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.
Sorry Apple..
- Thread starter Ursadorable
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can see your point; I think Apple probably doesn't get the credit they deserve for some of the innovations we DO see for Macs in general.Given that Apple generally does laptop redesigns every 4 years, its not that surprisingBTW, they did introduce some significant innovations within the last 4-year cycle, such as the 12" MB, ultra-fast consumer SSDs and a pressure-sensitive trackpad. Again, to put it in perspective: how was Apple more innovative, say, during the unibody era (2008-2012), where the only thing happening to the Apple laptop line were small (albeit regular) incremental updates?
However, I think the morale of loyal Mac users is at an all time low-- it's hard to argue that Apple doesn't seem less committed than in days past to the Mac platform in general. Sure, incremental updates year to year aren't super innovative, but the promise of a yearly-update for the notebooks, complemented by innovative and useful Mac OS updates, leaves loyal users much happier than in the current state of affairs. In recent years, Mac OS updates have really stagnated to the point where I'm hardly excited to even see the new features in action. El Capitan is SUCH an incremental update. And on top of all that, their flagship 'Pro' model looks pathetic in side-by-side spec comparisons of any of their competitors.
I'll be the first to argue that specs don't mean everything-- because they clearly don't-- but the lack of any sort of processor update, combined with these lackluster software updates, really makes you question some of the decision making from within Apple. Apple doesn't ever publically address the fact they are using legacy tech on their Pro models, which is sort of a slap to the face for those on the fence of whether or not they should update their machines. "Stay tuned" doesn't tell users ****.
While I in no way think Mac OS is going away any time soon-- I think that line of thinking is quite silly considering they launched a new laptop this year-- I think we may be watching the beginning of the end for what we've come to know over the last 10-15 years as 'the Mac platform'. Apple clearly has a different agenda now than in the past; I think it'll be interesting yet quite sad to watch as Apple treats the Mac platform more and more as a second or even third priority, showing little to no regard for the platforms' most loyal proponents and users that have made the platform so successful since the new millineum. I suppose the writing was on the wall when they removed 'Computer' from their official corporate title.
Last edited:
Same impression here - I think my last 'exciting' OS X update was back at Snow Leopard when they made a concerted effort on performance (anyone ever benchmarking the now-old Mac servers on OS X vs same HW on Linux would understand how 'not stellar' OS X thread performance is/was). It's possible I've missed some 'rely on daily' OS X feature that was introduced since then, but can't think of one. The reduced horizontal scroll bars on restyle - meh.
The SSD improvements are certainly notable, so much so I 'missed' them until picking up a newer MBP for my wife and benchmarking it. Retina was notable, although I'd run it in non-retina to get usable resolution (e.g. my current MBP has 1680x1080 matte screen - I'd run 1920x1200 on a retina 15"). TB was useful overall, and TB3 (sigh, with dongles) will ultimately be a step forward, if we finally see wider-spread adoption before the next hardware bump (e.g. how many are doing chained displays + USB3+ hubs currently? Seems like not so many...and I just bought a TB2 equipped display but pickings for USB-C in WQHD or 4K are daily few and far in between.
There is something to be said for waiting for an MBP 'suitable' CPU, but incremental improvements along with price drops one legacy equipment wouldn't be unreasonable. Eventually, someone will do a binary OS X compatibility layer and throw it on top of something like ElementaryOS (OS X 'styled' Linux distro: https://elementary.io ) - at that point, if it happens, it may become too late for Apple to recover share, at least from a number of folks that use their systems as tools vs fashion statements.
I believe iMessage was added with Lion, which is one of the main reasons I'll probably never switch back to Windows, but aside from that I agree...it's funny how many users to this day still basically miss the 'Snow Leopard days'. I think it represented the peak of Apple OSX; a point where loyal Mac users had the most reason to be proud of their OS choice. As the years have gone by post Snow Leopard, with Apple's ever fading commitment to the platform, the OS has never felt as efficient, reliable, or well-supported as it was in the Snow Leopard days. I never used to notice many bugs back then, and these days common bugs that users complain about are a dime-a-dozen, with many obvious defects never being addressed in subsequent software updates.
Well that's an easy one http://browser.primatelabs.com/geek...:"Intel+Core+i7-5557U"+frequency:3100+bits:32
So yeah, it's old, overpriced and underpowered (in addition to lacking graphic capabilities that would be on par).
