Consumer Reports now recommends MacBook Pro after Apple software fix

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    MacPro said:
    How about mentioning that baseline apple software of late seems buggier then ever. Do they even test the non standard modes at apple at all? Disabling cache is not that uncommon, I think some blame at apple's software quality control is in order - pony up 500 million and hire more testers, it's a rounding error in a stock buyback for them. 
    You seem to be pretty negative in your posts, why is that?  By the way, as a 33yr mac user I've long since learned underscores are not needed in a Mac OS for long names, are you using Windows XP by any chance?  ;)

    It's just a fact - compare Apple's 2008 product line price/performance vs PCs to 2017 product line price/performance vs PCs and other phone vendors.

    In 2008 I bought a 8 core mac pro for $2689. I also bought a MacBook (subsequently renamed MacBook Pro) maxed out 2.4 Ghz for $1692
    Not to mention the first iPad on the first day 4/3/2010 for $499

    Fast forward to now: 
    If I want a top of the line 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake processor for a Mac Pro - it doesn't exist. If I get the 3 year old version 8 core it is $5499 for an non upgradable 256 GB SSD. So I really have to get a 1TB SSD, which is $6099 !!!! Thats an extra $3410 not to mention I need an extra thunderbolt 2 storage - at $1599 - so now It's $7698 to get the same thing! $5k more! Computers are cheaper now then 9 years ago. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see something is WAY WAY wrong with the apple of 2017 vs 2008. The real cost for a skylake one should be $2000 tops since you have to buy half the computer as add ones, for 3 year old technology should be $1300.

    The Macbook is similar but again a maxed out 13" MacBook pro is now $1999 vs $1692 in 2008, it should be cheaper - PCs are cheaper now vs 2008. The real cost should be no more then $1300 in 2017 for this MacBook Pro.

    The Second Gen Macbook Airs were reasonably priced at $799/$999 and sold like hot cakes. They had lots of ports were small and were great computers. I have the replacement - the new Macbook - great (but slower) computer but at $1299/$1599 ? And only one port? I now have a laptop bag of dongles I am always misplacing and need the USB dongle almost every time I use it. And I like most I really don't like the new keyboard - but live with it.

    If we the Apple faithful don't keep Apple honest - who is? I am just comparing Apple to Apple and it is not the same company. We have the right to call a spade a spade and not get belittled for it.

    As a post mortum, my VMware was running too slowly  on my 8 core mac pro so instead of buying a new Mac I bought a Dell small form factor desktop - precision T3420, i7 skylake 16GB RAM latest Nvidia graphics card for - wait for it - $680. I put in the fasted SSD available 1TB Samsung SM961 NVMe for $600. It boots win10 in 1 second - no joke. I still use my mac as my daily driver, but if Apple doesn't come to it's senses I will not replace this loaded mac pro. Money does not grow on trees and I would rather have a nice family trip to Hawaii ($5k) then make Tim Cook more cash he can waste with buybacks (Steve would never waste cash on buy backs!)

    Apple faithful aren't blind sheep - we supported apple because they have a better products and overall value. Our future support must be earned not taken for granted.
    First, if you haven't bought a new machine for 8 years nobody cares what you want to buy next.  Not even Dell.  Your next machine purchase will be in 2024.

    Second, in 2008 your Mac Pro cost more than the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation.  I know because I bought both back in that same time period.  If all you are counting is specs the Dell is a better bang for the buck until you compute the TCO for both machines both then and today.

    Third, There are no 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake workstations for anyone.  Those are all quad core E3 machines.

    Fourth, Computers are not that much cheaper now.  If you spec out a Dell Precision 5810 with the 8 core E5-1680 v3 its $4441 configured the same way as a $5099 Mac Pro 8 core E5-1680 v2.  Yes that's a $700 cost delta...pretty much the same as in 2008.  

    Only when you compare a consumer tower to a workstation do you see a large price delta but that applies to both the Mac Pro and the Dell Precision.  Your T3220 isn't running ECC RAM which may be fine for you but isn't the same type of machine.

    Enjoy Windows.  It's a fine OS as is Linux.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 42 of 56
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    lkrupp said:
    The kerfuffle uncovered a bug. Apple admits a bug caused the issue for CR’s testing. The bug was squashed. The new tests caused CR to change its recommendation. We should be happy.
    Exactly right. All the bile being vented over CR is really misplaced.  CR used the same testing parameters on multiple brands, and Apple alone failed. That's good science.  Apple found that the failure was due to "an obscure bug", and they fixed it.  Now CR is being responsible and cooperative by re-testing the Apple product(s) and giving a passing score.  Bravo!  Rather than pretend the bug didn't exist and point fingers, let's be happy that everything has worked out.

