Should i switch to Apple?

[4769372]

Wow. You still don't get it. The MacBook Pro isnt more expensive than a similar Notebook from Windows. The difference is around 200-500€ which is reasonable. The iMac has high competition (Microsoft Studio!). If the iMac had updated Hardware the price is reasonable.

So no...you really can't recommend either of both. They both underperform currently and are heavily overpriced. The same can't be said about the MacBook Pro. You just fail to differentiate properly.

 

[Sanpete]

Go to Google and type in "2016 Macbook Pro Reviews". You'll see a range of opinions, but the most recent reviews lean toward negative. One certainly doesn't have to rely upon me waving my hands, anyone can go see for themselves. Examples have been posted many times on these forums with several threads dedicated to the topic. However, since I suspect your passion has overwhelmed your sense of reason I don't expect to convince you.

The current Mac Pro serves a professional's needs in the same way that any nearly 4 year old computer would serve their needs -- knowing they will likely need to replace it in a year or two. It's much too far along in its lifecycle to pay full price for outdated hardware. Again, I realize that you believe that an ancient Apple computer is the very bestest out there and worth thousands of dollars over a brand new updated computer from a competitor -- so this post is really for others reading this thread.

I'm pretty sure I've read and watched more reviews than you have, since it's over 15, and they simply don't support your claims. You're still just waving your hands. You've given zero facts, even after being asked for specifics. Yet you seem to actually believe that it's me and others being ruled by emotion rather than you. Funny how that works.

 

[ZapNZs]

Schiller says Apple is as committed to desktop Macs as ever. I don't know what you mean about avoiding discussion of the Mac Pro while talking about the others. Apple talks about them when they come out, and generally not at other times.

My guess is that it hasn't been updated because it still does what it was designed to do, and there isn't a lot to upgrade.

When Apple was talking about the professional market, they mentioned the 5k iMac and MBP by name, in regards to professional usage, and not the Mac Pro. That, to me personally, combined with presumably much higher iMac sales figures, gives the iMac a more certain future than the Mac Pro, even though both have gone a while without an update. You asked what makes me think the Mac Pro is uncertain, and it is those plus the other combined factors.

For me, personally, there's enough to upgrade with an investment as high as with the Mac Pro that it has me looking at other brands despite my preference for Apple. Other workstations now support multiple 12+ core CPUs, more modern GPUs, often over 1/2 a TB of RAM at a higher clock speed, faster & upgradable NVMe storage, and free built-in internal PCI expansion capability. Id like to stay Apple, and I am willing to pay a premium, but competitors have released highly attractive premium offerings while Apple has not changed the specs nor drastically lowered the price. For around the price of a Mac Pro with the 8-core CPU, 64GB RAM, D700s, and a 256 SSD, I can get a ThinkStation with two 12-core CPUs, 160 GB of RAM, dual Quadro M4000s, and a PCIe/NVMe 512 SSD. I hope Apple does release an updated Mac Pro, and closes the hardware and pricing disparities, so that I can buy it.

 

[Sanpete]

Wow. You still don't get it. The MacBook Pro isnt more expensive than a similar Notebook from Windows. The difference is around 200-500€ which is reasonable. The iMac has high competition (Microsoft Studio!). If the iMac had updated Hardware the price is reasonable.

So no...you really can't recommend either of both. They both underperform currently and are heavily overpriced. The same can't be said about the MacBook Pro. You just fail to differentiate properly.

Similar? Well, that depends on what you mean by similar. If you're talking about only similar primary specs, you can in fact easily get the same or better processors in laptops for half the price. If you mean similar in build quality, screen quality, support, etc, then yes, as I very clearly said, the MBP becomes competitive.

You'd have to say more about the iMac and Surface Studio comparison. The latter is more expensive, so I'm not sure what you have in mind.

 

[4769372]

Similar? Well, that depends on what you mean by similar. If you're talking about only similar primary specs, you can in fact easily get the same or better processors in laptops for half the price. If you mean similar in build quality, screen quality, support, etc, then yes, as I very clearly said, the MBP becomes competitive.

You'd have to say more about the iMac and Surface Studio comparison. The latter is more expensive, so I'm not sure what you have in mind.

