Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Looking forward to see the new XPS! I am wondering what they would upgrade it with though. AFAIK the sad core Kaby Lake is still not available at that point?

There have been leaked tests suggesting that it's with manufacturers already.

If the quadcore comes with the new XPS (and 1050ti) it will guide my upgrade path.

If it doesn't, I might wait until the Surfacebook 2 in the summer.

If that's crap, hell, I may as well wait until the 2018 MBPs...
 
Sure they do. That's what the Air was.

Air started out as an experimental machine, sure, but its certainly not niche. Its very much a general-purpose machine for people who don't need performance ein their daily work. I know a lot of educators and scientists who use the MBA as their main computer.

That's just not true. Look at the old 17" MBPs from a few years back; those were not "ultraportable". They were much closer to "jack of all trades". The 2016 isn't a jack of all trades. It's a jack of one trade exactly, "being thin".

I would indeed consider the 17" to be ultraportable if you look in its respective category. It weighted 3kg at the time when a comparable 17" laptop was at least 3.5kg. Similarly, the 15" Apple laptops were around 2.5 kg where the category average for 15" was >3kg.

And even then the 17" did not have any more powerful hardware inside than the 15". Its only real merit was the increased screen resolution (needed by some professionals) and bigger battery. And thats why Appel ditched that model the moment they got the tech to have a higher-res display in the 15" chassis.

When everyone I know who used to develop for Mac and iOS for fun because they were programmers who used macs has quit because there's no machines that come even close to meeting their needs

Programmers need gaming GPUs? Whut?

What ever happened to "Think Different"? I don't remember when Apple changed their slogan to "Think Lowest Common Denominator".

Again, Apple's design for the MBP (and before it for the PowerBook) was "Take the fastest CPU we can get, and a the fastest sub 50W GPU we can get and make the thinnest and most portable laptop with the best battery that we can, using premium build processes". Nothing has changed about that. In fact, the 2016 refresh is literally the pinnacle of the laptop design that Apple has been honing all these years. And I am fairly sure that I am correct here, as I am not aware of a single case where Apple would violate these design principles. For over the last decade, they were always trying to make their laptops thinner and lighter, while improving their display tech and connectivity.


I don't think that's really true. There's a lot of engineering that goes into making room for things, making things easy to get at, and so on. That they're doing engineering with different priorities from Apple doesn't mean there's no R&D.

What I meant is that Apple laptops are very precisely engineered machines. Most of the Dell line is kind of 'put together'. There is no team of designers and engineers trying to shuffle the components in order to reduce as much footprint as possible. The XPS line is of course a notable exception.


Can it run at full speed without thermal throttling? Because if so, it's the first MBP ever to achieve that.

That we don't know until someone does appropriate testing. The little material I have seen on the topic (there was for examples this very nice review by a video editor that also did some sustained performance tests) suggests that the 2016 MBP is indeed much better at maintaining sustained performance than its predecessors, gaining healthy performance boosts in intensive tasks performed over long time.

And yeah, it's got consumer CPUs. My significantly cheaper laptop with a Xeon, and 2x as much faster memory expandable to 4x as much, runs rings around it. (And I also get to have two drives.)

Sure. But is it also thin and light? Does it have the same quality screen? Does it have a long lasting battery? Again, the MBP was built to be a laptop, that is, to be portable. Take my case for example. I need a fast laptop for what I do. But I also move a lot. Having a thin and light laptop that still comes with a very fast CPU and a more then sufficient GPU allows me to work without sacrificing either the productivity or the comfort. And if I need to run my statistical simulations in production... well, I obviously use a stationary supercomputer for that, as any sane person would.

And to Xeons and stuff... Can Intel produce mobile Xeons in a sufficient quanitites? Don't forget that the number of shipping 15" MBPs far surpasses the number of all shipping workstations together.

It's a tradeoff. It used to be Apple at least made the effort to support two different markets. Now it's only the market that used to be the "macbook" market; the people who had reason to prefer the MBP to the plain MacBook are no longer in Apple's customer base.

What is very weird for me here is that it seems like you are suggesting that Apple is somehow sacrificing performance with these new models. I do not understand how this is supposed to be true. The new Macbook Pro uses exactly the same class of hardware components as the old ones. It just manages to do it while also being lighter and thinner. Its not like they could put a faster GPU in there while retaining the old form factor. Right now, what are more powerful GPUs than the 460 Pro? On one hand, its the older Nvidia Maxwell, starting with the 965M. What is the 965M TDP? I was actually not able to find any clear numbers on this, but I think its safe to assume thats is somewhere in the ballpark of 60W. Clearly to hot if the previous GPU Apple was using had TDP of 40-45W and was already apparently throttling. Pascal? Well, the 'coolest' Pascal card is 80+W, which again is as hot as the entire MBP. So in the end, Apple really went with the fastest GPU that matched their thermal specifications. And I am not sure that the 1050 would perform better than Polaris 11 at comparable TDP.
[doublepost=1481061205][/doublepost]
There have been leaked tests suggesting that it's with manufacturers already.

