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.
The Ethics of Buying Both to Test
- Thread starter iRun26.2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is crazy, but...
I am becoming so convinced that the 13.3" version is for me that I am thinking that I might cancel my order through Apple, and, instead, order it through Adorama. I can not return the computer to them if I open it, but I would save $200 on my purchase relative to what Apple charges. I can't decide what to do!
I am becoming so convinced that the 13.3" version is for me that I am thinking that I might cancel my order through Apple, and, instead, order it through Adorama. I can not return the computer to them if I open it, but I would save $200 on my purchase relative to what Apple charges. I can't decide what to do!
Get both if you can afford it. I have a 13 and a 15 in the living room. When I'm in the living room, I just grab the one I want for the moment and put the other one on the charger. It means that there's always one of them charged up for use.
You might check out Best Buy, depending on your configuration. They are offering $200 off the base Ice Lake model and have their normal return policy. B&H is offering the 1TB version for $1799 and has a credit card that offers a sales tax rebate. Adorama is a good choice if you are looking to get AppleCare+, since they also discount that with the AppleInsider code.
The thing is I want the upper-end model with the 4TB SSD and 32G RAM. Best Buy doesn’t carry that one (or, at least, I could not find it on sale).
Through ‘Apple Insider’ (will we get in trouble for saying that here?) I can get the model I want at Adorama for $200 cheaper than at Apple. That is mighty tempting...
However, I just received an email that said the one I ordered through Apple has been shipped so I guess I can’t cancel it anymore (although I could send it back). I still kind of like the $200 extra I’m paying at Apple because it gives me “I changed my mind insurance”, something I wouldn’t have with Adorama.
But then, why would I change my mind? Well I’ve pretty much decided that the 16” is too big to be considered portable (though I greatly covet it’s processing power). Maybe I might decide the 13.3” screen isn’t good enough (though right now I have a 12” screen). I don’t know. I’m still bummed that they didn’t come out with a 14” screen version with mini-LED technology. Always something new coming around, I guess and I really do need a new computer.
My guess is that you'll be happy with whichever you pick. $200 spread out over three years isn't very much. I use the 13 and 15 all the time and I love the screen of the 15 and the lightness of the 13. But I could use either of these for the long haul.
It would be kind of nice to get both.
I suppose I could probably do that if I just bought the base model of each. After all, I am sinking a lot of money into my new computer’s large SSD (it always seems it is a lack of hard drive space that forces me to get a new computer...I want to avoid that next time).
That, though, wouldn’t work for several reasons. One, I need more than the base model’s RAM for my VM Windows software. Two, I have several engineering software packages that have a software key for only one computer operation. I wouldn’t get the luxury of changing that depending on my current need for portability or power.
I need one machine so that everything is right there in one portable package. I would not like having to sync the two computers.
I really think if I hadn’t discovered the usefulness of a large 4K monitor (connected to my 12” MacBook) I would be very likely to get the 16” machine for its display. It’s different now since when I’m at work I don’t need the big laptop screen any more.
It would be kind of nice to get both.
I suppose I could probably do that if I just bought the base model of each. After all, I am sinking a lot of money into my new computer’s large SSD (it always seems it is a lack of hard drive space that forces me to get a new computer...I want to avoid that next time).
That, though, wouldn’t work for several reasons. One, I need more than the base model’s RAM for my VM Windows software. Two, I have several engineering software packages that have a software key for only one computer operation. I wouldn’t get the luxury of changing that depending on my current need for portability or power.
I need one machine so that everything is right there in one portable package. I would not like having to sync the two computers.
I really think if I hadn’t discovered the usefulness of a large 4K monitor (connected to my 12” MacBook) I would be very likely to get the 16” machine for its display. It’s different now since when I’m at work I don’t need the big laptop screen any more.
If I had licensed software and wanted to use two computers, I'd just remote desktop into the one with the license.
