And for what appears to be far more people the impact on battery life of going with desktop RAM is a deal breaker. Manufacturers have to chose, offer the option for 32 GB with reduced battery life, or stick with 16 and better battery life. For now, more people care about the battery life, judging from all I've seen, so Apple's choice makes good sense for more consumers. There is a rumor they'll offer a 32 GB option later this year, though.
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.
Please try harder Apple, -I just got a dell
- Thread starter derboy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And for what appears to be far more people the impact on battery life of going with desktop RAM is a deal breaker. Manufacturers have to chose, offer the option for 32 GB with reduced battery life, or stick with 16 and better battery life. For now, more people care about the battery life, judging from all I've seen, so Apple's choice makes good sense for more consumers. There is a rumor they'll offer a 32 GB option later this year, though.
I'm really considering going back to Dell after owning a Macbook Pro for 5 years. I hate the newest MBP models but the 2015 models are tempting as they are cheaper.
It would be nice to have a PC that is not only great for Adobe programs, but can handle gaming as well. I'm actually considering getting a desktop PC.
It would be nice to have a PC that is not only great for Adobe programs, but can handle gaming as well. I'm actually considering getting a desktop PC.
Nothing wrong with a Dell, as long as it lasts. Unfortunately, I've never seen a Dell or HP or Acer or any other PC that even comes close to the build quality of Apple's notebooks. That's why I'm an Apple user; their computers are built to last, and their operating systems generally run well no matter how old your Macbook is. I have an old 2010 Macbook Pro 15 running El Capitan on an SSD, and it's as fast as I can blink. I've had Dells before, and once that new-car smell wears off, they start to creak and flex and just plain old, wear out. So I won't bash your choice of going with Dell; I'm sure it's a great computer...for now. But check back with me in five years and let me know how it's doing. I'll bet ya my 2010 Macbook Pro will still be running fine by then. And your Dell??
For any particular reasons? If price is a major issue, PCs do offer a lot of cheaper alternatives.
Lack of ports, value. I've tried the trackpad and I'm not a fan of it, but maybe it takes some getting used to.
Value for you ultimately depends on what you personally value. If the things Apple does better than others don't appeal, then PCs are the way to go, no doubt. The ports on the new MBPs are the best available, by far, in terms of power and flexibility, for example. But if that doesn't matter as much as, say, not having to use an adapter, then paying a premium to have the new ports would be bad value.
Last edited:
Apple hears the message, but are going to ignore it. They are going to listen to the majority of its buyers.
As they should, of course. There are a lot of people who seem to think Apple should cater to them, but who don't adequately take into account how that would affect the majority of those who use Macs.
Big deal. I use a wireless mouse and always have. Its not like its hard to carry in the case. And unless you are really into specialized RAW graphics, the current model is only barely faster than the 2015. I use iMovie pretty extensively for making 1 hour long films drawing on 40-60 clips, some as big as 1.5 gb. The 2013 Late model with the IG loads the clips in 8-10 sec, does the editing instantaneously, and makes the movie in 3-5 minutes. That was with a Haswell 2013 Quad i7, and the internal Iris Pro graphic card. And I have the HDMI port, the magnetic power, 2 usb3 ports, 2 thunderbolt2 ports, a headphone port, and photocard port.
Exactly Apple only follows the money such is the nature of the market. Apple's focus is lifestyle products, they ceased being a computer company years ago, today we see the results, never has less is more been more appropriate. Today Apple only serves Apple, with the Mac customer being very far from the top of the list.
From a business perspective I simply don't trust Apple not to abandon or pick up product lines as they see fit, or when Apple feels the tech press response may negatively impact it's reputation. All in all a sad state of affairs Apple could have made such a difference, it didn't Apple just followed the money. 80% is good enough for the common user, however those of us that rely on such systems for a living expect more...
Q-6
Last edited:
You make my point, and you contradict yourself in the process. You agree with the quote "They are going to listen to the majority of its buyers," but then you say "Today Apple only serves Apple, with the Mac customer being very far from the top of the list." Well, which is it?
There are people here who have become bitter and lash out at Apple for not doing what they want, and show no ability to understand that Apple continues to try to give the majority of its users what they want and need. That's as it should be.
The notion that Apple "ceased being a computer company years ago" is of course patent nonsense, as evidenced by the mere existence of new Apple computers.
Actually, I'm not the person who bought the Dell--that the OP was considering and a few other posters. I recently bought an HP x360 and it seems to have a well-built metal design with no gaps, creaks or flexes so far. The PC laptops I owned in the distant past did exhibit all these traits immediately but build quality seems to be a priority now.
I don't expect this computer to last 5 years (it would be great if it did). I'd be happy to get 3 solid years out of it and I may Spring for another Macbook Pro before then if Apple releases something that's not a generation or two behind their competitors.
There are longer and longer spans of time between updates, so a 5 year old Apple computer is not that outdated if you compare it to other Macs. The Mac Pro hasn't been updated since 2013! That's over 3 years old brand new. That's really, really bad.
Intel hasn't offered much reason for an upgrade, have they? What would an upgrade now offer? 25% more speed for some tasks, which can be achieved just as well by having a higher spec'd 2013 model?
GPU's have increased quite a bit from 2013. For computer this expensive it has a GPU that is worse than the Macbook Pro 15 inch GPU's.