If the quadcore comes with the new XPS (and 1050ti) it will guide my upgrade path.

That would be a very nice upgrade and a more than decent alternative to the MBP!
 
  • Like
Reactions: thesaint024
Its weird that you mention that Dell's RAM is expandable to 32Gb but completely avoid the fact that the MBP's CPU can be upgraded to 6920HQ. Also, how is Dell winning this? The RAM is same speed but uses more energy. Sure, you can upgrade it to 32GB, but then you can kiss your



Again, MBP has significantly better brightness and contrast. The 8% higher PPI of the Dell is not even worth mentioning.



Haven't seen any benchmarks of the Dell. If I am not mistaken it uses this card : http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Killer-Wireless-AC-1535.176453.0.html See it loosing to the 2013 MBP.



All real world tests I have seen so far show the MBP getting at least 10 hours. Dell can't even come close to that.

Don't get me wrong, the XPS 15" is a very nice laptop that will certainly work as a 'budget' MacBook Pro. But I just don't see a single advantage it has over the appropriately specced MBP, except price. And then, I don't see any point is saving $1000 if that would translate to a computer that is frustrating to use in practice.
[doublepost=1481058047][/doublepost]

Looking forward to see the new XPS! I am wondering what they would upgrade it with though. AFAIK the sad core Kaby Lake is still not available at that point?

So, We're comparing models here.. Yes, the Mac can have the 6920HQ, at a price premium of, what, 300 dollars, right?

It does have better brightness - admittedly. However, the use case for above 350 nitts is mostly non existent.. but I digress, and I'll give you this.

282 PPI vs 220 isn't negligible, by the way? it's a pretty reasonable boost and certainly makes things sharper. On a phone, I fully agree. 15" laptop? Yeah, not so much. Plus, if you're doing video work, having native 4k support is huge.

Check the verge for real world battery. The average was around 5.5 hours on that Macbook Pro.. and that's not doing serious work (e.g., coding, video editing, etc.). It's a know fact and issue, these macs are suffering from poor battery life.

Calling this laptop a 'budget' mac is insane. There is no sense in discussing this with you. You have a strong opinion and you're not willing to discuss this like adults.

Again - I have many mac products, I love them. I'm not blind to this machine being underwhelming. The majority of the people aren't either, you'll notice the refurbs are all gone for the last gen macs
 
Air started out as an experimental machine, sure, but its certainly not niche. Its very much a general-purpose machine for people who don't need performance ein their daily work. I know a lot of educators and scientists who use the MBA as their main computer.

I'd still consider it "niche" in that it doesn't do a lot of the things people expect from laptops.

I would indeed consider the 17" to be ultraportable if you look in its respective category. It weighted 3kg at the time when a comparable 17" laptop was at least 3.5kg. Similarly, the 15" Apple laptops were around 2.5 kg where the category average for 15" was >3kg

No. That is not how it works. You can't call a 17" laptop "ultraportable" because other 17" laptops are even heavier, and weight is not even remotely the primary consideration in portability.

And even then the 17" did not have any more powerful hardware inside than the 15". Its only real merit was the increased screen resolution (needed by some professionals) and bigger battery. And thats why Appel ditched that model the moment they got the tech to have a higher-res display in the 15" chassis.

Also had more ports.

And while that's a "higher res" display, it's a massive downgrade for anyone who actually liked the 1920x1200 display.

Programmers need gaming GPUs? Whut?

Or Ethernet, or extra storage, or the ability to run the machine flat out without having to throttle it for thermal reasons.

GPUs are by no means exclusive to gaming.

Again, Apple's design for the MBP (and before it for the PowerBook) was "Take the fastest CPU we can get, and a the fastest sub 50W GPU we can get and make the thinnest and most portable laptop with the best battery that we can, using premium build processes". Nothing has changed about that. In fact, the 2016 refresh is literally the pinnacle of the laptop design that Apple has been honing all these years. And I am fairly sure that I am correct here, as I am not aware of a single case where Apple would violate these design principles. For over the last decade, they were always trying to make their laptops thinner and lighter, while improving their display tech and connectivity.

I still don't buy it. They used to very clearly target different market segments. I also wouldn't consider the build process particularly "premium"; at this point, I'd consider their build quality and designs to be fairly poor, because I consider maintainability to be a significant component of the quality of a machine.

What I meant is that Apple laptops are very precisely engineered machines. Most of the Dell line is kind of 'put together'.

This is a completely different claim from the one you previously made, and I don't think it's even coherent.

There is no team of designers and engineers trying to shuffle the components in order to reduce as much footprint as possible. The XPS line is of course a notable exception.

