thats because it doesn't exist (theres no mid 2008 macbook pros) But the early 2008 can run mavericks 10.9.2, So you are lying to get a point across? lol
Last edited:
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.
rMBP is bad for power users
- Thread starter UBS28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
thats because it doesn't exist (theres no mid 2008 macbook pros) But the early 2008 can run mavericks 10.9.2, So you are lying to get a point across? lol
No, only the late 2008 aluminum 13 inch macbook can run Mavericks. The White ones sold in 2008 got cut off at mountain lion.
If this were true, more power would likely cause overheating, and/or the battery would drain as fast as your typical PC. Remember, Windows doesn't optimize for specific hardware manufacturer's power supplies. Apple most likely uses advanced battery optimization tech to get 8 hour lives, even when the mag is in.
It still works though right? (NB not that I agree with the previous posters statement, I have old think pads that are still ticking along on XP).
WRT Mavericks support, you have to remember that Apple has largely considered itself a hardware vendor, supplying software to run on its hardware. Whereas MS has generally considered itself as an agnostic software vendor (run it on what you like). If you consider the pricing of various software releases between the two, this becomes apparent. Mavericks has taken this even further, as its now Free.
One can discuss the merits of each approach, but when you compare to other hardware vendors you'll see the same approach, with a line being drawn not necessarily in line with hardware limitations. Partly this will be to encourage more sales of hardware, but you also have to remember there are testing and support costs associated with each additional type of hardware (or even unit of hardware) covered.
Historically MS has wiped the floor with Apple, so one would generally consider their model the most suitable for the home computing market. But as users have started to have more computing devices in their lives, they seem to be valuing vertical integration more (software, hardware, uniformity and interoperability between devices out the box). The big $ going forward appear to be more towards Apples model, that's why we're seeing both google and MS take more of an interest in hardware IMO.
Apple should Ofcourse be extremely wary, as MS once before stole a march on Apples early promise
Last edited:
Apple carefully throttles components while in OSX to keep the power draw below 85-90 watts. This can hurt performance but the average user, which is like 99.9 percent of people, wont notice. This is why a PC with similar hardware can achieve higher gaming performance and full performance out of both CPU and GPU while they are both under full load.. they all don't use low wattage adapters.
As for the PC.. I know the cheap laptops out there give it a bad name but my G46VW gets 6-7 hours of battery life and is a full fledged gaming PC. If I use a 90 watt adapter, it will let me charge the laptop but the minute dGPU gets enabled the power adapter becomes useless.
Here is a luxmark score running all OpenCL Devices. Full Load for all 3 devices with no thermal or power throttling. Not bad for a gaming laptop that gets 6 hours of battery life and is only 14 inches. It's also dead silent under load. About 35ish dB under full GPU and CPU load.
I can't fully agree a Macbook Pro isn't for professinals but it sure isn't for the people who like to push the limits.. or play games
I can't fully agree a Macbook Pro isn't for professinals but it sure isn't for the people who like to push the limits.. or play games
Last edited:
Wait I was with you until you said the thing about not even using the 13" retina.
Wouldn't it be easier to do everything on the 13" Retina, while being stronger than the 17"; it'll also be lightweighted like the air at the same time. What your saying doesn't make sense. if I'd have to go by what you're using them for, in your case the 13" retina sounds like the perfect machine inbetween those 3 models.
Wait I was with you until you said the thing about not even using the 13" retina.
Wouldn't it be easier to do everything on the 13" Retina, while being stronger than the 17"; it'll also be lightweighted like the air at the same time. What your saying doesn't make sense. if I'd have to go by what you're using them for, in your case the 13" retina sounds like the perfect machine inbetween those 3 models.
I use VM's, which require RAM to run comfortably, but not a lot of CPU power. In that case, the larger screen on the 17" is better than the smaller 13", which is why I use the 17". Not the number of pixels, but the physical dimension of it.
If I'm not going to use a large screen, I'll go with the lighter (and ironically less laggy at a higher usable resolution) MBA. If you look at the difference in geekbench scores for the MBP and MBA, they're very close.
Ah I see, I guess things always boil down to personal use. Regardless of the power/hardware of the machine you're using.
As someone with a degree in Computer Engineering (and access to a supercomputing grid with amongst others a Cray XC30 machine) I'm going to point out that you clearly don't know what you're talking about...I'm pretty sure I'm putting way more load than you on this machine. I even write my own codes because there doesn't exist software that do the types of calculations I do.
And for the really heavy stuff, I have access to servers that makes a $10.000 Mac pro look like nothing. If you claim what I do doesn't constitutes under heavy load, you're the fool.
OSX may have OpenGL drivers focused on rendering precision over performance (which is why games run slower on OSX) and when developers use GCC to compile their applications they won't run as fast as people using Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler or Intel's C/C++ compilers, however calling it slow is just being completely clueless.
OSX manages resources fairly well, doesn't hog up resources (ether CPU cycles or memory) and has a number of good compilers including the previously mentioned Intel C/C++ compilers the open source Clang/LLVM compiler suite. Don't even try to use the smart scheduling introduced in 10.9 as that only triggers under low stress.
As for your Macbook Pro, the reason for that is power saving as it is a laptop and designed to fill some pretty stringent energy efficiency standards. The reason why they use the battery to generate the needed voltage under stress is because a higher capacity charger is going to waste more energy even when it's not being stressed hard. If you want really high compute performance you don't get a laptop to begin with, you ether get a workstation or access to a supercomputing grid...
But you have to agree, laptops are getting more and more powerful and have come a LONG way.
So anyone wanna test thier 750/650m? According to this graph.. the 650m/750m are under performing by almost half in a macbook pro!!
or am I reading his graph wrong?
or am I reading his graph wrong?
Last edited:
i love this argument , have you even ever used a latitude or precision ?
both of those laptops , more importantly the precision can outlast a macbook pro any day. Not to mention you can replace everything in it.
dells customer service does suck , but they do offer 3 years next day on there notebooks from the start.
you can buy a m4800 for around 1400 on ebay with the same specs as macbook pro and you can bet it will outlast the macbook pro.
the m4800 is a monstrous laptop at 6lbs but it does come with its advantages.
Did a test on my rMBP with a 650m and a 3740QM. CPU is only 100MHz slower than my 3840QM. That machine scores 641 in Luxmark with all devices participating in the benchmark. That is considerably slower than my windows machine due to that machine not throttling and having a more powerful GPU.