I'm about to send a few more open boxes out into the wild, hahaha! Apple refuses to repair my constant kernel panic mbp 16, so I'm just going to keep buying and returning new ones every two weeks. My current machine is unusable and they've said to wait for the software fix. I'll wait in comfort with a nice new machine and get the fun of periodic unboxing.
I was thinking about having the genius bar do the transfer for me everytime, but that would be too much. I'm not a complete monster
I wonder if someone did this indefinitely how long it would take before Apple got wise to it and stopped you from doing that. Despite the fact that your problem has never been fixed, it isn’t ethical to continue to do so.
I’ve heard too many bad things about the 16” MacBook Pro (like the constant kernel panics) that it no longer is even a temptation to buy the 16” unit for comparison.
Good grief. You do realize that the subject of this thread is 'ethics'. The OP was criticized for thinking of doing something far less egregious. Incredible.
Incredible indeed, but my lack of ethics is a response in kind and I hate that I'm forced to act this way. That didn't come through in my reply, but I really do. I announced my intention (buy/return) quite clearly to both the checkout person and the manager she subsequently called in to help after hearing my situation. I'm just hopeful the absurdity of what I'm doing will provoke some action that my 10 hours on phone with apple support have not.
To be clear, I have only purchased one new machine so far, and it's my sincere hope that Apple steps up to the plate and does the right thing. I will note in my defense that this option was suggested by an Apple support technician as a way to keep working while my machine was being fixed. I was content to wait for my repair, but when I saw the pitiful response by the Apple Service Center (merely reinstalling the OS and calling it good - the laptop opened to a boot loop out of the fedex box) I grew angry and did just that.
The kernel panic thread here on MR (and on apple support) I posted on is full of people complaining about this very issue for months with similar weak assurances given to them by Apple. Some appear to have been treated as hardware failures, but only after repeated efforts and hours on the phone with Support. Obviously these machines are incredibly complicated and aren't guaranteed to be perfect. But, when things go wrong, ethical companies make it right. We've seen this pattern of denial, denial, denial, followed by a belated acknowledgement from Apple before.
At what point will you just give up? What you are doing is a lot of work...for you! Your actions don’t seem to be working.
I think the "returned" one can't be sold as new anymore. So it probably will end up being used as a replacement unit where Apple will lose a bit of the profit for said unit.
They are retested / certified and then repackaged (like they were new) and then sold as refurbs. Usually about a couple hundred dollars cheaper than new.
My 2020 13.3” 10th gen 2.3GHz i7, 32G RAM, 4TB SSD just arrived, late in the evening today.
At this time (I have not fired it up yet - I’ll do that tomorrow) I have no intention of buying another computer to test it against. So the purpose of this whole thread has been sort of muted.
I am tempted, however, to do something which I do consider unethical: Once I decide I like it, return it to Apple and save $200 by ordering it instead from Adorama... but I won’t do that. And saving $200 wouldn’t be worth having to buy another copy of Parallels, reinstall Windows, wait an addition week, etc.
I think the only reason I might send it back is if I decide that I should have purchased the 2TB SSD version rather than the 4TB SSD version. It always seems to me that the reason I get a new computer is primarily because I run out of storage space. I don’t want that to happen on this computer, thus I bought a huge SSD.
At this time (I have not fired it up yet - I’ll do that tomorrow) I have no intention of buying another computer to test it against. So the purpose of this whole thread has been sort of muted.
I am tempted, however, to do something which I do consider unethical: Once I decide I like it, return it to Apple and save $200 by ordering it instead from Adorama... but I won’t do that. And saving $200 wouldn’t be worth having to buy another copy of Parallels, reinstall Windows, wait an addition week, etc.
I think the only reason I might send it back is if I decide that I should have purchased the 2TB SSD version rather than the 4TB SSD version. It always seems to me that the reason I get a new computer is primarily because I run out of storage space. I don’t want that to happen on this computer, thus I bought a huge SSD.