Well similar encompases everything while each component should have little to no difference. A Dell XPS 15" is in the same price category as a MBP 15". An iMac and a Microsoft Studio are comparable. The Studio is more expensive...but has a touchscreen. So yeah they are very much similar. Even the Price is comparable. At max specs the studio is only 600$ more. That isn't much. So they are similar. The Studio having the justification of having newer tech and thus justifiying the higher price while Apple has old tech and can't be really recommended. But they are both similar. There is currently no reason for the iMac > Studio! If the iMac gets new specs and then it is for me > Studio.

But the Mac Pro is just out of touch. The Build Quality isn't worth mentioning. There are tons of workstations that are better in that aspect. Even the Performance and Price aren't in favor of Apple. Only the Support aspect could be superior. But that doesn't justify the price.

But i wont repeat my standpoint one more time.

 

[Sanpete]

When Apple was talking about the professional market, they mentioned the 5k iMac and MBP by name, in regards to professional usage, and not the Mac Pro.

Do you happen to recall the time and context of this, and who specifically was speaking?

For me, personally, there's enough to upgrade with an investment as high as with the Mac Pro that it has me looking at other brands despite my preference for Apple. Other workstations now support multiple 12+ core CPUs, more modern GPUs, often over 1/2 a TB of RAM at a higher clock speed, faster & upgradable NVMe storage, and free built-in internal PCI expansion capability. Id like to stay Apple, and I am willing to pay a premium, but competitors have released highly attractive premium offerings while Apple has not changed the specs nor drastically lowered the price. For around the price of a Mac Pro with the 8-core CPU, 64GB RAM, D700s, and a 256 SSD, I can get a ThinkStation with two 12-core CPUs, 160 GB of RAM, dual Quadro M4000s, and a PCIe/NVMe 512 SSD. I hope Apple does release an updated Mac Pro, and closes the hardware and pricing disparities, so that I can buy it.

Well, it's always been that way, Windows alternatives have always been cheaper for the basic specs. I agree the difference increases over time. But if you're running programs optimized for Macs, the Mac Pro still makes sense.

 

[Seed101]

It's only natural to want 'the latest and greatest' and with windows that's a lot more achievable because of the variety of manufactures, self-build etc...with apple you get OS and ecosystem and the build quality is still good in comparison.

You should be in good place to make the jump when the new iMac comes out, give it four years then re-assess...I did a similar thing in 2010 and am still here despite wavering/thinking of switching back a few times over release timescales.

 

[Sanpete]

Well similar encompases everything while each component should have little to no difference. A Dell XPS 15" is in the same price category as a MBP 15". An iMac and a Microsoft Studio are comparable. The Studio is more expensive...but has a touchscreen. So yeah they are very much similar. Even the Price is comparable. At max specs the studio is only 600$ more. That isn't much. So they are similar. The Studio having the justification of having newer tech and thus justifiying the higher price while Apple has old tech and can't be really recommended. But they are both similar. There is currently no reason for the iMac > Studio! If the iMac gets new specs and then it is for me > Studio.

But the Mac Pro is just out of touch. The Build Quality isn't worth mentioning. There are tons of workstations that are better in that aspect. Even the Performance and Price aren't in favor of Apple. Only the Support aspect could be superior. But that doesn't justify the price.

But i wont repeat my standpoint one more time.

Your remarks on the iMac are too vague to follow. I can't tell why you think it isn't competitive in specifics ways, considering the pricing. Obviously if you really want a touch screen, that's enough to favor the Studio. But many are horrified at the thought of marking up their screens that way, and for them the iMac remains competitive.

Again, the Mac Pro is for those who want to run programs on the Mac platform. It's not now and has never been and will likely never be competitive for those who want to run Windows-optimized programs. If you have no preference between platforms, there's no reason to consider a Mac Pro, as I keep pointing out, none now, none in 2013. That hasn't changed.

 

[ZapNZs]

Do you happen to recall the time and context of this, and who specifically was speaking?

Well, it's always been that way, Windows alternatives have always been cheaper for the basic specs. I agree the difference increases over time. But if you're running programs optimized for Macs, the Mac Pro still makes sense.