I don't see any support for this claim, and having looked at how the Precision and Latitude lines are put together, I think it's pretty obviously false. Significant work goes into rethinking these things.

That we don't know until someone does appropriate testing. The little material I have seen on the topic (there was for examples this very nice review by a video editor that also did some sustained performance tests) suggests that the 2016 MBP is indeed much better at maintaining sustained performance than its predecessors, gaining healthy performance boosts in intensive tasks performed over long time.

Great. In which case, they may have finally managed to achieve a baseline design goal that every PC laptop I've ever seen has achieved. How very impressive.

Sure. But is it also thin and light? Does it have the same quality screen? Does it have a long lasting battery? Again, the MBP was built to be a laptop, that is, to be portable.

It's not as thin and light, but I don't care. I care about its performance more than I care about it being light. And the screen is much, much, better. Because glossy screens are horrible. Also because it can do 1920x1080 without fuzzy edges on pixels.

Take my case for example. I need a fast laptop for what I do. But I also move a lot. Having a thin and light laptop that still comes with a very fast CPU and a more then sufficient GPU allows me to work without sacrificing either the productivity or the comfort. And if I need to run my statistical simulations in production... well, I obviously use a stationary supercomputer for that, as any sane person would.

Yeah. And it's great that the MBP can do what you want, but it's not even close for what I want. So I got something else.

And to Xeons and stuff... Can Intel produce mobile Xeons in a sufficient quanitites? Don't forget that the number of shipping 15" MBPs far surpasses the number of all shipping workstations together.

I suspect they could if people were buying them in those quantities. It's an option. You can get the machine with different CPUs, same as with the Mac, there's just more choices.

What is very weird for me here is that it seems like you are suggesting that Apple is somehow sacrificing performance with these new models. I do not understand how this is supposed to be true.

If Apple were not quite so committed to "thin, no matter the cost", we'd have significantly faster DDR4 RAM, and more of it. That would be faster.

The new Macbook Pro uses exactly the same class of hardware components as the old ones. It just manages to do it while also being lighter and thinner. Its not like they could put a faster GPU in there while retaining the old form factor. Right now, what are more powerful GPUs than the 460 Pro? On one hand, its the older Nvidia Maxwell, starting with the 965M. What is the 965M TDP? I was actually not able to find any clear numbers on this, but I think its safe to assume thats is somewhere in the ballpark of 60W. Clearly to hot if the previous GPU Apple was using had TDP of 40-45W and was already apparently throttling.

Well, just as a thought experiment: Consider the TDP the 2016MBP can handle without melting. Now imagine that we make a similar machine, but we make it 5mm thicker, and we use a bunch of that space to give significantly larger spaces for airflow, and add additional heat sinks in that space. Do you think it would be less able to handle heat?

They are sacrificing performance compared to what they could do if they were not trying to make everything thinner no matter what they have to give up to do it.

EDIT: And to clarify, yes, I'm aware that 64GB of DDR4 RAM uses more power than 16GB of DDR3 RAM. But Dell's winning because DDR4 is faster. (Especially since it's at much higher clock speeds.) And I care more about the clock speed than about the power drain. I am not powering the machine by pedaling a bicycle.
 
Is there a "XPS Rumors" website where people can go and post how they are excited about the next Apple MBP?

:cool:

Heh, there are no XPS leaks... they're HP and Lenovo.

And yes, there were Windows forums stuffed with MBP rumours for a decade, to Bootcamp on.

That's now stopped, and inverted. That should say something...
 
  • Like
Reactions: v0lume4
Could you imagine Steve Jobs announcing a new Mac for $2999 with a single port, or a Mac that broke compatibility with all legacy peripherals?
I can remember every cringe worthy second of Steve releasing the $1799 cube, like it was yesterday.

:eek:
 
I can only observe that if Apple are misjudging their market then it's working out very well for them. Tim Cook isn't running an Apple fan club but a premium brand, so why would he be concerned about the folks who can't pay the entry fee? I can't afford a Bentley but they ain't gonna make a cheaper one. Never mind, I like my Suzuki.
Sorry, but Apple can hardly be viewed as a premium brand. Companies with a premium brand don't shaft their customers by denying problems such as Touch Disease exist, and make design flaws on almost EVERY product they produce. I would certainly agree that Apple WAS a premium brand, but they lost this, when they started cutting corners and reducing quality to increase profits.
[doublepost=1481087300][/doublepost]
I can't blame the OP for wanting to switch, here's my thoughts though I'm sure some of them have been repeated by others.
  • The MBP is very expensive, MPBs were always pricey but having Apple raise the price seems like a bad move.
  • The battery is smaller and many people are reporting less battery life then the prior model.
  • The CPU (the GPU too?) is performing slower then the prior generation
  • Removing components that people rely on, this includes the SD card slot, magsafe and HDMI
  • The keyboard is a point of contention, some people love it, others do not.
  • The track pad, seems too big and some folks don't like the force touch
  • Touch bar - seems more gimmicky, and less efficient then using keyboard shortcuts.

