correct.
They just changed one thing: user accessibility .
I'm quite ok with that. I'd like to have RAM expandable, but I'm planning to keep my MacBook for 3-4 years and 8 Gb will be fine for that.
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.
Why MacBooks are not using the latest hardware available?
- Thread starter Caribbean Mac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They just changed one thing: user accessibility .
I'm quite ok with that. I'd like to have RAM expandable, but I'm planning to keep my MacBook for 3-4 years and 8 Gb will be fine for that.
Eh, Jobs had the same strategy when it came to specs. I remember my 2007 mbp had 128mb of VRAM on its 8600GT, which was actually a special order from NVIDIA. NVIDIA only made that GPU with 256mb or 512mb of VRAM.
Also, a bit of an exaggeration. Good luck finding a PC with a NVIDIA 985 for $1500. It's true though that Skylake is out, and it's disappointing that Apple hasn't updated their lineup yet.
Finally, you have to consider the other factors that make mac products good. Build quality is the best in the business. Some prefer OSX over Windows.
Last edited:
First of all, the broad market, including those building PC's and commercial customers recognize the reality of spending "less" on PC's is in fact being penny wise and pound foolish. I've got a 2007 MBP that although the screen broke, it still runs (on an external monitor). Apple products consistently outlast the cheap PC's...because as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for". And others have also said this - specs don't make a computer. This idea that Apple needs to do what every PC maker has done unsuccessfully for years, chasing after the latest and greatest so you can say your PC is 13.2% faster than last month's model is ridiculous. Apple is doing the smart thing, much like any company making products that have longer useful lifespans.
The skylake chips that apple will use are not out, ie the best ones with the best clock speeds and far better graphics, yes the lesser ones are out but there is no use complaining that apple don't use the best components and then in the same breath complaining because they haven't used lesser parts....
That is the mentality of buying a Mac and that was the point I was attacking. As I stated I know some people who have questioned the idea of spending 2,000 for a computer when they can spend 600 - 1,000. I don't buy the idea that PCs don't last as long as Macs. That used to be the case, but I think PC makers have improved and Apple has had some issues of late.
yep, in comparison to Razer blade, xps 15, asus UX501, G501, Alienwares and so on - for the same price or even less money, they offer more than MBP15 dGPU now in terms of specs. (even though most of them still has not been updated to skylake). And the quality of those are on the top as well.
We dont count worldwide warranty and service which Apple is famous for that money.
We dont count worldwide warranty and service which Apple is famous for that money.
I believe that the basic idea of buying a computer "to last" is fundamentally flawed. A computer is not a pair of shoes, a sofa or a car, where higher price usually reflects the higher quality of materials and better craftsmanship. First of all, all computers are built using ultimately the same components. Cheaper computers might use inferior cooling system and or power distribution electronics, which can make them last less long. But overall, the longevity of a $2000 MBP is not any different from a $1000 Windows laptop.
The main difference in price is not about expected longevity, but about what you get now. Macs are more energy efficient, more comfortable to use, lighter, have better batteries, better displays, better keyboard and better trackpads etc. compared to cheap laptops. This is what costs money and this is what you pay for. Macs don't nessesarity give you longevity. But they often give you a peace of mind for longer time. In the end its all about compromises. For many users, owning a cheaper laptop is a compromise they don't want to afford. I gladly pay $1000 more once in two or three years so that I don't need to carry an additional kg of weight around with me.
Ah, the classic "I've lost the argument, but I desperately want to make it look like I've won" defence.
2/10.
I call Bad Squirrel on your suggestion. My comment about Apple's products lasting longer than cheaper PC's is just a fact. Sure, some PC's have improved, but like anything in life, you can cut corners, use cheaper parts but the sum of those parts is still going to be cheaper product that won't last as long. You get what you pay for. You might be surprised once in a while with a less expensive product lasting longer, but there is a reason the saying is what it is. This is absolutely the case with computers and Microsoft has certainly realized that now, with their new SB and Surface products costing more than comparable products or even Apple products.
Do you have any data to back this up? I am responsible for the IT side of a moderately sized unit which employs both Windows and OS X, so while my thoughts on this are surely far enough from being representative, my experience is exactly what I have described.
The only reasonable, data-based assessment of this question that I am aware of is an empirical analysis carried out by SquareTrade. They have analysed how many laptops were reported by their owners as malfunctioning within three years of purchase. Apple performs quite well in this study, but not any better than Sony or Dell, and is marginally beaten by Asus and Toshiba. You can find the report here: https://www.squaretrade.com/laptop-reliability-1109/
From my experience working for a medium sized company (~3,000 people) that employed both PC's and Mac systems (and which I had a say in the purchasing decisions), we had few - none that I can remember actually, significant Apple computer failures, whereas the PC's we utilized that were mainly HP and Dell laptops (Thinkpad clones) were "retired" if they could survive 2 years. One batch (~200 HP and Dell units) during a growth period had a 60% failure rate, with bad boards and hard drives being the main issues. I was one of the people who went through 3 computers in the span of 6 months, and ended up just using my personal MBP in the end so that my data could remain secure and I could know I would have a computer that would work when traveling.