One of the quotes was:
"The desktop is very strategic for us. It’s unique compared to the notebook because you can pack a lot more performance in a desktop — the largest screens, the most memory and storage, a greater variety of I/O, and fastest performance. So there are many different reasons why desktops are really important, and in some cases critical, to people.

The current generation iMac is the best desktop we have ever made and its beautiful Retina 5K display is the best desktop display in the world.

Some folks in the media have raised the question about whether we’re committed to desktops. If there’s any doubt about that with our teams, let me be very clear: we have great desktops in our roadmap. Nobody should worry about that."

In that same convo, Mr. Cook talked about the MacBook Pro and creative/pro market. I take that conversation as evidence that the iMac's future is 100% certain. Where I am uncertain is if Mr. Cook & his team are thinking about a future for the Mac Pro, Mac Mini, or both, or possibly replacing one of both with a different product line.

There is a lot of speculation as to the implications of the response. While I don't think this in and of itself says much in regards to the Mac Pro's future, I do think it gives the iMac more certainty than the other two desktop lines not mentioned by name. But for all I know, next week Apple could announce an updated 5k iMac, an iMac 5k Pro, a new Mac Pro, a quad core Mac Mini, an Apple-branded 5k display, and a see-through iPhone/

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/...eatures-specifications-2017-3536364/#comments

 

[thesaint024]

One of the quotes was:
"The desktop is very strategic for us. It’s unique compared to the notebook because you can pack a lot more performance in a desktop — the largest screens, the most memory and storage, a greater variety of I/O, and fastest performance. So there are many different reasons why desktops are really important, and in some cases critical, to people.

The current generation iMac is the best desktop we have ever made and its beautiful Retina 5K display is the best desktop display in the world.

Some folks in the media have raised the question about whether we’re committed to desktops. If there’s any doubt about that with our teams, let me be very clear: we have great desktops in our roadmap. Nobody should worry about that."

In that same convo, Mr. Cook talked about the MacBook Pro and creative/pro market. I take that conversation as evidence that the iMac's future is 100% certain. Where I am uncertain is if Mr. Cook & his team are thinking about a future for the Mac Pro, Mac Mini, or both, or possibly replacing one of both with a different product line.

There is a lot of speculation as to the implications of the response. While I don't think this in and of itself says much in regards to the Mac Pro's future, I do think it gives the iMac more certainty than the other two desktop lines not mentioned by name. But for all I know, next week Apple could announce an updated 5k iMac, an iMac 5k Pro, a new Mac Pro, a quad core Mac Mini, an Apple-branded 5k display, and a see-through iPhone/

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/...eatures-specifications-2017-3536364/#comments

I kind of agree with your assessment of the future of Macs. Apple stuff is one of the regular feeds I get, and there hasn't been a peep about Mac Pros. It is really curious since the leaks about Apple products are pretty regular and often accurate. Usually by this time (close to announcement time) there would be lots of speculation and rumors swirling about possible new products. I never hear s**t about Mac Pros. Either it's not coming in the next year or it's the best kept secret Apple has ever kept. To your point, I do hear bits here and there about iMac. It is more prosumer focused so maybe it really is the direction Apple is going. Like you said, we can all be proven wrong next week.

 

[darksithpro]

I can understand the ops frustration. The new MBPs are a little bit of a rip off. Soldered RAM, DDR3 when DDR4 is available, Skylake, when KabyLake is available, non-upgrade able hdd, really?. So you're stuck with 16 gigs of ram, when much cheaper windows laptops can hit 32gb with 2 ddr4 modules. Also using inferior Radeon GPUs. Lets face it, nVdida is far superior to AMD in the mobile market. Selling a tricked out 4 thousand dollar laptop with a ****** arse AMD GPU and soldered parts is a pretty big letdown. Not cool, Apple.

 

[Sanpete]

I can understand the ops frustration. The new MBPs are a little bit of a rip off. Soldered RAM, DDR3 when DDR4 is available, Skylake, when KabyLake is available, non-upgrade able hdd, really?. So you're stuck with 16 gigs of ram, when much cheaper windows laptops can hit 32gb with 2 ddr4 modules. Also using inferior Radeon GPUs. Lets face it, nVdida is far superior to AMD in the mobile market. Selling a tricked out 4 thousand dollar laptop with a ****** arse AMD GPU and soldered parts is a pretty big letdown. Not cool, Apple.