Overall, this is the first laptop from Apple that seems less then the sum of its parts and inferior to the prior generation. Adding insult to injury, Apple raised the price.
You missed out one really important area - the machine is COMPLETELY irreparable. ALL the major components are soldered to the motherboard, and if anything goes wrong with it, you will probably need a new logic board. This doesn't really matter, if the repair happens inside the warranty, but outside of that, you might as well just buy a new machine, because the repair cost will be so high. To me, the lack of repair options alone is enough reason to pass on the latest Macbook and Macbook Pro. I will NOT spend this kind of money on a machine that can't be repaired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roadstar and Queen6
So in order to be able to continue using a competitive Apple product you are recommending an older refurb?

Nowhere in the original post does it say he cant afford it. "Can't afford" and "being smart" about a purchase are two different things.

I could run down and buy a half dozen MBP's right now if I wanted. I wont because they are not worth the price. See the difference? Asinine post.

It's fine that if you were in the market for a new laptop today that you may not consider a Mac since it didn't live up to your expectations, but if you fully admit to not even needing the power of your current machine then there's literally zero reason to care about the fact that there's options that exist now that you don't even need. Maybe if OP had worded his post differently and posted an unbiased comparison between the new MBPs and what's available it wouldn't have seemed so senseless.
 
I was reading bubba's linked site on performance and what it tells me is the CPU seems to be the limiting factor these days.

The issue is many expect Moore's logarithmic growth in speed to continue. The link points out quite clearly it seeems to be over. So what does that leave the consumer? Machine features is what's at the heart of design. What are the expectations in form and performance the market expects out of 13" and 15" laptops?

The market will eventually speak.
[doublepost=1481088832][/doublepost]
To me, the lack of repair options alone is enough reason to pass on the latest Macbook and Macbook Pro. I will NOT spend this kind of money on a machine that can't be repaired.

Just a thought, have you ever had your Apple Mac device repaired either under or out of warranty and what are the historic failure rates where repairs are needed for these same products when compared to other high-end/premium brands?

Personally I can't find any real comparisons of failure and repair. Maybe most just get a new computer when it breaks. But I found this: http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/macbooks.html and it's kindof old (2006).

There are 2012 reports from 'Consumer Reports' showing Apple's reliability higher.
 
Last edited:
Personally I can't find any real comparisons of failure and repair. Maybe most just get a new computer when it breaks. But I found this: http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/macbooks.html and it's kindof old (2006).

My PCs have been pretty cheap, so I replaced them when they started acting up, averaging around four years.
My 15" 2011 MBP was too expensive to throw out, so I had it reballed when the GPU went and put in an SSD when the spinning hard drive went. Fortunately I have no need to upgrade so I am perfectly happy with it now.
 
Fortunately I have no need to upgrade so I am perfectly happy with it now.

Fantastic!

My wife's 2010 13" MBP is still humming away with not a failure yet. However, the old HD does make it feel dated and slow.
 
I was reading bubba's linked site on performance and what it tells me is the CPU seems to be the limiting factor these days.

The issue is many expect Moore's logarithmic growth in speed to continue. The link points out quite clearly it seeems to be over. So what does that leave the consumer? Machine features is what's at the heart of design. What are the expectations in form and performance the market expects out of 13" and 15" laptops?

The market will eventually speak.
[doublepost=1481088832][/doublepost]

Just a thought, have you ever had your Apple Mac device repaired either under or out of warranty and what are the historic failure rates where repairs are needed for these same products when compared to other high-end/premium brands?

Personally I can't find any real comparisons of failure and repair. Maybe most just get a new computer when it breaks. But I found this: http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/macbooks.html and it's kindof old (2006).

There are 2012 reports from 'Consumer Reports' showing Apple's reliability higher.
While I agree that Apple computers have historically been more reliable, I can't really speak for the more recent models. With growing numbers of complaints about recent releases, it is difficult to believe that Apple have maintained the same standards. Both the Macbook and Macbook Pro are unable to be repaired while the latest iPhone can. This seems completely backwards. Given that the iPhone needs to be as portable as possible, why would it be able to be taken apart and have individual components repaired, while repairs on the Macbook are made as difficult as possible? Why wouldn't the iPhone be made with everything soldered to one logic board to make it as small as possible? Apple seem to want to retain the fixability of the iPhone, and put this even in front of making it smaller, while thinness takes the highest priority of all on the Macbook range. Making it thinner is more important to Apple than fixability, proper cooling, a decent keyboard, decent power, needed ports and longer battery life. Effectively, just like they have done to both the Macbook and the Mac Mini, Apple have now gutted the Macbook Pro, and turned it into a much less useful and viable computer.

