The Verge: The MacBook Pro is a lie

[jjjoseph]

just saying...

There was so much excitement and buzz when the iPhone came out, people waiting in lines, sleeping in lines. This release is full of Luke Warm "I GUESS ITS OK" and Professional User Frustration, Dongle Chaos and lower specs at a higher price.. The MacBook Pro is also not a new release, its an update to an established computer line up, and its supposed to be an UPDATE to that line up. Its not a new product to the market, just a mediocre change to that already established market.

If this was really supposed to be such a game changer, why is everyone so frustrated by it. The iPhone came with open arms, this MacBook Pro comes with forced acceptance.

Not even close to anything similar to the iPhone release.

 

[jackoatmon]

i heard that the storage SSD is so bad it starts forgetting things and you'll be like hey siri what did you have for dinner yesterday and siri is like who are you? i don't believe we've met. and you're like but siri we've known each other for years and then siri's like, we're sorry, the virgin mobile customer you've dialed is unavailable and suddenly you're just standing there holding a 3 1/2 inch floppy disk

alone

in a parking lot late at night

 

[AdonisSMU]

I've run VMs on my Intel Core 2 Duo 1GB RAM HDD GPUless barebone back in the days. So what?

The point is I don't need 32GB of ram. I'm not even convinced 99.9% of anyone does tbqh. Most people and apps are just using the ram that is available inefficiently.
[doublepost=1478566791][/doublepost]

What exactly makes it more pro than any other laptop ?!! I pre-ordered and mine arrives next week....but to claim this is the most pro laptop .....no....my old 17 " MacBook Pro is more pro than this will ever be.

No its not. It's an outdated slow pro. Sorry.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

The point is I don't need 32GB of ram. I'm not even convinced 99.9% of anyone does tbqh. Most people and apps are just using the ram that is available inefficiently.

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...-go-away----but-did-gates-really-say-it-.html

 

[AdonisSMU]

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...-go-away----but-did-gates-really-say-it-.html

I don't care what someone said in 1981. I'm stating what I believe real world usage is. I use a 16 gig computer everyday at work. It uses multiple VMs, ram hogs Chrome and Atom, Sketch, Zeplin and other programs and I don't come close to 16GB ram usage.

 

[jjjoseph]

I don't care what someone said in 1981. I'm stating what I believe real world usage is. I use a 16 gig computer everyday at work. It uses multiple VMs, ram hogs Chrome and Atom, Sketch, Zeplin and other programs and I don't come close to 16GB ram usage.

Animation, CG, virtual visualization, video editing, motion graphics, anything with 4K, any high level debayer done in the background. All these things use more than 16gb of Ram. My resolve work station for doing commercial color grading won't even open unless I have at least 24gb or Ram, and that's just HD resolution. For 4K at least 32gb to even get up and running. Also any OFX plugins ESP if they do regraining or any noise reduction need 32gb of Ram. And that's just HD resolution.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

I don't care what someone said in 1981.

This is why you're bound to repeat same mistakes.

 

[Freyqq]

I don't care what someone said in 1981. I'm stating what I believe real world usage is. I use a 16 gig computer everyday at work. It uses multiple VMs, ram hogs Chrome and Atom, Sketch, Zeplin and other programs and I don't come close to 16GB ram usage.

Video editing can eat up 16 GB pretty quickly. It all depends on what you are doing with it.

 

[xmonkey]

Animation, CG, virtual visualization, video editing, motion graphics, anything with 4K, any high level debayer done in the background. All these things use more than 16gb of Ram. My resolve work station for doing commercial color grading won't even open unless I have at least 24gb or Ram, and that's just HD resolution. For 4K at least 32gb to even get up and running. Also any OFX plugins ESP if they do regraining or any noise reduction need 32gb of Ram. And that's just HD resolution.

Sounds like you need a desktop, not a laptop.

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

Sounds like you need a desktop, not a laptop.

Stawp it.

 

[dazz87]

 

[jjjoseph]

Sounds like you need a desktop, not a laptop.