Last edited:
I am not happy...
My new MacBook Pro, running Windows 10 through Parallels, is slower than the 2019 quad-core Dell Inspiron 3493 Windows 10 computer I’ve been comparing it to. At least it is for the FPGA development software (Libero/Microsemi) tests I’ve been running (some multi-core but also a goodly amount of single core operation).
Now I guess it really should not come as a surprise (duh!) since having to share resources between Mac OS X and Windows 10 puts my new 13.3” MacBook Pro at somewhat of a disadvantage. I somehow imagined my newer computer with faster RAM, a top of line processor, and (hopefully) a better cooling system might even give the MacBook Pro an advantage. During my tests the fans of the Dell turned on while my MacBook Pro seemed perfect quiet (or, at least, I could not hear my MacBook Pro computer over the roar of the Dell computer's fans). This was surprising to me.
Now the question becomes, is my new MacBook Pro really slower because of Parallels sharing the computers cores or is it just a slower computer. Assuming there isn't some adjustment I could make to Parallels to prioritize my Windows 10 virtual machine, this leaves me with a few other options:
1) I can now order an 8-core 16” MacBook Pro for comparison without really feeling any guilt whatsoever. If the sharing of the cores gives my 13.3” a significant handicap, then the 16" MacBook Pro should even the score, making it a bit more of a fair contest (I might even go so far as to speculate that it should to be faster than the Dell). The trouble is that I really don't like the size of the 16" machine and I've read too much about excessive heat and fan noise. I adore my new 13.3" MacBook Pro! I love how quiet it is. I do wish it was a little thinner and lighter (like my 2015 12" MacBook) but in every other way it is a huge upgrade (2 x cores, 4 x RAM, 8 x SSD size, and an enjoyable keyboard, not just a keyboard to simply 'put up with').
2) Set up Boot Camp on my new MacBook Pro and retest. I still believe that my new MacBook Pro is probably a more efficient machine than the reference 3493 Inspiron Dell computer so I would expect better results in Boot Camp. Again, however, this is not ideal because I prefer to run Windows in tandem with OS X. I'd almost certainly have to load an additional copy of MATLAB for the Boot Camp partition. Luckily, the extra hard drive space isn't a huge concern as I have the 4TB SSD version of the 2020 MacBook Pro. It just wouldn't be the same experience as, for example, I would not have my music library available to listen to in Boot Camp and all of my other preferred Mac OS X applications would be unavailable. Hopefully rebooting between Windows and Boot Camp wouldn't take up too much time with my fast SSD.
3) I could just live with the slightly slower performance and consider it the price that had to be paid to be able to run Windows 10 in an OS X setting. Currently my workflow is predominately the FPGA development tools that I am using. However, I do many different daily tasks and may very well finish up the FPGA project in a few months (and not need to use this specific software for a while). I really don't have any other software that I regularly use that really pushes the performance demands like my FPGA tools does. Thus, like Boot Camp, I may be able to live with the inconvenience of not operating my computer in the desired mode for short periods of time.
4) I could also order a Windows 10 PC and have to live with two computers/operating systems (I must have OS X too as I have done some iPhone app development). As I've said before, I think I'd rather lug around the 16" beast than tote two laptops wherever I need them (but I wouldn't be fond of the beast in the first place).
I wonder if there is a way to better optimize Parallels for Window's operation. I will need to look into that. However, at this point, my mood over my lovely new laptop has soured a bit. I'm hoping to find a way to make it work.
My new MacBook Pro, running Windows 10 through Parallels, is slower than the 2019 quad-core Dell Inspiron 3493 Windows 10 computer I’ve been comparing it to. At least it is for the FPGA development software (Libero/Microsemi) tests I’ve been running (some multi-core but also a goodly amount of single core operation).