I think it goes without saying that Apple have got their priorities completely screwed up.
[doublepost=1481096315][/doublepost]
Fantastic!

My wife's 2010 13" MBP is still humming away with not a failure yet. However, the old HD does make it feel dated and slow.
On top of recent machines, I have two legacy Macs, one is an iBook from 2003, while the other is an iMac from 2006. Both have run flawlessly with no hardware faults since the day I bought them. But, I have no delusions about my 2013 iMac and 2013 Macbook Pro lasting this well without probems. The build quality of the more recent machines isn't even close to that of the older ones.
[doublepost=1481096957][/doublepost]
If Apple had made a laptop with specs as good as the Dell I ended up getting, I woulda paid $4k for it, easy.

They don't. They likely won't, because they don't want users who do things like "buy with less memory than you may later want, and upgrade two years later when memory is cheaper", because that narrows their profit margins.
I'm sure it narrows their profit margins even more, when people buy something else made by another computer maker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seed101 and Queen6
282 PPI vs 220 isn't negligible, by the way? it's a pretty reasonable boost and certainly makes things sharper. On a phone, I fully agree. 15" laptop? Yeah, not so much. Plus, if you're doing video work, having native 4k support is huge.

Sorry, my bad, I looked up the wrong specs.

Check the verge for real world battery. The average was around 5.5 hours on that Macbook Pro.. and that's not doing serious work (e.g., coding, video editing, etc.). It's a know fact and issue, these macs are suffering from poor battery life.

If I read the very correctly, the 15" got 10 hours in their basic battery test.Yes, mixed usage battery will be lower. But its still above than the direct competition.

Calling this laptop a 'budget' mac is insane. There is no sense in discussing this with you. You have a strong opinion and you're not willing to discuss this like adults.

Sorry you feel that way. The facts are however that the XPS does not offer the performance (slower CPU options, slower SSD etc.) or the adaptability of the MBP. Its a very nice laptop for a very reasonable price and its a great purchase for someone who does not want to dish out a lot of money for the Mac. But the more expensive Mac also has a clear edge in both the performance and the mobility. Thats why I think that referring to the Dell as a 'budget MBP' is perfectly justifiable. Of course, once the XPS is refreshed next year, this will likely change. I expect them include the 1050 Ti and Kaby Lake quad cores, which would put it above the Mac performance-wise.

I'm not blind to this machine being underwhelming.

Yeah, we've had these discussions before, but I still don't get is sorry. Overpriced? Sure. Underwhelming? Don't understand how one can say that. Apple has consequently followed the MBP design while improving every single aspect of the laptop. If you find the 2016 refresh underwhelming, then you also must find any MBP ever made underwhelming. Anything else is simply logically inconsistent. It doesn't make sense to praise one laptop with mediocre GPU and then bash another laptop with the mediocre GPU just because the later one is lighter and has a better display.
[doublepost=1481105819][/doublepost]@therealseebs: i really enjoy discussing with you and I think there are a lot of very good points you are raising. But because I am in a bit of a haste, I won't comment on everything as extensively as I would like to. Also, we have had this discussion before, a large number of times :)

I'd still consider it "niche" in that it doesn't do a lot of the things people expect from laptops.

I guess its a matter of definition. I think that the most useful definition of 'niche' is frequency, i.e. how much of the user base needs this particular tool. E.g. a welding tool is more niche than a screwdriver, because a general populace just doesn't need to weld at home. With 'niche' I mean a computer that is targeted at for a small group of people with special needs. Apple has only one computer of that kind IMO, and thats the Mac Pro.


No. That is not how it works. You can't call a 17" laptop "ultraportable" because other 17" laptops are even heavier, and weight is not even remotely the primary consideration in portability.

Ok, if we are going to arguing semantics :) Let me rephrase it: Apple's focus on mobility and portability is nothing new. They always strived to make thinnest and lightest laptops within the given design spec.


I'd consider their build quality and designs to be fairly poor, because I consider maintainability to be a significant component of the quality of a machine.

Come on, now you are just substituting notions. What does build quality has to do with maintainability? That is just your subjective preference (which I certainly respect), but I don't know how you can objectivise that. I run an IT department. Maintainability is really the last thing I care about in a computer. If something breaks down, it just goes to our service company and they fix it under warranty. Its infinitely cheaper for us than tinkering with the machines ourselves.

I don't see any support for this claim, and having looked at how the Precision and Latitude lines are put together, I think it's pretty obviously false. Significant work goes into rethinking these things.

Just open any Precision or Latitude and see how much empty space there is. Then compare that to a MBP.


Great. In which case, they may have finally managed to achieve a baseline design goal that every PC laptop I've ever seen has achieved. How very impressive.

Erm, the other manufactures support forums are full of users complaining of throttling issues of the Blades and Dell XPSs and the like. Especially laptops with oversized GPUs throttle. Then of course you have monsters like Clevo which come with competent cooling solutions — at a significant price of the size and weight obviously.

