucial charge $70 for an upgrade to 24GB.

When I upgraded my iMac, the Crucial sticks were, capacity aside, exactly the same brand of Micron SODIMMs as the ones that came with the iMac.

Have fun defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...

Thanks for quoting me out of context. I did not defend Apple. You will notice that I said "On the other hand, it’s easy to argue that they’re just profiteering plain and simple" and gave the most obvious reason why. Funny, you forgot to mention that. It doesn't matter in the slightest that Rolex happen to make jewellery. They are perceived as a luxury brand. And only a nitwit would say the same is not true for Apple and their luxury price products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heffsf
jhack said:
Weird comparison.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a "comparison" per se... just an observation.

Some cameras get more SD card slots (two)... while some computers get fewer (none)

That's all I was saying. :)

jhack said:
Who really wants to transfer physical media?
Click to expand...

Everybody who shoots with a digital camera today? It may sound archaic to take the card out of the camera and shove it into a computer... but that's how it's done. And it works well.

Yes... you can transfer via WIFI... but it's slow.

Sometimes you just want to give the card to another editor. Or on high-dollar paid shoots with a camera that shoots to two cards... you can separate the cards for travel in case one bag gets stolen.

There are lots of reasons to shoot to physical media.

All major cameras today use removable physical media. I can't imagine a future where cameras have built-in non-removable media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heffsf
MGrayson3 said:
Suppose you buy a race car. You want a "roller", that is, a version of the car that can roll into the truck where you carry it to your workshop, outfit it with wheels, perhaps the engine of your choice. For this purpose, the roller comes with cheap, barely usable wheels. They are NOT intended for racing, and you wouldn't want to pay for racing wheels that you may not want or need in the "base" model.

256 GB will let you boot up, test some applications, test your own external or internal storage. It is not meant as an insult. If you're looking for insults, or you want to buy an impressive spec machine for less money, look elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to buy a Mac Pro. I have no need for that.
I’m fine with my MacBook Pro 13” 2019 and I’ll buy a 16” in a couple of years most probably...
Nevertheless it is ridiculous that a $6000 computer has a 256 giga SSD while a $2600 computer FROM THE SAME BRAND has a 512 Gigabytes SSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heffsf and Jethro!
0x0x0x0 said:
Read my comments again, the speed limit IS NOT on the 10gigE, and FoCE is being phased on in the enterprise due to move to converged ethernet... Mac OS has no native support for enterprise level iSCSI (nor "home user" level to be honest)... Whant to try again?
Click to expand...

I don’t need to try again. We’ve already established that I’m right, that 10Gb/s isn’t the limit for external storage.
 
0x0x0x0 said:
If the "biggest" thing you do with Apple gear is take photos with your phone, you, by no measure, are a "Pro" user that this product purports to be aimed at 🤣
Click to expand...
Two questions for you:
  1. Where do I state that the ”biggest” thing I do with Apple gear is take photos with my phone?
  2. Does contorting other people’s comments make you feel like a ”pro” user?
 
Last edited:
Donovan Dillon said:
Two questions for you:
  1. Where do I state that the ”biggest” thing I do with Apple gear is take photos with my phone?
  2. Does contorting other people’s comments make you feel like a ”pro” user?
Click to expand...


You said verbatim: "Adopting the Apple ecosystem means *I* don’t need to spend thousands of dollars for bulky gear that I have to lug around allow to occasionally take a better photo than I can with my iPhone." What else do you state in that that benefits you from the switch to the eco system, let alone as a "Pro" that this MBP purports to be made for? You're taking my comments out of context, and contorting them!
[automerge]1573942146[/automerge]
Howard2k said:
I don’t need to try again. We’ve already established that I’m right, that 10Gb/s isn’t the limit for external storage.
Click to expand...

For the last time, ethernet speed is not the limiting factor, lack of Mac OS support is, do I need to spell it out any better for you??? Put it simply---Mac is not an enterprise machine!
 
Last edited:
0x0x0x0 said:
"Pros" on a mac use external because of the way Apple forced them to do so, not because that's how they prefer for the simple reason that external is less reliable than internal (think someone bumps cable and you drop your external storage mid-write, for example! Best case scenario, your application will eventually time out on write, more realistically it will hang and crash or you will force-quit it, worse, as write-to-disk is a kernel task, your kernel crashes and you need to reboot your machine!) cf. that with non-mac workstations, *all* have a ton of internal storage! Recall that old Mac Pros too, had a ton of room for internal storage!
Click to expand...
If you want additional internal storage, no problem. It’s not widely needed, so Apple isn’t going to make it. But through third party partners like Promise Technology, the new Mac Pro may very well accommodate those requirements.

But if you want to stuff a dozen or more 3.5” drives in a machine, you’re so far past the edge case that you’ve fallen off into the abyss.
 
Last edited:
Anyone seen a comparison between the 5300M and the 5500M? Worth the, in the grand scheme of things, upgrade for some light gaming?
 
As I said before, I am not in the market for this machine, nor do I need it, as my current set up does for me quite nicely. That being said, this looks great, what the MBP should have been all along.
 
0x0x0x0 said:
Sure, because every Pro would prefer ~110 MBps write speeds (assuming GigE) (if you're lucky to have a monopoly on the packet path to your RAID box) instead of NVMe or at least native disk speeds that are nowadays exceeding 200 MBps on SAS/SATA and the problem with direct-attach RAID in busy environements have already been described above 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 Reminds me of people who think RAID is BACKUP...
Click to expand...
You jumped into a conversation about how a 256GB internal SSD config makes sense for a Mac Pro. I answered it.

As I’m sure you must be aware, network based storage isn’t about giving you locally-attached speeds. It’s a necessity to have the same data accessible to others working together, and to make sure it’s backed up.

Having terabytes of siloed data on a bunch of individual machines is hardly a viable alternative to network-based storage, but if we’re only talking about a one-person shop, they wouldn’t buy a config with the base 256GB SSD—which is what OP and I were discussing. They can buy the 8TB SSD and then stuff their new Mac Pro with as many terabytes as they can fit :)
 
Last edited:
CarlJ said:
_A_ new keyboard, not _this_ new keyboard (the 16" is th only one that makes the jump from butterfly switches back to scissor switches).
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'll skip the current 13'' then. Not sure if I need a full 16" though. Also a hassle for any travel.
 
fishmoose said:
Anyone seen a comparison between the 5300M and the 5500M? Worth the, in the grand scheme of things, upgrade for some light gaming?
Click to expand...
The 5300M in the 16” is equivalent to the Vega 20 (top of the line—a $350 upgrade) in the 15”.

For light gaming I personally would not spend the extra money. For many users that plan on keeping the machine for 4+ years I would typically recommend the 32GB RAM upgrade though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlenK, fishmoose and Rodney Dangerfield
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back