Not that facts matter much in this kind of emotional context, but DDR4 eats up batteries for not much improvement in practical computing power. Machines that offer 32 GB RAM have poor battery life compared to the MBP. The "inferior" Radeon GPUs have far better external monitors support and were better in other respects as well when the MBP came out. Kaby Lake was obviously not available when the 2016 MBP was released.

 

[darksithpro]

Not that facts matter much in this kind of emotional context, but DDR4 eats up batteries for not much improvement in practical computing power. Machines that offer 32 GB RAM have poor battery life compared to the MBP. The "inferior" Radeon GPUs have far better external monitors support and were better in other respects as well when the MBP came out. Kaby Lake was obviously not available when the 2016 MBP was released.

Emotional? lol. No, more like I know when someone is getting ripped off. Linus Tech Tips did a video on Apples low power ddr3 claim:

basically debunked. Also, show me proof how the 460 is better than pascal for external monitor support. Also, you said better in other respects, how? Lets even compare the 950/60m Maxwell and see how the 450/460 is better in any regard to the Maxwell/pascal chips.

 

[Sanpete]

Emotional? lol. No, more like I know when someone is getting ripped off. Linus Tech Tips did a video on Apples low power ddr3 claim:

basically debunked. Also, show me proof how the 460 is better than pascal for external monitor support. Also, you said better in other respects, how? Lets even compare the 950/60m Maxwell and see how the 450/460 is better in any regard to the Maxwell/pascal chips.

Incredible. Clown Joe in that video has no clue. He completely missed the very plain point that the main problem isn't 32 GB vs 16 of the same RAM but of DDR4, which is desktop RAM, vs LPDDR3, which is laptop RAM. The best data available suggests a difference of 5 (in idle) to 84 watt-hours (under load) over ten hours between 32 GB DDR4 and 16 GB LPDDR3.

How many external 4K monitors will a 450/455/460 drive at 60 Hz? 4 is the answer. Now, how many will the GPUs in the competition drive? Pick your favorite, in the new XPS (which requires a dock to drive any) or whatever machine you think is better than the MBP.

When the MBP came out, the 460 was faster than the chips in the XPS and other similar machines. That changed with the recent XPS refresh.

 

[darksithpro]

Incredible. Clown Joe in that video has no clue. He completely missed the very plain point that the main problem isn't 32 GB vs 16 of the same RAM but of DDR4, which is desktop RAM, vs LPDDR3, which is laptop RAM. The best data available suggests a difference of 5 (in idle) to 84 watt-hours (under load) over ten hours between 32 GB DDR4 and 16 GB LPDDR3.

How many external 4K monitors will a 450/455/460 drive at 60 Hz? 4 is the answer. Now, how many will the GPUs in the competition drive? Pick your favorite, in the new XPS (which requires a dock to drive any) or whatever machine you think is better than the MBP.

When the MBP came out, the 460 was faster than the chips in the XPS and other similar machines. That changed with the recent XPS refresh.

Your argument fails common logic. First, most power users using a 3-4 monitor setup will most likely be using a desktop with high end Intel/nVidia/AMD desktop parts, not a laptop, second the power user will most likely be using a Windows desktop, not OS-X. Maybe a few Mac Pro's, but definitely way more Windows desktops, btw, how old is the OGL API in OS-X?No Vulcan?. Also when using 4 monitors that means a lot of multitasking, virtual machines, CAD, Adobe software. So, so much for that 16 gigs is enough and 32gb is no big deal claim. If AMDs biggest highlight over nVidias chips is more external monitor support then that's kinda lame.

 

[Sanpete]

Your argument fails common logic. First, most power users using a 3-4 monitor setup will most likely be using a desktop with high end Intel/nVidia/AMD desktop parts, not a laptop, second the power user will most likely be using a Windows desktop, not OS-X. Maybe a few Mac Pro's, but definitely way more Windows desktops, btw, how old is the OGL API in OS-X?No Vulcan?. Also when using 4 monitors that means a lot of multitasking, virtual machines, CAD, Adobe software. So, so much for that 16 gigs is enough and 32gb is no big deal claim. If AMDs biggest highlight over nVidias chips is more external monitor support then that's kinda lame.