It's not as thin and light, but I don't care. I care about its performance more than I care about it being light. And the screen is much, much, better. Because glossy screens are horrible. Also because it can do 1920x1080 without fuzzy edges on pixels.

Then your demands are not what Apple seeks to satisfy. Different tool for different purposes. I for instance can't use a non HiDPI display anymore, its terrible for my work (which mostly involves text).


Well, just as a thought experiment: Consider the TDP the 2016MBP can handle without melting. Now imagine that we make a similar machine, but we make it 5mm thicker, and we use a bunch of that space to give significantly larger spaces for airflow, and add additional heat sinks in that space. Do you think it would be less able to handle heat?

With additional 5mm (which is 25% of the laptop btw) they might be able to fit a 80W GPU. Although I doubt it given how they were not able to do it in the unibody era. But that would be a very different laptop thats also much heavier.
 
Yeah, I can't stand HiDPI, I sorta like how the text looks, but the fuzzy edges on everything else are a complete deal-breaker. So for me, the 15" Retina machines are 1440x900 (way too small) or have fuzzy edges (ugh).

And yes, you're quite right. My demands are not what Apple seeks to satisfy.

But it used to be that Apple tried to target multiple audiences, by having significantly different product lines. The MBP line had higher-end features but wasn't as light and portable, the macbook was sort of middle-of-the-road, and the air was ultraportable at the cost of functionality even compared to the base macbook. And when they were doing that, the MBP was a bit disappointing to me, but basically livable; it could do what I wanted well enough most of the time. (And I actually had an Air, too, because sometimes I did want the ultraportable thing.)

Now, Apple's got three product lines, but no meaningful differentiation. They're all 100% devoted to thin/lightweight, no matter the cost. They don't have anything for people who would be willing to accept another mm or so of thickness in exchange for a richer feature set or increased functionality or power.

And it totally makes sense to target the largest market first, but going from "targeting two different markets" to "targeting only one of those markets" generally indicates a loss of market share.

What does build quality has to do with maintainability?

Maintainability is a pretty significant functional goal for laptops. If my laptop's fan needs to be cleaned, what am I going to need to do in order to accomplish that? If the answer is "take it in to a store or mail it in and wait a day or longer to get it back", that's obviously much worse for me as a user than "spend five minutes on it". Things like "how easy or hard is it to replace the battery" or "how easy is it to upgrade later" are similarly pretty significant questions, and they are questions which engineers take into account when designing parts and putting things together.

Apple's engineers are not merely not considering maintenance. They are designing things specifically to prevent maintenance. Go ahead, try it; find the special pentalobe screwdriver bit, take the screws out, and see how the bottom of the 2016 MBP pops right off... Oh, it doesn't. It has little sliding latches to prevent you from opening it. Those latches don't have any purpose but preventing you from opening the machine. But that's okay, they also soldered on all the parts that used to be replaceable. Net result? Decrease in machine lifespan due to how the machine is built.

That's absolutely a build quality issue.

By comparison, since I happen to have it sitting open right now, I can look at the internals of the 5-year-old Latitude I got as e-waste from a previous job. It comes open easily, memory is socketed, the fan is immediately accessible if you want to clean it, and the socket where a cell network card would go if I had one has a nice clear "WWAN ->" label. Memory's socketed. Hard drive is swappable and you don't even have to take the cover off to do it, just undo two clearly-labeled screws.

So, let's take this away from the Mac question, since people can't have a serious technical discussion of Apple without feeling personally threatened.

I have an ASUS G55VW laptop. I have that Dell latitude. Similar ages. The G55VW has an m-SATA slot. To get to it, you have to take out something in excess of 30 screws. You have to remove a whole bunch of things from a bunch of places, mess with cables in precise orders, remove a keyboard held in by lots of little snappy things... And that gets you to the top side of the motherboard. Which isn't where you need to be. You then need to disconnect even more cables, take out more screws, and so on, to remove the motherboard, to get to the m-SATA socket. (In ASUS's defense, every screw you need to remove to do this, except for one row of them, is marked with a little triangle indicator.) And the thing is, the panel you open to get at the hard drive and memory sockets? It's right next to the m-SATA port. If that panel had just been two inches larger, you could swap the m-SATA drive immediately by just opening the panel.

That's awful build quality, and lots of people complain about it, because it turns a reasonably straightforward task into a really complicated one, offering the user no real benefit. The difficulty of taking that machine apart got complaints, and justifiably so. There's no reason it should have been such a pain.

Dell's design is clearly better, and that's not an accident, that's a result of clear effort on the part of their engineers to make things work better. There's little channels for cables to run through when cables need to run somewhere, they don't just float about in empty spaces. There's a little slot for the third WLAN antenna cable to sit in if your WLAN card only uses two antennae. But the WLAN card is swappable, so you could also upgrade if you want.

