I could use a performance macbook pro with poorer battery life

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jwpoof, Oct 29, 2016.

  1. jwpoof macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #1
    This isn't a particular criticism of the new macbook pros (I've put those elsewhere), but am I the only one who feels like Apple could really use a portable that is optimized for performance at the expense of battery life, if not thinness?

    I don't expect them to create a new chassis for a thicker mbp (unrealistic, though I'd be happy if they did), but I find it weird that they demo the new mbp in a dual monitor editing setup while at the same time limiting the graphics cards, RAM, and possibly processor configurations for the sake of battery life and heat. Don't get me wrong, for those who use their laptops on battery a lot, battery life is important.

    My issue is that I need portability, but I barely use the battery unless I'm on an airplane. I need a mobile workstation, but I don't need 10 hours of battery life. I'm plugged in 95% of the time.

    At the very least, I wish they'd offer a CTO machine that compromises on battery life in exchange for raw performance. Basically, I use my macbook pro like you'd use an iMac, but I travel with it. In my experience, there are many of us who work this way.
     
  2. AdonisSMU macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #2
    I cant believe people are so old and so set in their ways they'd rather have a less portable machine with terrible battery life. Vote with your wallets and buy a product that suits you.
     
  3. ugru, Oct 29, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2016

    ugru macrumors 6502

    ugru

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    Caput Mundi
    #3
    You could have battery and performance if only they'd stop this thinness nonsense.

    They really ought to stop.
     
  4. jwpoof thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #4
    So which one suits me? And why am I so old and set in my ways because I plug my machine in for work? Did I say I wanted Apple to produce such a product INSTEAD of what they're making? Or did I carefully point out that I wish they offered this in addition to their current lineup?
     
  5. AdonisSMU macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #5
    Sorry you did. I read it wrong. More options can be better but usually only for a niche group of people. However for the vast majority most don't know what to do with so many options.
     
  6. spacebro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    #6
    I've been using a docked macbook pro for my development work since 2012. I take it out around once a month, it normally stays hidden in a dock behind my monitor. I've been waiting for a ram upgrade because my ram is always used up and it is always using swap space. I don't know what to do now if apple thinks 16gb is sufficient and never plans to upgrade that. It isn't sufficient and I need to upgrade soon. I've paid a lot of money for apple products since being converted to mac with the 2012 macbook pro. This "upgrade" is incredibly insulting and I'm finished with apple. I just need to figure out what I'm going to do next. Powerful pc laptop? PC tower with ultrabook? PC tower and keep my macbook? I'll pay whatever it costs for a powerful computer and feel really insulted that apple doesn't want my money anymore. I feel stupid advocating for apple products over the years and converting other people to macs. I did not think apple would turn to **** without steve jobs, but it really was about steve jobs. He made them good and they are falling apart without him.
     
  7. AdonisSMU, Oct 29, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2016

    AdonisSMU macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #7
    You will need a desktop PC to get 32GB of ram in I'm thinking. 16GB is what they are maxing out at atm.
     
  8. el-John-o macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Missouri
    #8
    It sounds like maybe what you're looking for is a desktop?

    Desktop PC's are falling out of vogue which is a shame. I know you're situation is a little different OP; but I keep hearing from some of my circles "My laptop is always plugged in and always on my desk, why should I care about battery life? I want performance!" to which my response is, well, predictably; "It's sounds like you want a desktop".

    Heat is the enemy of performance. It's true of cars and electronics. Bigger engines make more heat. CPU's and GPU's get more efficient every year but software also has a way of bumping up it's demands at the same time. (An Apple Watch has way more computing power than even the fastest desktops of a decade ago). So one thing that has always been true; even as the gap does close a bit; if you want performance, you want a desktop. If you want a laptop, you're willing to sacrifice performance for portability.

    I do wish Apple would re-release the 17" MBP in a thickness on-par with the 2012 models perhaps; where it could fit a big battery and a lot more horsepower. But, it's clearly not Apple's future. They are willing to push the envelope to make laptops thinner; instead of trying to cram a desktop into a 2" thick laptop. For better or worse; that is what it's going to be in the future I believe.