My points remain as stated. The Radeons have vastly superior external monitor support (and not only for 4K, also for 5K--how many 5K monitors will your favorite MBP alternative drive?), and the 460 was faster when it came out. Maybe you should review your "reasons" the MBP is a rip-off. Use facts this time, and you should reach a different conclusion.

 

[darksithpro]

My points remain as stated. The Radeons have vastly superior external monitor support (and not only for 4K, also for 5K--how many 5K monitors will your favorite MBP alternative drive?), and the 460 was faster when it came out. Maybe you should review your "reasons" the MBP is a rip-off. Use facts this time, and you should reach a different conclusion.

Hooking up a laptop to four 4k/5k monitors isn't exactly ideal when you're limited to 16gb of ram and a 35-40 watt chip that only has 4 gigs of V-Ram. That's like giving someone access to a race track with their Toyota Prius, let 'em rip!

 

[Sanpete]

Hooking up a laptop to four 4k/5k monitors isn't exactly ideal when you're limited to 16gb of ram and a 35-40 watt chip that only has 4 gigs of V-Ram. That's like giving someone access to a race track with their Toyota Prius, let 'em rip!

What? First, it's 4 4Ks or 2 5Ks, both far better than the competition. Second, the wattage and V=RAM are sufficient for driving them, or it wouldn't be able to drive them. Third, the 16 GB RAM doesn't enter into this. Again, I invite you to reconsider your original claims. Or you can just accept that you have made my point about the role of facts here.

 

[darksithpro]

Second, the wattage and V=RAM are sufficient for driving them, or it wouldn't be able to drive them.

Just like when your computer meets the minimum system requirements for a video game, because playing at recommended settings wouldn't be more enjoyable, right?

 

[Sanpete]

Just like when your computer meets the minimum system requirements for a video game, because playing at recommended settings wouldn't be more enjoyable, right?

The external monitor capabilities have been demonstrated in practice. You've already made my point, so you can stop now.

 

[vddobrev]

@Sanpete

You want to know what i as a professional care for? Money. That is it. The difference between a Professional and Wannabe-Professional is quite simple. The later spends money on stuff he doesn't need or overpays on stuff he needs. I don't want to overpay and i will not overpay. It is as simple as that.

"How is it embarrassing? Professionals care about performance. Others may care more about superficial things like specs and recency. Maybe you can answer the question I asked above and have asked repeatedly of critics of the Mac Pro, what professional task is the Mac Pro unable to efficiently accomplish?"

There is nothing superficial about specs and recency. In fact a professional who doesn't care about performance won't need a Mac Pro. The customers of the Mac Pro are the ones who care specs. You apply the arguments that are reasonable for th average user on professional users. Yes the Mac Pro surely will do every Job most professionals need to do. But here is the catch. Why would i pay double the Price! And yes it is double the Price for a Mac Pro. There is absolutly no justification for that. Hell even the superior Support won't make up for it. I would rather buy a better performing machine two times or three times. And that's that. Wasting money doesn't make you a professional. Professionals care about money the most.

You see the MacBook Pro comes at a price that is reasonable. Similar products cost the same or are slighlty cheaper. But the Apple design and support make up for it. But not for the iMac and also not for the Mac Pro. It is as simple as that. I have no idea why you are trying to defend a product that clearly has outlived its product-life-cyle. If you are a customer and are defending apple's current ripp-off on the Mac Pro...well then any further discussion is meaningless.

But since you so care so much about what i do. My job changes every few months. I am an engineer and actually i don't have one area. Sometimes i only work with Excel, Powerpoint and Outlook. But at times i build simulations with AnyLogic or PlantSim. At other times i run Forming-Simulations etc. The list is long and the requirements differ greatly. But i need and want a Desktop-PC that is reasonable priced and meets my Standards.

I will summarize now:

I am content with the MacBook Pro currently but would love to see 32GB.
I am not content with the Mac Pro and won't buy it.
I am waiting for an iMac update and will see if it reasonably priced.

I have made up my mind. Thanks by the way.

