Why MacBooks are not using the latest hardware available?

Force Touch trackpad, battery life, build quality, display, and SSD read/write speeds of at least 1.5GB/s either way makes a very, very good product. The 17" laptops you quote, of course, will have better hardware specs on paper. They will also be an inch thick, heavy, have poor battery life, and more fans than an AMD server rack.

Apple, in my opinion, have found a fantastic balance between power, performance, and lightness/thinness with battery life (all of which are important in a portable). The 15" Retina models are very capable. I urge you to find a laptop with the equivalent 'specs' to a 15" MacBook Pro at the same price. I don't think you will. And yes - thinness, battery life and build quality are all specs too when you're talking about a laptop, not just CPU/RAM/GPU.

 

Meh, Apple has a track record of adopting technology that the world isn't exactly ready for, in the consumer space at least.

Only God knows why anyone would care for a USB-C form factor when everything under the sun is using USB-A. USB-3.0 over type A is much better than USB 3.0 over type C.

We all know they only went with type C so they could make the damn thing thinner.

As for Thunderbolt, I really have no idea why that never took off; such an amazing protocol that no one adopted. Shame.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but AFAIK the Skylake CPUs with fast GPUs (Iris 540,550,580) are not available yet. I am quite sure that Apple wants to use those in their laptops.

 

Then you have found a product that is better for you. Macbooks target the user that wants practical versatility and are certainly positioned in the higher price segment. They are priced very competitively given the comparable competition.

 

You could configure one of these and cream a rmbp on performance- https://www.mythlogic.com/configure.php?id=182

But, its going to be bulky, heavy, short battery life, and it will make a ton of noise just sitting there doing nothing. It even comes with a stand to sit on that has 3 additional fans. You won't be able to sell something like this for much in a few years because nobody wants a bulky, loud, hot thing that no longer has top of the line performance, if it even still works by then. I recently weighed these options and went with the mac. It will be top of the line for 3-4 years and can then be sold for a significant amount of its cost. Now I would not consider a windows machine at all because it does not support the multitouch trackpad.

 

I don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Apple usually uses appropriate top-tier consumer CPUs in its products. As I have written above, top-tier Skylake iGPUs do not seem to be available yet, so obviously Apple can't use them.

 

That's a gross oversimplification. With any set of decisions there are always pros and cons and it's up to each to find the option that works best for the individual. Apple may not have the latest specs at a given point in time but if that consideration trumps everything else for you then you may want to look elsewhere. The hardware specs are just one consideration when looking at solutions for one's computing needs.

Mac users vary just like any other massive group of people. They are not all identical.

Again, find what suits your specific needs/wants and go with it. If specs/price are your biggest consideration then you may be better served by non-Apple solutions. For the rest of use there are other important considerations. There are countless prior threads on matters like this that ahve hashed and hashed this discussion so don't overlook them. This thread isn't any different and won't reach any sort of epiphany that the others missed.

 

OP, why does you son need a powerful system for anyway ? How old is he ?

 

I don't see Dell or HP creating an Operation system that's optimized for their hardware. While Apple designs the hw and is able to optimize the os that goes along with it.

 

Macs have generally much better performance than the PCs you mentioned.

 

Also about trains intersecting at a station. For the 15" rMBP, Apple's refresh train had to depart sooner than Intel's SkyLake quad refresh. So the train went on without it. But that Intel train was ready when the iMac was set to depart, so they threw it onboard, which is why I have one sitting next to me now.

Still, I rarely get too hyped about CPU revs form one gen to another. We're mostly talking about very small increments of improvement.

 

I'm actually looking forward to the new Intel Iris chips that are coming with Skylake - they represent a significant boost from the HD 4000 that I'm using now.

 

OP, you still have not answered my questions ? Why ?

How old is your son and what does he use the system for that will need the current hardware on Dell and the other manufactures ?

Edit: Its 10 hours later, and still no reply, which tells me your son is still a young kid not ready for the more advanced hardware, so your post is mute at best

 

Or you know, answering to you on an Internet message forum isn't top priority in people's life

I'd just like an nvidia maxwell caliber gpu, and a processor bump greater than 20% over my existing 2013 which hasn't seen substantial processor gains since then.

 

The skylake processors that will be used in the new MacBook pros are very small CPU upgrade but significant GPU upgrade. The MacBook Pro 13" is likely to see 50%+ better GPU. That's why many are waiting.

 

The MSI Ghost series of laptops are as thin as the Macbook Pro, though the battery life is nowhere near Macbook Pro's.

For 15" with the dGPU, it's not worth waiting. The current MBP with the AMD R9 is decent enough compared to the 750m.

For the rest, Skylake iGPU is giving about 5 frames more in GTA 5 compared to previous gen iGPU. It could be the combination of fast DD4+Skylake that is enabling the better frame rates . . .plus the skylake runs cooler.

I'm still waiting till more Skylake laptops start shipping. Expected delivery for mainstream OEMs such as Dell, ASUS is by the 3rd week of November.