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.
What's your opinion on the MacBook Pro not being a professional's computer?
- Thread starter MacSumo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is kind of a nonsense thread, though it's interesting that it kind of takes apart the nonsense-idea of a "professional" computer. Like, I'm a "professional", but I mostly use a bunch of crappy computers at work. Some people seem to mean "quality", which is a good point. I'd actually like to know what the best quality laptops on the market are in terms of lack-of-annoying-problems, failure rates, etc--the Toyotas vs. the Dodges. The Macbook Pro may very well not be the best, though it's obviously better than a lot of them.
Then, there is the use of a computer for some "professional" task, but that is really individualized to the professional--if you do video editing, you need one kind of computer and if you do other kinds of work, you might need another (a lot of "professionals" need to use some kind of Windows software).
But the general idea of a "professional" computer is just a marketing device to distinguish more-expensive, somewhat-more-powerful computers from less expensive ones. Three decades ago, there was a clear difference between a computer that someone who was a tech professional might use and a consumer computer, like my Commodore 64. Now, most computers are capable of both pretty complex stuff and generic consumer activity. Either your computer does what you need it to do or it doesn't.
Last edited:
While I generally agree with your sentiment, there are two reasons I've continued to reply (other than the sheer amusement I get out of blasting troll-ish ideas out of the water):
1) There are people who see ideas like that of the OP and wonder if they have merit. Failure to rebut and may lead some of those people to believe that the ideas do have merit, rather than debunking the silly nonsense.
2) The temperature discussion is actually pretty interesting, and nuanced at that. I'm personally of the opinion that Apple's process is sub-standard, and it probably does increase the probability of failure over time, but that it's also unlikely to be a big deal. Sadly, what this thread lacks is empirical data, which is what would make it really interesting.
----------
It's a semantic debate, I think. Either way, a modern 15" offers the same resolution and vastly superior specs, so other than old people with bad eyesight who need a lower pixel density, I remain pretty perplexed by the diehard 17" crowd.
I can't explain it any more simply than confusing cause and effect. If that's too complicated for you (and your new account created two days ago, might I add), then I'm really not sure what else to say.
Of course, others in this thread have already called you out on your...shall we say...suspicious new account. And I already tore your previous post to shreds. So, I suppose it's not surprising that you're upset.
Switching off the Turbo Boost brings an interesting twist to this phenomenon. I ran my tests on HandBrake 8-core encoding process, whereby by definition Turbo Boost should not even kick in (if all cores are equally loaded), but the CPU core temp decreases by 20*C anyway and fans stop whirring.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=18474873#post18474873
I actually think the guy you responded to in that thread is incorrect, but I would welcome someone to set the record straight if I'm correct. TurboBoost can still kick in when all 4 cores are active, but at a scaled version (or not at all) depending upon load and, I believe, heat. It used to be the case that TurboBoost was only for a single core, but that changed back with Sandy Bridge.
I firmly believe that if you're using your MBP for pro use and want long term reliability you have to get a decent cooling pad and ramp the fans up higher than the standard thresholds. I've had clients logic board failures due to the GPU drop drastically since they took the advice.
If it needs to be opened up for any major task - a re-paste of the heat pipe thermal compound too.
If it needs to be opened up for any major task - a re-paste of the heat pipe thermal compound too.
I was running video encoding on a Macbook Pro 2010 for 3 years up until I upgraded with this new batch and never experience any hardware failure.
This was all done in Australian climate, un-airconditioned home office that would peak up to 30C at least on warm days in summer. No cooling pad was used and I'd run it maybe half the time in clamshell mode.
Sure, the chassis ran warm and the fans ramped up, but they did their job and I've had no faults with the machine. The MBPr runs a LOT cooler than this laptop.
The laptop was passed over to my dad who mainly does email and general web browsing/You Tube. It still runs perfectly fine.
You know what? That post really had me laughing so thanks for that.
On top of all your false allegations and remarks your response was so nonsensical that it didn't even merit a response.
Only reason for responding now is that I pity delusions so I hope you work it out.
I'm in freezing Pom land and get it here lol. With long term solder problems related to heat expansion/contraction it's a lottery on how good the solder connections were when the logic board was manufactured. I reckon the 15 inch models with discrete GPU since they went unibody do get too hot inside, though the design does dissipate the heat well I've cleaned off too much powdered thermal paste to think otherwise. When you are running jobs that require hard use of the CPU and GPU that's the advice I recommend to my clients and it seems to be working.
Yea fair enough. I'm certainly not trying to discount any issues you have seem or resolved with clients also. Nor am I trying to cast the opinion that just because I have no issues, others do not. But, I feel that the OP certainly is trying that tack on and saying that they have issues therefore everyone has to have issues no matter what. Silly position to take.