I am not convinced at all that you even need a Mac. In the above essay that you wrote, there is no reasonoing whatsoever how you will use the Mac and how it will serve you better than a Windows PC. A real professional will galdly pay the price for a tool that will make his job easier or otherwise empower him. Since you are not stating the nature of your work [i.e. what kind of engineer, like mechanical, electrical, civil, or software] it is very difficult to even begin to give you advice whether or not you need to switch to Mac. But alas, you already made up your mind, so this whole discussion is mute. Spec for spec, Windows PC will win. Do you even need a Mac? And if yes, why? Can you answer these two simple questions?
[doublepost=1489613866][/doublepost]

I will start with a big overview...what lead me to my current situation.

I am currently a student and will enter the work-force pretty soon. I always liked the design of Apple-Products but i always found them overpriced. But this perspective changed over time. I never was a cheap-skate but i always wanted to get the best product for my money. So when i decided to buy my first notebook it was a close call between a T450s and Macbook Pro 13" (both were almost the same price (150€ difference)) when it was released.

At the time i had an iPhone 6 Plus. Before that i used a Samsung S2, Blackberry Z10. Now i i will be blunt. I got the new iPhone 7 Plus and i only got it over the Pixel XL, because of the Apple Care Plus Package.

Now i am considering to buy other Apple Products. I love their design and support. But there is a catch. There always is to me. I was a silent reader for a couple of days weeks now. And my impression is that most of you agree, that the current line-up isn't worth buying and that Apple is heavly neglecting their Pro-Users. This scared me off quite a lot.

Now the main reason i would wanna get a Mac. Design and Support. But if Apple doesn't value their Pro-Users i cant buy their products. How do you see this?

Sry for my bad english. I am no native speaker and have some troubles with the spelling at times.

I have read throughout this thread.
You and only can make the decision whether or not an expense to buy a Mac is worth it. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Apple is what it is. You mention you liked the design and support, yet few posts below design and support is not enough. Only you can decide what is enough to spend your money.
I urge you to sit down, and carefully consider what's in it for you, i.e. what is in Apple Mac that you can benefit from. Then you can you analyze the cost, and decide if it is worth it. What is it that attracts you in Apple Mac, and how much are you prepared to pay. Do you even need it, or you just want it?

I switched to Mac over a year ago, have been a Windows PC all my life. I sold all my PCs and workstations and purchased what's in my signature. Couldn't be happier. Before I did that, I carefully analized and talked to people and colleagues. Is my iMac more powerfull than my previous Windows workstation with 6-core intel i-7 and 32GB RAM? No, but I enjoy it and it helps me do my job better. Spec for spec it looses, but I value it more.
So food for thought, hope my writing can help you, as it looks to me you are kind of in the middle of nowhere in terms of knowing and deciding what you need and for what purposes.

 

[MrX8503]

Depends on what sort of software you develop. I do Machine Learning and AI. OpenCL is not supported by many software tools. CUDA is the standard, and that means NVIDIA. And yes, 32GB would be great.

True. If you need CUDA then the MBP isn't the best choice. My problem with reviews is that they don't give context of the work they do.

 

[agaskew]

I have just one further quetsion. Does Office (Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook etc.) work just as good as on a Windows Notebook? I love to work with shortcuts and i have no issue learning the new ones for the Apple Version, but i need the full-set of options just like on Windows.

Absolultely not. Outlook in particular on OS X is pretty awful.

 

[4769372]

Well then...Mac (no matter what product) died for me
Exchange works so beautiful on my iPhone i thought the same would be for OSX

 

[thesaint024]

Well then...Mac (no matter what product) died for me
Exchange works so beautiful on my iPhone i thought the same would be for OSX

Technically, you were never in the Mac eco, so it just never was... Is to have loved and lost worse than never to have loved at all?

Absolultely not. Outlook in particular on OS X is pretty awful.

Seriously, what is it about Outlook that everyone hates so much? I cannot discern a difference between the PC and Mac versions at least from a feature set and appearances. What is it that everyone needs so bad from Outlook that the Mac version fails at? After all, it is Outlook, an email and calendar client. It doesn't cure cancer. Am I so technically un-savvy that this is above my head?