Apple's engineers, by contrast, are neither working to make things maintanable as Dell does, nor ignoring the question as ASUS did (I think ASUS has gotten better since then). Rather, they're specifically putting design effort into making it harder to do maintenance. And if "didn't even think about it" is poor build quality, "actively trying to make things worse" is definitely bad build quality.

And every hour the engineers spend adding features to make it harder to open the machine is an hour they didn't spend working on anything that actually benefits the user. So even if you don't otherwise care, there's space inside that machine (which we all agree is at a premium) being wasted by those latch mechanisms we don't want and didn't ask for, and every other engineering priority got less attention than it should have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
All fair points in regards to design that prevents maintainability. I certainly won't argue agains it (it fairly obvious that at least some elements of MBP design are clearly there just to prevent the user from opening the machine).

I still don't really understand how Apple had different differentiation earlier, unless we take maintainability into account (but then again, both their consumer laptop and the prosumer laptop were maintainable, so the maintainability is not the differentiating factor here). As I see it, they just moved from (partially) user-maintainable design to a completely sealed one across the board, while the differentiating features between the consumer and prosumer machines is still power/display quality/high-speed connectivity.

But overall I think that I can understand much better where you are coming from and its a shame that Apple doesn't make a computer that would satisfy your needs. Needless to say, I am very happy with what they are doing because its EXACTLY what I want in a computer.
 
Sorry, my bad, I looked up the wrong specs.



If I read the very correctly, the 15" got 10 hours in their basic battery test.Yes, mixed usage battery will be lower. But its still above than the direct competition.



Sorry you feel that way. The facts are however that the XPS does not offer the performance (slower CPU options, slower SSD etc.) or the adaptability of the MBP. Its a very nice laptop for a very reasonable price and its a great purchase for someone who does not want to dish out a lot of money for the Mac. But the more expensive Mac also has a clear edge in both the performance and the mobility. Thats why I think that referring to the Dell as a 'budget MBP' is perfectly justifiable. Of course, once the XPS is refreshed next year, this will likely change. I expect them include the 1050 Ti and Kaby Lake quad cores, which would put it above the Mac performance-wise.



Yeah, we've had these discussions before, but I still don't get is sorry. Overpriced? Sure. Underwhelming? Don't understand how one can say that. Apple has consequently followed the MBP design while improving every single aspect of the laptop. If you find the 2016 refresh underwhelming, then you also must find any MBP ever made underwhelming. Anything else is simply logically inconsistent. It doesn't make sense to praise one laptop with mediocre GPU and then bash another laptop with the mediocre GPU just because the later one is lighter and has a better display.


Right, so, I'm not sure who cares about 'basic' battery test. When talking performance and battery, I (and most people) care about real world use case. In that situation, the dell and 15" MBP (not 13") are mostly the same.

It's not about how I feel about the performance, it's the reality. As a developer, I use around 12-18gb system ram at any given time when debugging test automation. What this means is, for my needs (and many many working professionals) the MBP 15" is significantly less powerful than the XPS equipped with 32GB RAM. Paging makes the SSD and CPU gains not matter at all. Do you truly understand the respective gains in the CPU changes also, from the 6700HQ and up? It's is negligible..

Wrong, I found the 2015 to be fine - but, I did expect the opportunity to increase to 32GB as the entire workstation industry has moved into that direction this last year or two. Apple was behind - lacking upgrades and this was the opportunity to change that.

It's the RAM that makes the difference. I recognize you don't require it.. but many of us do
 
It's the RAM that makes the difference. I recognize you don't require it.. but many of us think we do

There.


Jokes aside, ok, maybe you do need the extra RAM, who knows. And maybe Dell is close, same or even better when it comes to performance specs. But you don't buy a Mac to compete in specs, you buy it because you like it most. Because it delights. And - let's not forget - because it runs macOS.

To me, even with all that aluminium, Dell still looks plastic. It still runs Windows. Whether these things are important to you is another matter. But I think this spec pissing contest should stop. It's not about specs. That Dell could have 8-core CPU and 128Gb RAM, I still wouldn't buy it, because I buy things I enjoy using.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Capt T
All fair points in regards to design that prevents maintainability. I certainly won't argue agains it (it fairly obvious that at least some elements of MBP design are clearly there just to prevent the user from opening the machine).

I still don't really understand how Apple had different differentiation earlier, unless we take maintainability into account (but then again, both their consumer laptop and the prosumer laptop were maintainable, so the maintainability is not the differentiating factor here).

Look at the early Air vs. the 17" MBP. The 17" MBP had an actual expansion slot (expresscard 34), which you could use for stuff like eSATA adapters. It had Ethernet and firewire. It had lots of ports, and an optical drive. You could replace and upgrade the hard drive and memory. The Air? I don't think anything in it was swappable, never had Ethernet, only had two USB ports, no expansion options.