My question remains what can be achieved with newer chips that couldn't be done with dual AMD FirePro D700s? A serious question, I don't know.
It's not like with laptops where there are more parts to upgrade, so more going on to trigger upgrades.
You should get a PC. I think it would fit you much better. None of the benefits of a mac mean much to you.
Admittedly, I'm not an engineer but I see other high end PC makers updating to the latest chipsets, more advanced RAM, GPU, ports, wireless connectivity standards etc.
Why would I spec out an ancient computer when I can buy a cheaper, more advanced and recently updated machine from someone else?
How much practical difference do the newer CPU and GPU chips and RAM make? I don't think the ports and wireless are as important for a desktop workhorse. If you're not worried about portability, wires are still faster, and the ports are still able to work fine.
You wouldn't, unless you wanted a Mac. I expect there will be an update, but maybe not until AMD has really made some strides in their processors, which could make a very large difference for general operation.
CPU, not much, the GPU, potentially more impact and the ram, even more as it seems people are anxious to go beyond 16GB.
Here's my observation; the waiting for XXXXX threads (earlier it was waiting for skylake and now waiting for 2017) are full of people anxious to get the latest and greatest. It seems that for many people here at MR, they want the most current chipset, and over the months and years, they complained that Apple was slipping behind, even if those newer chipsets were not providing huge leaps in improvements.
I'm not knocking Apple for going with Skylake because back in the fall of 2016, kaby lake wasn't available.
For what I do – design/illustration for print – my honest opinion is that the hardware and software reached a satisfactory level of speed and efficiency a long time ago. But software and hardware companies don't ever say "Welp, we've reached our goals. Looks like our work is done here."
In other words, they don't just stop and rest on their laurels.
What they do is go in search of new and more lucrative markets.
That's what Apple has done. Having created and won the "desktop publishing" revolution, Apple discovered the consumer market and in the last few years has sold their stuff mainly as "llfe-style" products. That's where the money is, Baby! Of course, most of the hardware is also sufficient for what I do, but the options are much more limited (and at times seem to be getting narrower still), which can be frustrating. And with the emphasis on content consumers and everyday users, we get a lot of vacuous "features" like emoji's and touchbars.
Personally, I don't see as much value in Apple hardware over its competitors. Sure, the build quality is usually better, and the MacOS is reassuringly familiar. But for the most part the software is the same on both, so that isn't much of an issue (other than your preference for OS), and even the hardware differential is not that big a deal. The computer is just a tool. It's the ideas and execution that matters.
What bothers me the most is Apple's emphasis on non-upgradable hardware. It's why I don't buy iMacs, and why I won't by the new MacPro (and also part of the reason I bought a Dell laptop).
Bottom-line is, yeah, I think Apple has left professionals in the creative industries behind. I understand why they did it. I probably would have done the same. However, it's disappointing they don't toss us a bone now and then.
I'm committed to milking my hardware (Mac Pro 5,1 / 3.46GHz Dual 6-Core / 64GB RAM / Nvidia GTX 680 / 3 1920x1080 monitors) as long as I can. If it craps out, I'll buy another used system. Other than a new iPhone every other year or so, I'm trying to avoid paying the Apple Tax.
Yeah, I agree, but we were talking about the Mac Pro there (drifted off topic, I know).
[doublepost=1488401415][/doublepost]
Since you say they already surpassed what you need, what bones/upgrades are you looking for?
Well Said, mirrors much of my own observations, Apple's target audience now is the base, albeit well heeled consumer. Leaving many of us behind with diluted & locked down product. It's not about what the Mac is in 2017, it's more about what it could have been...
Q-6
Reading the various points of view here has been really interesting, and I agree with a lot of the comments throughout.
I think my main feeling is that apple positions itself as being focused on best practice design, and making the best products. So its reasonable to be critical of the design choices made. I don't really care about the price, if the design decisions are what I identify with I'll buy it. Currently I think they have prioritised thinness so much that it has affected overall appeal.
There has been a bit of chat on the battery and i mentioned it. The enclosure was designed for a contoured battery. That didn't work out, so they shipped a smaller battery that didn't fit optimally. Then according to the reports you read OS X compensates to get the claimed battery life. Why didn't they just wait and get it right?
Anyway I'm going to try something else and see what its like. It might be crap, but then I might just be that much happier with my next apple computer later on. OSX can't hold us to ransom (i hope) if the hardware isn't equally good.
I think my main feeling is that apple positions itself as being focused on best practice design, and making the best products. So its reasonable to be critical of the design choices made. I don't really care about the price, if the design decisions are what I identify with I'll buy it. Currently I think they have prioritised thinness so much that it has affected overall appeal.
There has been a bit of chat on the battery and i mentioned it. The enclosure was designed for a contoured battery. That didn't work out, so they shipped a smaller battery that didn't fit optimally. Then according to the reports you read OS X compensates to get the claimed battery life. Why didn't they just wait and get it right?
Anyway I'm going to try something else and see what its like. It might be crap, but then I might just be that much happier with my next apple computer later on. OSX can't hold us to ransom (i hope) if the hardware isn't equally good.
The "bones" I wish Apple would toss us are centered more around desktop workstations, and there are plenty of us talking about it in the Mac Pro forum. This thread is about laptops, and I don't use a laptop for work, I'd rather not derail it by sharing my desktop woes.