    Frankly, seeing some of these high performance laptops out there; I genuinely don't "get it". Heavy, thick, clunky. And they last 90 minutes on a charge? What part of that makes it a laptop?
     
  9. jwpoof thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #9
    To a certain extent, you're right. But I have already have 2 mac pros. Those don't travel well when I have to fly to set and figure out a monitor solution on the road, or cut a project while traveling.

    My point is that, even when I need to be mobile, I'm almost always plugged in, and performance is the greater goal for my particular situation. It's not that the performance of these machines is dismal. It's just that, from my perspective, a disproportionate amount of effort has gone into the size, thinness, and battery performance of these machines, as opposed to their raw power, and yet they demo it as some sort of alternative to a Mac Pro in a 2 x 5k monitor setup.

    I don't expect apple to make a new model to suit my needs. Realistically, I just wish I could build a CTO that was less ideal for battery life but performed much better while plugged in.
     
  10. wegster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    #10
    I can't believe people are so naive and set in their thinking that they'd rather not acknowledge people have valid uses for more powerful machines than they personally may have a use for, nor to assume that people that have decades worth of software and skills built around the Apple ecosystem should dare to have an opinion different than your own.
     
  11. AdonisSMU macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #11
    I already acknowledged the other poster. No need to pile on when I've already conceded that point.
     
  12. wegster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    #12
    Pile-on done; must have been lost on the thread as I was going through it, sorry; just getting uppity when a lot of people who may well be happy with the current model seem to ignore their usage is not necessarily the only one etc.
     
  13. The Mercurian macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    #13
    Or you know....a Dell, Razer or other windows mac with 32GB ram. Hell The Dell is due to get Kabylake soon
     
  14. el-John-o, Oct 29, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2016

    el-John-o macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Missouri
    #14
    Yeah, for sure! Hence, me thinking that the 17" MacBook Pro is the ideal candidate here. Make it thicker, give it a 17" 4k display, give it more powerful hardware, and call it a day. The 17" MacBook Pro was always a performance-over-portability option. It was best found in a hard-sided case for on-location shooting, next to an Apple Cinema Display and a wacom tablet in a creative professionals office; with an identical setup at their home office for pick-up and plug-in ease of use, and so on and so forth. The 13" Macbook Pro and 12" MacBook satisfy the super-portable basic productivity line; and for the writer on the go or the blogger on an airplane. The 15" offers a nice bridge and blend; somewhere in the middle. And the 17" seems the ideal candidate for what you're describing. Essentially, a "desktop" PC that can be easily moved from one location to another; and even used as a portable computer in a pinch. Give it the fastest chips on the market. It's sheer size as necessitated by the 17" display will give it a larger battery and more cooling; but I don't think those buying the 17" would mind a few extra mm either.

    That said; it's just not gonna happen; unfortunately! Apple has made it clear what their course is; and that works for almost all of their customers. In truth; that's just the way it's going to be. For every high-end pro customer lamenting the "just okay" performance; there'd be others complaining that a surface pro is thinner; that the MacBook Pro is to heavy and antiquated; "What good is a laptop with a 4 hour battery life", and so on...

    Part of me wonders what might've happened if PowerPC hadn't failed to deliver; and what Apple's custom chips could look like today. Look, for example, at what they're doing with iOS. Apple could REALLY innovate in this market with custom x86-64 compatible chips; no need to change architecture. But, for example, 4 high speed desktop-class cores; and 2 low energy ultra efficient cores; similar to the sub-2GHz high efficiency chips today. Similar with a GPU. Something that has all day battery life AND the performance higher end apps need.
     
  15. AdriftAtlas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #15
    Our entire development team at work uses Lenovo or Dell mobile workstation class notebooks. They are roughly 6lb, have 5-8hrs of battery life, and an inch thick. The newer ones support the fastest Xeons, Nvidia Quadro, and 64GB of RAM. We use notebooks because when we are done for the day we want to take them home and continue working if needed. This is a very common use case; why Apple choose to ignore this market segment is beyond me.
     
  16. el-John-o macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Missouri
    #16
    Those Dell workstations are incredible; especially in how extremely configurable they are.
     
  17. jwpoof thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    #17
    I don't pretend to understand all that goes into designing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling computers, but my best guess is that the opportunity cost of addressing these smaller markets, even if potentially profitable, is too great compared to applying those same resources to more consumer-friendly product lines.