Now I guess it really should not come as a surprise (duh!) since having to share resources between Mac OS X and Windows 10 puts my new 13.3” MacBook Pro at somewhat of a disadvantage. I somehow imagined my newer computer with faster RAM, a top of line processor, and (hopefully) a better cooling system might even give the MacBook Pro an advantage. During my tests the fans of the Dell turned on while my MacBook Pro seemed perfect quiet (or, at least, I could not hear my MacBook Pro computer over the roar of the Dell computer's fans). This was surprising to me.
Now the question becomes, is my new MacBook Pro really slower because of Parallels sharing the computers cores or is it just a slower computer. Assuming there isn't some adjustment I could make to Parallels to prioritize my Windows 10 virtual machine, this leaves me with a few other options:
1) I can now order an 8-core 16” MacBook Pro for comparison without really feeling any guilt whatsoever. If the sharing of the cores gives my 13.3” a significant handicap, then the 16" MacBook Pro should even the score, making it a bit more of a fair contest (I might even go so far as to speculate that it should to be faster than the Dell). The trouble is that I really don't like the size of the 16" machine and I've read too much about excessive heat and fan noise. I adore my new 13.3" MacBook Pro! I love how quiet it is. I do wish it was a little thinner and lighter (like my 2015 12" MacBook) but in every other way it is a huge upgrade (2 x cores, 4 x RAM, 8 x SSD size, and an enjoyable keyboard, not just a keyboard to simply 'put up with').
2) Set up Boot Camp on my new MacBook Pro and retest. I still believe that my new MacBook Pro is probably a more efficient machine than the reference 3493 Inspiron Dell computer so I would expect better results in Boot Camp. Again, however, this is not ideal because I prefer to run Windows in tandem with OS X. I'd almost certainly have to load an additional copy of MATLAB for the Boot Camp partition. Luckily, the extra hard drive space isn't a huge concern as I have the 4TB SSD version of the 2020 MacBook Pro. It just wouldn't be the same experience as, for example, I would not have my music library available to listen to in Boot Camp and all of my other preferred Mac OS X applications would be unavailable. Hopefully rebooting between Windows and Boot Camp wouldn't take up too much time with my fast SSD.
3) I could just live with the slightly slower performance and consider it the price that had to be paid to be able to run Windows 10 in an OS X setting. Currently my workflow is predominately the FPGA development tools that I am using. However, I do many different daily tasks and may very well finish up the FPGA project in a few months (and not need to use this specific software for a while). I really don't have any other software that I regularly use that really pushes the performance demands like my FPGA tools does. Thus, like Boot Camp, I may be able to live with the inconvenience of not operating my computer in the desired mode for short periods of time.
4) I could also order a Windows 10 PC and have to live with two computers/operating systems (I must have OS X too as I have done some iPhone app development). As I've said before, I think I'd rather lug around the 16" beast than tote two laptops wherever I need them (but I wouldn't be fond of the beast in the first place).
I wonder if there is a way to better optimize Parallels for Window's operation. I will need to look into that. However, at this point, my mood over my lovely new laptop has soured a bit. I'm hoping to find a way to make it work.
It’s not “unethical.” I buy at least two of every Apple product I buy because I know at least one is going to have some kind of issue because of their **** quality control. Sadly, I’ve been right every time. Apple is not the pinnacle of morality themselves anyway (far from it), so I don’t see a return as a mortal sin, but what do I know.
I once installed OSX in a VM and compared performance in the VM with base OS performance. The VM was much slower. You could possibly try to run a synthetic benchmark in the VM to get some data.
There is not so many thing you can tune. Start by looking at performance in the VM using windows tools, Win 10 runs a lot of stuff in the background. Especially if the VM has been suspended, Windows start by phoning home, checking for updates and running anti virus. Even on my 16” the VM is almost unusable for 15 minutes, with up to 100% CPU usage from the ”background” processes. I start up the VM and then take a coffe or two. Shut of all non-essential stuff in the VM, give the machine more virtual cores and all the memory it needs. Personally I really hate this behaviour of Win 10. It feels much slower than Win 7 for same tasks on the same HW.