Apple stuff in other words ;-)
Wait, comparing CPU with same TDP doesn't satisfy you ?
And then you keep your opinion by GUESSING the Skylakes released with the MBP will be more powerful than the current Kaby Lake ?
You'll have to explain your line of reasoning here, because all I see is wishful thinking and fanboyism Baring the fact (and while should we, in reality) that Kaby Lake has a superior graphical chip, what if it was slightly under in perf, wouldn't you still enjoy the lower TDP ? Or what if it was KabyLake 15W = (in power) to whatever old crap at 28W that Apple will release ? Then you get a proc that heats more (and overheating is never an issue on Macs, right ?
) and performs at best as well, minus the graphical capabilities. Not a good deal. Not to mention that it might very well be better in perf than whatever will be release, but wait&see.
Isn't the XPS a notch below the rMBP's? For example, the XPS will come with Kaby Lake in November (hence the sale on the Skylakes), but only a 15 watt version. My understanding is that the rMBPs use 45 watt cpu's. I'm not sure this makes a difference in practice, but I thought the XPS (while nice) was an Air competitor.
I would love to hear your impressions of the xps hardware since you have a MacBook Pro as well. How is the trackpad? I saw some people complaining about some kind of coil whine noise, dynamic contrast and apparently the auto brightness kind of stinks. I can't decide between the xps 13, OLED X11 yoga or surface book.
With the XPS coming with a 4k screen, I don't see it being on a level playing field as an Air.
The Dell XPS 15 comes with the 6700 HQ processor, having a TDP of 45 W. While it might be a notch behind the processor rumored for the MBP upgrade, it is clearly not the processor of the MBA: http://ark.intel.com/products/88967/Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
[doublepost=1476681184][/doublepost]
After waiting for months for the MBP upgrade, and refusing to buy outdated tech at full price, I caved in and bought the XPS 15 a couple of months ago. I already own(ed) a MBP 15, and had in mind just buying the new version when it came out, but I needed a new computer as I had kernel panics several times a day.
I havent regret that decision for one second: The computer is silent (SSD, no fan noise unless under heavy use) amazingly fast, Windows 10 has worked without a flaw and the screen (near-borderless 4K with true Adobe RGB) continues to amaze me.
The keyboard is very nice. I would still prefer the keyboard of the MBP which has a little more travel, but would put the XPX-keyboard on par with the butterfly keyboard of the rMB, also rumored to be found in the MBP-upgrade.
As for the trackpad, Apple has had an advantage for as long as I can remember. But Windows has made huge gains in the software controlling the trackpad, and today they are close enough that it does not matter to me. The haptic feedback is fine, but does not mean that much to me.
Last edited:
According to official Geekbench3 database, i7-7500U and i7-5557U have very similar results, in the ballpark of 7600 multi-threaded. The i7-7500U is generally slower, as I have said. What improves its score is higher performance in memory benchmarks, which makes perfect sense, as it has faster RAM. At any rate, it makes zero sense 'upgrading' the current 13" MBP to the Kaby Lake.
[doublepost=1476682832][/doublepost]
We were focusing on the 13" model here I think.
[doublepost=1476683644][/doublepost]
Wait, comparing CPU with same TDP doesn't satisfy you ?
And then you keep your opinion by GUESSING the Skylakes released with the MBP will be more powerful than the current Kaby Lake ?
Sigh...
Buddy, CPUs come in different power tiers. The 13" MBP uses mid-tier Broadwell CPU, with GT3 graphics (48 EU) while the only released Kaby Lakes are the low-tier CPUs, with GT2 graphics (24 EU). Yes, the low-tier Kaby Lake is faster than the low-tier Skylake or Broadwell. Which makes the new XPS faster then the MacBook Air, which also uses those low-tier CPUs. But the low-tier Kaby Lake is NOT FASTER than the mid-tier Broadwell CPU used in the current 13" MBP. It is at best on par in some synthetic benchmarks and will undoubtedly perform worse in professional workflows simply due to the fact that it is a low-power CPU which throttles down long before the mid-tier, mid-power CPU would. Yes, its more power efficient than what the current 13" MBP uses. And much of that power efficiency comes from the fact that its again a lower-tier CPU, with less thermal headroom.