When working on film or tv shoots onsite it's very inconvenient and sometimes impossible to carry around a desktop. One of my first job was working for National Geographic television and you have to setup shoots in remote locations. We always where waiting for laptops to be as fast as desktops. So according to your philosophy I lug a desktop into the middle of the desert?

 

[tryrtryrtryrt]

When working on film or tv shoots onsite it's very inconvenient and sometimes impossible to carry around a desktop. One of my first job was working for National Geographic television and you have to setup shoots in remote locations. We always where waiting for laptops to be as fast as desktops. So according to your philosophy I lug a desktop into the middle of the desert?

 

[jjjoseph]

I'm obviously amongst the titans of the industry. Great argument.

 

[xmonkey]

When working on film or tv shoots onsite it's very inconvenient and sometimes impossible to carry around a desktop. One of my first job was working for National Geographic television and you have to setup shoots in remote locations. We always where waiting for laptops to be as fast as desktops. So according to your philosophy I lug a desktop into the middle of the desert?

Of course not, don't be silly. But clearly Apple isn't designing laptops for your needs so you should be looking elsewhere.

It's not "my philosophy", by the way. I'm just trying to be realistic. You clearly have some pretty high computing power needs. Needs that the vast majority of MBP users will never have. Apple didn't want to make the design sacrifices necessary to give you what you want. Them's the breaks.

Laptops will never be as fast as desktops at the tasks you're talking about, either.

 

[Ethosik]

People, for the love of god, PLEASE learn how memory works. I have 128GB on my Windows desktop. Guess what? After Effects is set up to use 124GB of it. It actually USES 124GB.

 

[jjjoseph]

Of course not, don't be silly. But clearly Apple isn't designing laptops for your needs so you should be looking elsewhere.

It's not "my philosophy", by the way. I'm just trying to be realistic. You clearly have some pretty high computing power needs. Needs that the vast majority of MBP users will never have. Apple didn't want to make the design sacrifices necessary to give you what you want. Them's the breaks.

Laptops will never be as fast as desktops at the tasks you're talking about, either.

My point is Apple used to make computers for my industry. But all of a sudden stopped. My whole company is Apple and we have had millions invested in Apple hardware.

Apple made Shake then killed it. It made Final Cut Pro then killed it. Apple made the ProRes codec then killed it. Apple made pro laptops then killed it.

My whole industry was Apple. If Apple didn't make hardware for us in the past my whole industry would be Windows or Linux.

That's my point.

 

[MH01]

The point is I don't need 32GB of ram. I'm not even convinced 99.9% of anyone does tbqh. Most people and apps are just using the ram that is available inefficiently.
[doublepost=1478566791][/doublepost]
No its not. It's an outdated slow pro. Sorry.

The point was, when the 2009 17 mbp was released it was a "Pro" machine. There is nothing pro about the 2016 MacBook Pro. To be honest the 2011 17 MacBook Pro supports 16GB ram.....

While i get you don't need 32, and might not even need 16, I can assure you 99.9% of pros are not okay with 16. Of the general public , 99.9% are okay, but again, this is no pro machine. I make my judgement on the keyboard alone, if you spend a lot of time typing for work, you are in for a rude surprise. As I type this on my 12 MacBook. Okay for small periods....but complete form over function. Pros don't buy machines that are form over function .... In my point of view . It's a posers laptop, that will be exclusive due to its price and popular in trendy places..

 

[Ethosik]

The point was, when the 2009 17 mbp was released it was a "Pro" machine. There is nothing pro about the 2016 MacBook Pro. To be honest the 2011 17 MacBook Pro supports 16GB ram.....

While i get you don't need 32, and might not even need 16, I can assure you 99.9% of pros are not okay with 16. Of the general public , 99.9% are okay, but again, this is no pro machine. I make my judgement on the keyboard alone, if you spend a lot of time typing for work, you are in for a rude surprise. As I type this on my 12 MacBook. Okay for small periods....but complete form over function. Pros don't buy machines that are form over function .... In my point of view . It's a posers laptop, that will be exclusive due to its price and popular in trendy places..