    Just because the average user might not have encountered the bug doesn't mean it didn't exist.  And CR found it.  GREAT!  Apple should have found it first.
    FALSE.  CR did NOT use the same testing parameters as on other brands.  Had they kept to their standard testing procedure they would have ended up with a 10.4 hour batter life.  Instead they changed their standard testing method to only using the lowest battery life score instead of an average artificially scoring the MBP low even through they KNEW the test was flawed given that Chome produced the correct run times.

    Soliwilliamlondontallest skil
  • Reply 43 of 56
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    nht said:

    lkrupp said:
    The kerfuffle uncovered a bug. Apple admits a bug caused the issue for CR’s testing. The bug was squashed. The new tests caused CR to change its recommendation. We should be happy.
    Exactly right. All the bile being vented over CR is really misplaced.  CR used the same testing parameters on multiple brands, and Apple alone failed. That's good science.  Apple found that the failure was due to "an obscure bug", and they fixed it.  Now CR is being responsible and cooperative by re-testing the Apple product(s) and giving a passing score.  Bravo!  Rather than pretend the bug didn't exist and point fingers, let's be happy that everything has worked out.

    Just because the average user might not have encountered the bug doesn't mean it didn't exist.  And CR found it.  GREAT!  Apple should have found it first.
    FALSE.  CR did NOT use the same testing parameters as on other brands.  Had they kept to their standard testing procedure they would have ended up with a 10.4 hour batter life.  Instead they changed their standard testing method to only using the lowest battery life score instead of an average artificially scoring the MBP low even through they KNEW the test was flawed given that Chome produced the correct run times.

    You are mistaken sir. Chrome is not a browser that the MacBook would have come with. That's why they used Safari which would be the more typical one that Apple buyers would work with and the one pre-installed as the default. AFAIK they used the same test procedures with all other laptops including previous Apple models without major issue, and using whatever the default browser was. This was an odd man out, thus CU/CR reaching out to Apple for assistance is discovering the problem, which Apple identified and apparently now fixed. That's a good thing isn't it? 
    singularitywilliamlondon
  • Reply 44 of 56
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    gatorguy said:
    nht said:

    lkrupp said:
    The kerfuffle uncovered a bug. Apple admits a bug caused the issue for CR’s testing. The bug was squashed. The new tests caused CR to change its recommendation. We should be happy.
    Exactly right. All the bile being vented over CR is really misplaced.  CR used the same testing parameters on multiple brands, and Apple alone failed. That's good science.  Apple found that the failure was due to "an obscure bug", and they fixed it.  Now CR is being responsible and cooperative by re-testing the Apple product(s) and giving a passing score.  Bravo!  Rather than pretend the bug didn't exist and point fingers, let's be happy that everything has worked out.

    Just because the average user might not have encountered the bug doesn't mean it didn't exist.  And CR found it.  GREAT!  Apple should have found it first.
    FALSE.  CR did NOT use the same testing parameters as on other brands.  Had they kept to their standard testing procedure they would have ended up with a 10.4 hour batter life.  Instead they changed their standard testing method to only using the lowest battery life score instead of an average artificially scoring the MBP low even through they KNEW the test was flawed given that Chome produced the correct run times.

    You are mistaken sir. Chrome is not a browser that the MacBook would have come with. That's why they used Safari which would be the more typical one that Apple buyers would work with and the one pre-installed as the default. AFAIK they used the same test procedures with all other laptops including previous Apple models without major issue, and using whatever the default browser was. This was an odd man out, thus CU/CR reaching out to Apple for assistance is discovering the problem, which Apple identified and apparently now fixed. That's a good thing isn't it? 
    I am not mistaken at all.  They admitted they deviated from their standard procedures in their article. Their standard procedure is to average the results of the tests.  They choose not to do so but to use the lowest time instead.  Had they kept to their standard procedure they would have gotten a score that may have been lower than other MBPs but likely above their recommendation threshold. 

    williamlondon
  • Reply 45 of 56
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    nht said:
    gatorguy said:
    nht said:

    lkrupp said:
    The kerfuffle uncovered a bug. Apple admits a bug caused the issue for CR’s testing. The bug was squashed. The new tests caused CR to change its recommendation. We should be happy.
    Exactly right. All the bile being vented over CR is really misplaced.  CR used the same testing parameters on multiple brands, and Apple alone failed. That's good science.  Apple found that the failure was due to "an obscure bug", and they fixed it.  Now CR is being responsible and cooperative by re-testing the Apple product(s) and giving a passing score.  Bravo!  Rather than pretend the bug didn't exist and point fingers, let's be happy that everything has worked out.