In another words, there is zero sense in using these CPUs for the 13" MBP, unless you want to scrap the MBP line and just keep the MacBook Air. Thats essentially what these Dell and HP laptops are: a MacBook Air sold as a pro machine. More powerful Kaby Lake CPUs, that would be a match for the 13" MBP are scheduled to be released in Q1 2017.
In the end it makes sense to look at the details of the product and not just the name. You do know that Core M was rebranded as i5/i7 series now? A laptop with i7-7Y75 3.6Ghz Kaby Lake CPU does sound quite impressive, right? Don't fall for the marketing crap.
Last edited:
The reason why I'd wait forever or rather get an outdated MacBook instead of an Asus, or a Dell, or an Acer, or a Lenovo, or a HP is so crystal clear to me: macOS.
What's the point in having the latest and greatest hardware if you're running Windows? I'd trade that every single day for a great operating system.
What's the point in having the latest and greatest hardware if you're running Windows? I'd trade that every single day for a great operating system.
Last edited:
I agree 100%. I think some Mac users have forgotten how truly terrible Windows is.
I use macs all day long. But my main job is a .NET developer. And I live for the day when I won't have to press win key and type in 'regedit' to 'fix some stuff'. OS that uses registry editor isn't a worthy competitor to macOS.
I plan to buy a new MBP, but not the first generation.
I plan to buy a new MBP, but not the first generation.
I agree there, but Apple is so behind these days that it's starting to be better (for me, as a professional) to run an less OS fast rather than MacOS slow.
That's been getting good reviews, great design, up to date chipset, gorgeous screen. I was contemplating that machine a while back
It's not that the current MacBook Pro is unusable. What are you doing that the current Pro isn't capable of?
I can't answer for that member, but for me, its paying premium for a stale design, and technology that is several years old, where as for less money I can get a faster beautifully designed machine that is much faster using current technology.
He's referring to my original post, where I stated that having a good OS is more important to me than having the latest hardware.
So no, I'd never use a terrible OS only to have the latest technology.
But Windows 10 is not a terrible OS, it had some advantages over OS X (and OS X has some, over Windows).
It's just my opinion. I like the Apple ecosystem and how everything works together.
I've used Windows long enough and I still have to use it at work. But to me it's not nearly as good as macOS - especially for the things I do on my machine. That's why I wouldn't want to deal with it every single day only to be able to have the latest technology.
If you like Windows, it's perfectly fine. However, to me, it's not an option.
I won't detail too much but basically software development, running VMs, servers etc.
As Maflynn mentioned above, it's unacceptable to pay so much for such a slow machine, outdated on several levels.
Lets have a look:
- MB 12" - one generation behind (uses Skylake, newest is Kaby Lake)
- MBA - two generations behind (uses Broadwell, newest is Kaby Lake)
- MBP 13" - one generation behind (uses Broadwell, newest is Skylake)
- MBP 15" - two generations behind (uses Haswell, newest is Skylake)
All in all, the only machine that is really behind at the moment is the 15" MBP. Kaby Lake was just released this month, but would make a great upgrade for the 12" MB as well as the MBA. The 28W Kaby Lake for the 13" MBP are scheduled to release in Q1 2017, the quad-core models are a different story because of GPU issues.
I think the question here is why the 13/15 model never got a Skylake upgrade, even though the CPU was released some time ago. If I were to guess, I'd put my money on availability issues. The Skylake launch had its share of problems and I think that the higher-binned CPUs which Apple uses for its MBP line suffered from these problems the most. Basically, I would guess that Intel probably was not able to ship the quantities that Apple required. But that is just a guess. Another (more popular) option of course is that Apple wanted to save money and effort.
Since I saw your reply, I started looking for new Windows machines. I want to develop games and Windows users play more games than Mac users. I found Zenbook 3, though it has only an Intel HD 620, but I only want to develop 2D games. I think I will go with this device. Before you tell me, I liked the keyboard of it. I wven liked the Macbook keyboard more, but well, it has Core M (and M5/512GB model is more expensive in my country than i7-7500U/512GB Zenbook).
If you want to develop games get a deskside Windows system if you can. A lot more bang for the buck when it comes to graphics cards, processors, multiple monitors, etc. in a deskside system.