Perhaps maybe here in pommie land as it's colder it causes more problems as the ambient temperature here is far less than oz for probably 10 months a year.
All I do is pass on any info I find might be useful to others having had to repair and maintain them. My 17 sits on a Zalman pad at home, though since I got the Mac Pro it doesn't do anything really hard any more!
Fortunately, all 17" MBP's easily provide longer battery life (with good batteries) - and their chargers are 250g only (I've just measured mine).
----------
But significantly lower screen estate. And that's what counts - again, with a 17" MBP, it's not as important to use an external monitor as with a 15" one, should you need as much screen estate as possible.
And, again, no double-spin system, making it necessary to keep an external drive with you, should you want to add a for example spinning hard disk for excellent price / storage ratio.
We're just pissed off by Apple's abandoning us because there were "too few" of us purchasing their top line.
I'm a fan of the 17 though not diehard. I prefer the extra real estate as I'm usually further away from the screen than most, they run cooler and the battery lasts a lot longer. My 2010 will get replaced by a late 2011 TB model as I can transplant the 1tb SSD inside it.
Until the top retina's issues with screen gamut and scrolling are a thing of the past I don't think I will consider downsizing either.
Last edited:
I really don't see why "real estate" matters, except for people with bad eyes (like I already mentioned). The number of pixels is the same. That means the total amount of stuff you can fit on there is also the same.
Sure, but increasingly what you gain there you're losing in performance in other areas.
I get it. Really, I do. I don't like it when a manufacturer eliminates choices, especially when those choices satisfy the needs and desires of a particular niche. And if I felt like I were in your same boat, I'd be pretty pissed off too.
Nope. Assuming the same eye and a Retina screen (non-existing in any of the 17" models; I'm speaking of an imaginary for example 4K 17" model), you can have significantly more information (e.g., open windows) on the same screen at the same time.
Sure, it does increase the size/weight. (There's no battery life penalty as the HDD in the DVD bay is only spinning when it's really needed.) However, it's far more productive not to have to carry around external hard drives and being always 100% sure you do have access to your files. It's pretty much essential if you, for example, often install apps to iDevices using iTunes and you keep your iTunes storage on a spinning medium.
One of us must be confused. The 17" had 1920x1200 resolution (http://support.apple.com/kb/sp621). That's the exact same resolution I'm running on my 15" Retina as I type this. Are you speaking in hypothetical terms, i.e., of a non-existent Retina 17"?
I guess, although the expensive option B is just to get a 1TB Retina. I guess if you want more than 1TB of storage, then the dual drive option is a necessity.
Meh. Either of them big enough reason to change a MBP from non-professional computer to professional computer.
You said 17" monitor is the size where we don't want/need an external monitor anymore? Well that only applies to you, not to everyone. Everyone has their own level of satisfaction. Some people think 15" is the size they can live with, others want even bigger size monitor than a 17" can offer. Do not generalise what other people want just because 17" is what you are happy with.
Dual-spin drives. I wonder how many percentage of people actually took out their DVD drive and install another hard drive into that slot. By the time they have run out of space in the original hard drive, it may be cheaper to take out that drive and put in a newer and bigger drive. To me it is not a BIG advantage.
If they stick to an SSD as a primary OS drive is, then, such an upgrade would be very costly. A 256SSD + 1TB HDD dual-spin combo (the one I have in my 17") is still far less expensive than even a single 512SSD, let alone a 768 one.
Yes, a non-existing one; this is why I've emphasized in my OP it'd be an "imaginary for example 4K 17" model".
Should they have kept the 17" model, we could have a Retina 17" now. Not necessarily with true 4K resolution, though. After all, all current 13/15 Retina models have doubled the screen res of the lower-res option of both the original 13 and 15 lines, and not the higher-res ones. (2880*1800 is the Retina version of the lower-res (1440*900) original 15" model, not that of the higher-res (1680*1050) one.)
That is, I'm absolutely certain they would have gone for the (historically) lower-res 17" option too, doubling its resolution, to 3360*2100, instead of providing us with a true 4K screen. Nevertheless, 3360*2100 would be GREAT on a 17" screen.
----------
I did explain in my original post that for 4+ weeks a year I simply couldn't use external monitors because of the lack of current. I in no way implied this applies to most people - after all, few people may have Finnish summer cottages, a long distance away from anything else, here
This is one of the reasons I (would) prefer sticking with the 17" model - the other is being a dual-spin system with very easy and cheap upgradability (SSD + HDD combo).