    And they wouldn't look as good as the other apple products, despite being completely awesome for what we need.

    I mean, really all this comes back to is that there are some of us who wish that Apple would set aside some resources for a pro product division to keep us old school folks happy.
     
  18. el-John-o macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Missouri
    #18
    When Steve Jobs reclaimed the helm at Apple the very first thing he accomplished was nixing all of Apple's "stuff" in favor of a small line of consumer PC's, followed by a big refresh of pro level PC's, and a focus on consumer electronics devices.

    Apple's direction ever since has not been trying to fill every niche; as they had before. But focusing on building the best machines that fit specific criteria. I'd argue they are still doing that well, but they are unapologetically leaving behind these niche consumers and they don't mind. Apple figures (and their bank account suggests they've been figuring right) most folks would rather have as fast of an iPad as they can build; or a super thin and light laptop with all day battery life that's as powerful as IT can be; than they'd rather sacrifice portability for a bit more performance.

    The gap is closing anyway. Twice the thickness and twice the weight doesn't get you twice the performance from competitors.
     
  19. idunn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #19

    You needn't criticize the new MBP, I will—plenty. But I otherwise agree with you, a lot.

    The MacBook is for those with relatively modest computing needs; then, as well, posers at Starbucks. If those same posers want something flashy with a "Pro" moniker on it, fine; BUT not a the expense of the rest of the product line, and needs of professionals.

    Obviously if one largely at home and at the desk, then by all measures a desktop system makes the most sense. Quick transition to those not always at the desk, requiring portability and computing power: witness the MacBook 'Pro.' Which should function just like its name implies, or a good alternative to a powerful desktop system, compromised only to the extent needed for portability (not just for the fashion of thinness).

    The current price certainly reflects that, if not the function.
     
  20. Trahearne macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    #20
    Nonsense for you. Perfect sense for me. Thin, light and long-lasting as much as possible, while still having a 45W CPU and a fair GPU. ;)
     
  21. ugru macrumors 6502

    ugru

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    Caput Mundi
    #21
    Fixed that for you
     
  22. Trahearne macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    #22
    I just fail to see how crap is that. Given the constraints it is a fair one. ;)

    Feel free to persuade Apple to roll a new "more-Pro-than-Pro" line that perhaps 2x thick and 2x in weight to fit a GPU that burns 100W for you though. Perhaps a 8-core Xeon too, huh? Just that saying this is nonsense feels absurd to me.
     
  23. wegster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    #23
    Before deriding others for their needs (or wants, TBD in some cases), what work do you do that means you need the 'Pro' model? MBPs have long been used by various professionals as a 'workstation light' replacement, so yes, performance vs competition is indeed an expectation for many in a Pro branded system.

    That doesn't mean they can't keep the 'thin and light' crew happy at the same time, but by definition, what they've released is questionable with respect to the Pro moniker for many.
     
  24. Capt T macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2010
    #24

    I travel quite a bit, and at times we need more power and bring mac pros. And we have Pelicans we can ship or check with monitors, or get them through rental onsite. Where are you that you have a hard time sourcing monitors? In the US it is easy...some other countries not so much.

    We purchase top tier 15" fully loaded, and yes there are times I wish it was even more of a powerhouse. But I get the trade off, of weight to power, and my back will be thankful for the 1/2 pound less weight in my backpack.

    If they did make a machine like you are thinking I would get that, but I think we are in a very niche minority.
     
  25. ugru, Oct 30, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2016

    ugru macrumors 6502

    ugru

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    Caput Mundi
    #25
    The constraints are the problem....

    They have the MacBook for ultraportability...these are supposed to be MacBook Pro...

    Do you notice the difference?

    same thickness as 2015 or even a little more to accomodate battery and cooling;
    12 Hrs Battery;
    4 core GPU;
    Nvidia 1060;
    3 Thunderbolt;
    Fast SD card reader;
    the rest identical

    Non that difficult...This would be a Mac Book Pro.

    They would sell ten thousands more, only in this forum nearly 400 people decided not to to buy one due to being overprived and/or not powerful enough
     

Share This Page