There was very significant differentiation here; one machine had many more options than the other.

As I see it, they just moved from (partially) user-maintainable design to a completely sealed one across the board, while the differentiating features between the consumer and prosumer machines is still power/display quality/high-speed connectivity.

No. The MacBook had USB only, the MacBook Pro had multiple other ports. The MBP also had the option of a high-quality antiglare display, which is a major feature for a lot of pro users. (In fact, most users are consistently happier with antiglare displays than with glossy displays; glossy displays look better in the store, but long-term satisfaction tends to favor antiglare. Glossy displays cause eyestrain and headaches.)

Now, the MBP has basically the same ports as the MacBook. It has more, but there's no longer the differentiation of having multiple different kinds of ports to allow you to hook up to stuff directly. It doesn't have the SD card readers that they had for a while. No expansion slots. Also no longer user-serviceable in any way. And that's a horrible thing in a high-end pro-grade laptop, because the ability to upgrade or replace RAM and storage is of significant value to a lot of users. A ton of people bought RAM or hard drive upgrades a year or two after getting the machine; that's a big part of why Apple laptops used to have a 5+ year workable lifespan. If newer MacOS needed more memory, you could upgrade memory. Disk filled up? Get a bigger disk.

But overall I think that I can understand much better where you are coming from and its a shame that Apple doesn't make a computer that would satisfy your needs. Needless to say, I am very happy with what they are doing because its EXACTLY what I want in a computer.

If it's exactly what you want, you are in for disappointment. Why? Because they've been consistently trimming the top end. Every time around, they look at the people at the top end of the curve, realize there's not enough of them to justify things, and trim things a bit further. So if it's exactly what you want, then probably 95% of the users don't need quite that much. So next time around, you're in the top 5%, and you get cut out because making a machine that's a bit less than what you want would be cheaper, and still serve 95% of the customers just fine. And then, of the people who are left, they look at the top 5%, and drop what they wanted, too.

Furthermore, I think you're underestimating the long-term ecosystem impact of driving away the people who wanted more from a machine.

Apple used to at least vaguely cater to power users, and had "it's actually Unix, and you can develop stuff for it" as major selling points. Now, the default for app installation is to require developer-signed packages, meaning that you have to pay money to be a developer to distribute software that other people can use and install without a lot of hassle, and they don't cater to power users at all.

For that matter... How many people do you remember ever complaining about magsafe macs not being able to run off of wall power with a working adapter? I don't think I ever heard of that happening. Not even once. I heard about failed batteries, occasionally, but they were rare. And so far this week I've seen 5-6 people show up here with 2016s dying because something went wrong with the USB-C charging option, and there's no magsafe.

One of my coworkers got my 2016 MBP, and it had a glitchy line on the built-in display, so he sent it in for repair, having been promised it would be "expedited". He sent it in on the 22nd. His replacement still isn't back yet. Apple used to be pretty solid about same-day turnaround on replacements. Why aren't they now? Because they can't swap parts. They have to get in a motherboard with the right combination of CPU, memory, and SSD. They can't swap out the one part that failed, it's the whole thing all at once. My spouse's MBP died Monday, I can't even get in to see people before Thursday, and we have no expectation that the machine will be repaired within a week or two.

That's not something I would regard as acceptable in a professional machine. I had to send in a Thinkpad for repair once. Called in (day one), got return shipping package and shipped the laptop (day two), they received the machine (day three) and sent it back with whatever part swapped, and I got it back (day four). I also used to do that with Macs. I took it for granted that any remotely reasonable repair would be on that kind of schedule, so I would have my machine back three days after I called in with a problem. Now, it might be over two weeks, because Apple stopped making an effort to make machines that anyone could support, including them.

I know other developers jumping ship over this. I expect more, especially if the 2016 continues being as prone to catastrophic failure as it seems to be.

Man, if only it were possible to design a machine based on having it work reliably and be maintainable, even if that made it a millimeter thicker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spacebro and Queen6
There.


Jokes aside, ok, maybe you do need the extra RAM, who knows. And maybe Dell is close, same or even better when it comes to performance specs. But you don't buy a Mac to compete in specs, you buy it because you like it most. Because it delights. And - let's not forget - because it runs macOS.

To me, even with all that aluminium, Dell still looks plastic. It still runs Windows. Whether these things are important to you is another matter. But I think this spec pissing contest should stop. It's not about specs. That Dell could have 8-core CPU and 128Gb RAM, I still wouldn't buy it, because I buy things I enjoy using.

Wow, best post in ages.

I would quit my career and technology all together before I would use a windows OS machine again. My brain is in full sync with MacOS and everything is just logical. I get clients asking for help on their windows computers all the time and it just bows my mind how confusing and convoluted everything is. And then there is the whole virus thing...

If windows works for you... great, good luck with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aevan
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.