People need to stop defining what a Pro system is. According to people here, these have never been Pro machines. A Pro machine to people here are ones that either a) play the most recent games at max settings and have only 40 minutes of battery life like windows gaming laptops or b) have quadro graphics cards. Neither of these have ever been what the MacBook Pro has ever done.

 

[mildocjr]

Except that the iPhone was a huge success because Apple cut the price of the iPhone (by way of subsidizes), for the MBP, they raised the price.

Plus you're quoting a competitor who's very job is to marginalize he competition, heck Cook does that all the time with Android.

The difference now, is that the very customers that apple is trying to entice are saying its not a good fit for their needs.

FYI this is pertinent

http://www.recode.net/2016/11/7/13548032/steve-ballmer-apple-iphone-bloomberg

 

[jjjoseph]

People need to stop defining what a Pro system is. According to people here, these have never been Pro machines. A Pro machine to people here are ones that either a) play the most recent games at max settings and have only 40 minutes of battery life like windows gaming laptops or b) have quadro graphics cards. Neither of these have ever been what the MacBook Pro has ever done.

This doesn't even deserve a response, Your outta it. I call trolling.

I had a 17" MacBook Pro runnning final cut and shake I was pro and top of the pile back then. The current Adobe CC equivalent by today's standards, a just as expensive MacBook Pro, puts me just above Entry level, a little above "MacBook" not anywhere close to what was pro back then.

 

[Ethosik]

This doesn't even deserve a response, Your outta it. I call trolling.

I had a 17" MacBook Pro runnning final cut and shake I was pro and top of the pile back then. The current Adobe CC equivalent by today's standards, a just as expensive MacBook Pro, puts me just above Entry level, a little above "MacBook" not anywhere close to what was pro back then.

And so how are these 2016 MacBook pros incapable of doing ANY PROFESSIONAL work AT ALL? That is what everyone here is saying. You can't do ANY Pro work on these machines.

 

[kanyehameha]

The MacBook Pro is a lie? Explain the Surface "Pro" 4 and its 15w Intel CPU. The device is surely not worthy of the "Pro" moniker, and its raw performance (or lack thereof) certainly is not sufficient for "intensive professional needs".

 

[Ethosik]

The MacBook Pro is a lie? Explain the Surface "Pro" 4 and its 15w Intel CPU. The device is surely not worthy of the "Pro" moniker, and its raw performance (or lack thereof) certainly is not sufficient for "intensive professional needs".

But I can run dozens of VMs and have 32GB of RAM with the Surface Pro. Oh wait, I can't!

 

[hiddenmarkov]

People need to stop defining what a Pro system is. According to people here, these have never been Pro machines. A Pro machine to people here are ones that either a) play the most recent games at max settings and have only 40 minutes of battery life like windows gaming laptops or b) have quadro graphics cards. Neither of these have ever been what the MacBook Pro has ever done.

when we refer to gaming laptops some of us are eyeing the cuda (or open cl) cores of the gaming card. See NVidia learned to double dip. How do you get an IT manager and the bean counters to sign off on buying NVidia cards to upgrade your work rigs graphics and abilites (since they had the stigma of being gaming only).



Answer: Cuda. When not playing games these cards help intense processes by helping the CPU out taking on computational loads. Open cl is the same, its a bit more open and amd's version. run a before and after of the same process same conditions with using this core use technology....and you notice a difference.

As VR expands...it will be a pro benchmark as well. VR relies heavily on gaming technology. The same game engines that make a game....are used in VR with modification to support VR functionality.

And yes....these cards are have been a pro standard for PC. its a recent change for laptops as a few years ago these were not going into laptops too well. its been a standard on PC for a while.

Your computer history assignment (if you choose to accept it lol). research a company called 3d labs. They made video cards for very specific reasons. Many years ago they incorporated tech that if supported in applications could speed up rendering and such. It made your rig "Pro" for say 3d studio max work way back in around 2004.

As you saw a very nice jump in rendering times using them. Where as on a more generic PC....you'd take much longer to do the same exact task. Adobe as I recall also coded for this card long ago.