Then check on the Mac side that you are not starving the OS, I make sure that OSX has at leats half of memory and cores available.
I have said earlier in this thread that your application looks more single threaded and that I think you would benefit more from the 16” sustained single thread performance. You could try to change the number of virtual cores in your VM to test this hypothesis.
There is not so many thing you can tune. Start by looking at performance in the VM using windows tools, Win 10 runs a lot of stuff in the background. Especially if the VM has been suspended, Windows start by phoning home, checking for updates and running anti virus. Even on my 16” the VM is almost unusable for 15 minutes, with up to 100% CPU usage from the ”background” processes. I start up the VM and then take a coffe or two. Shut of all non-essential stuff in the VM, give the machine more virtual cores and all the memory it needs. Personally I really hate this behaviour of Win 10. It feels much slower than Win 7 for same tasks on the same HW.
Then check on the Mac side that you are not starving the OS, I make sure that OSX has at leats half of memory and cores available.
I have said earlier in this thread that your application looks more single threaded and that I think you would benefit more from the 16” sustained single thread performance. You could try to change the number of virtual cores in your VM to test this hypothesis.
Well, it sounds like your usage has some specific challenges. Not sure those were mentioned earlier, or at least not in this detail; perhaps others here smarter than I regarding the demands of running Parallels/Windows 10 alongside Mac OS would have anticipated this disadvantage for the 13" model and advised you more towards the more powerful 16". If in fact the 16" with 8-cores will in fact be more suitable?
At this point I can fully understand the desire to evaluate the 16", keeping in mind that the clock is running on how much time you can take to try the 13" before you'll either have to return it, or live with it. With the further complication that the announcements at WWDC could cause you further angst!
Your OP didn't say that your current computer was broken or that you required a replacement on any particular timeframe. It is a 2019 Dell? If your work must be done on software that can't be operated on the Mac OS and requires Windows, then why not get a more powerful Windows laptop? If most of your laptop time is spent running that program then that is probably the most cost effective solution.
I know, we are all Mac fans here, but is trying to make a MacBook Pro perform (via Parallels) as well as a Windows laptop with a more powerful processor than what your Dell currently has, really the best solution?
At this point, if I was in your shoes, I might return the 13" and then keep my eye on what is announced and what is foreseen within the next 6 months or so. You have concerns about the current 16" Pro, so why not wait? The rumor mill says that mini-LED MacBook Pros at both 14-inch and 16-inch are coming in late 2020 or early 2021.
I have run Parallels with Windows on Macs before and it's been a good experience but it depends on what you are doing. I was only running a trading application which eventually didn't work out (issues with the software or Windows more than Parallels). You are going to lose performance with virtualization in some areas. It may be that your applications don't work well with virtualization and that you might be better off with Boot Camp.
My long-term approach was to get rid of Windows programs that I had to run and I eventually got it down to two and then worked really hard to find macOS equivalents for those two programs.
My long-term approach was to get rid of Windows programs that I had to run and I eventually got it down to two and then worked really hard to find macOS equivalents for those two programs.
I'm not sure why that would be a surprise, There is a penalty for running an operating system virtualized.
It still may not be as fast as the Dell, I'm not knocking the MBP, but just pointing out that the bottleneck isn't the number of cores but the fact that you're not running the operating system directly against the hardware. Vms are always slower.
This is the best option, if you need performance, or direct access to the hardware.
Depending on your tasks, that's not a bad choice. For instance, I preferred the lower performance, because I was only using MS Office at the time, and the convenience of not needing to shut down my macOS environment was of higher importance.
I generally shy away from this set up, simply because I naturally gravitated to a single machine, basically, buying two laptops but I then would only use one. Since your Mac can run windows, you can either live with the performance hit within parallels or install bootcamp