The reason PC's don't last is not complicated to understand. Macs are produced by a company that designs hardware and software together, optimizing both, often times actually creating the electronics designs themselves. PC's are really just a collection of parts, some parts can be similar to what Apple uses, but unfortunately because Windows has to be able to deal with random and varying parts and pieces and the code needed to run them, along with an always growing list of changes, this slows down the system, and in reality is why there is an entire industry that was created to deal with how to make PC's work. And in the case of the cheap PC (sub $500), it very well is exactly what you are paying for, something made from cheap parts. With Microsoft now dipping their toes into hardware, it's funny how their pricing matches or eclipses that of comparable Apple products. I'm sure MS is doing so in part because they would rather make money selling products, than lose money, but it also has to be the fact that they're using better parts in the design (maybe) that is driving the cost up - and time will tell, whether that creates a computer that will have a similar lifespan to an Apple product.
that is a huge rate. cant be a fault of two independent manufacturers. just think...
What was funny is that these HP's and Dells looked great compared to what we were using prior, with the change to the Thinkpad clones being driven by the company being purchased by private equity and their cadre of mba's (not MacBook Air's) who thought they should have Thinkpads - but didn't want to pay the price. They complained every time a new Apple needed to be purchased for the design department, because of the price. And they all carried and pushed the use of Blackberry's, of course. I was one of the first to have a board die, and some executives seemed to think I did something to "break" the computer, so they were slow to push for a replacement. Then problems started to hit others (above my pay grade) and then it was a problem that needed to be solved immediately...they were such d!cks.
It took about 5 years and change hit, where more and more people moved to MacBooks (Air's and Pro's) and of course everyone switched to iPhones, because the company didn't want to pay for a team of IT people to manage the problems they were having with hardware (they had enough issues managing software), so it was, like what IBM themselves have seen, a savings to pay more up front for Apple products, because they actually saved money in the end.
seems like the management inside of your company with the MBA degree 
had no clue about the IT stuff, and had the main goal to cut the expenditures. sad story.
Thus they could advice to buy low or mid range laptops.
In addition, Lenovo T5XX series are very reliable from my experience
had no clue about the IT stuff, and had the main goal to cut the expenditures. sad story.Thus they could advice to buy low or mid range laptops.
In addition, Lenovo T5XX series are very reliable from my experience
That seems to be the polar opposite to what my organization's experienced. We can't kill the HP desktops, failure rate is so low that its not worth mentioning. The laptops are just as solid. My organization has thousands of computers and the HP machines have been rock solid.
The Macs we buy have also been problem free, I don't want to paint an inaccurate picture with my words. Many of the faculty and scientists we have on staff prefer Macs, as well as the communication department. Some of them are still running the old Mac Pros. I even saw an old style iMac still chugging along.
Prior to getting the knock-off Thinkpads, I had an HP that was a tank - big, heavy, made of cheap plastic and only lasted a couple hours on battery, but that thing wouldn't die, even surviving a week's worth of travel in Central Asia inside a checked piece of luggage. I had to finally refuse to keep taking it with me because it was causing me shoulder issues. That's when the fun started with the crap quality. The Macs the company was using then, likely still using, included several G5 towers, articulating arm iMacs and a bunch of MBP's of varying age. The IT group spent long hours working on corporate software and hardware assets, and effectively zero time with any of the Macs. Once they got hit by malware (a rouge .exe file) on an infected email, it was the beginning of the end of their use of PC's, as the entire company's PC (desktop and laptops) were effected, but the Macs just kept plugging away. Hard for the PC centric IT guys to explain why they couldn't stop the attack the way the Macs were able to.
I dont why every member get offended and has to be defending Apple by bashing everyone that questions a real logical issue? why Apple is not using using in their CPU the 6th generation i7 chips but instead are only offering the 4th generation i7 processor, can someone answer this?
Who knows?
Even during the era when Steve Jobs ran the company, Apple has been getting called on the forums here for not having the latest processors in their products.
This is nothing new. Lots of people have asked the question you're asking now, and I've never seen an answer the explains it.
Atleast with the 15", the chips that they would use (the ones that utilize Iris Pro) are not yet available.
Because this question has been answered 100's of times, the better chips that apple uses, so that the likes of you can't complain that they don't use the most cutting edge technology, are not released by intel yet. Why would you want them to use lesser parts instead of wait a couple of months???? Broadwell was too late and not enough of a boost to matter when they have skylake around the corner.
The only available mobile chips that have the graphics apple demands are the ones for the Air (as found in the surface book) and as apple look to be abandoning the air in favour of the macbook it's unlikely they'll ever use them.