    Just because the average user might not have encountered the bug doesn't mean it didn't exist.  And CR found it.  GREAT!  Apple should have found it first.
    FALSE.  CR did NOT use the same testing parameters as on other brands.  Had they kept to their standard testing procedure they would have ended up with a 10.4 hour batter life.  Instead they changed their standard testing method to only using the lowest battery life score instead of an average artificially scoring the MBP low even through they KNEW the test was flawed given that Chome produced the correct run times.

    You are mistaken sir. Chrome is not a browser that the MacBook would have come with. That's why they used Safari which would be the more typical one that Apple buyers would work with and the one pre-installed as the default. AFAIK they used the same test procedures with all other laptops including previous Apple models without major issue, and using whatever the default browser was. This was an odd man out, thus CU/CR reaching out to Apple for assistance is discovering the problem, which Apple identified and apparently now fixed. That's a good thing isn't it? 
    I am not mistaken at all.  They admitted they deviated from their standard procedures in their article. Their standard procedure is to average the results of the tests.  They choose not to do so but to use the lowest time instead.  Had they kept to their standard procedure they would have gotten a score that may have been lower than other MBPs but likely above their recommendation threshold. 

    Perhaps true, but I'd bet that those other results that were averaged probably were all within the same ballpark, so taking the average as a single, representative number is valid. But if you have hugely varying numbers as in the first set of tests on the MBP, for a test that should produce fairly consistent, repeatable results, then presenting only a single number (the average) would border on testing malpractice. In the world of statics it would be an average with a very low confidence level.

    And you seem to be confusing testing procedure with reporting. The report is the interpretation of the testing results, and that includes pointing out any anomalies. You don't just publish a low confidence average without discussing the outliers. The fact that they told you they normally present the average and then explained to you why they didn't in this case is a level of transparency we should beg for more of in all of our new sources!

    Now, if you can show us were they tested other computers and got similarly wild results but then only presented the average, then we can talk about conspiracy, bias, unfairness to Apple. But until then, these are just the facts.
    edited January 2017 williamlondongatorguy
  • Reply 46 of 56
    nht said:
    MacPro said:
    How about mentioning that baseline apple software of late seems buggier then ever. Do they even test the non standard modes at apple at all? Disabling cache is not that uncommon, I think some blame at apple's software quality control is in order - pony up 500 million and hire more testers, it's a rounding error in a stock buyback for them. 
    You seem to be pretty negative in your posts, why is that?  By the way, as a 33yr mac user I've long since learned underscores are not needed in a Mac OS for long names, are you using Windows XP by any chance?  ;)

    It's just a fact - compare Apple's 2008 product line price/performance vs PCs to 2017 product line price/performance vs PCs and other phone vendors.

    In 2008 I bought a 8 core mac pro for $2689. I also bought a MacBook (subsequently renamed MacBook Pro) maxed out 2.4 Ghz for $1692
    Not to mention the first iPad on the first day 4/3/2010 for $499

    Fast forward to now: 
    If I want a top of the line 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake processor for a Mac Pro - it doesn't exist. If I get the 3 year old version 8 core it is $5499 for an non upgradable 256 GB SSD. So I really have to get a 1TB SSD, which is $6099 !!!! Thats an extra $3410 not to mention I need an extra thunderbolt 2 storage - at $1599 - so now It's $7698 to get the same thing! $5k more! Computers are cheaper now then 9 years ago. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see something is WAY WAY wrong with the apple of 2017 vs 2008. The real cost for a skylake one should be $2000 tops since you have to buy half the computer as add ones, for 3 year old technology should be $1300.

    The Macbook is similar but again a maxed out 13" MacBook pro is now $1999 vs $1692 in 2008, it should be cheaper - PCs are cheaper now vs 2008. The real cost should be no more then $1300 in 2017 for this MacBook Pro.

    The Second Gen Macbook Airs were reasonably priced at $799/$999 and sold like hot cakes. They had lots of ports were small and were great computers. I have the replacement - the new Macbook - great (but slower) computer but at $1299/$1599 ? And only one port? I now have a laptop bag of dongles I am always misplacing and need the USB dongle almost every time I use it. And I like most I really don't like the new keyboard - but live with it.

    If we the Apple faithful don't keep Apple honest - who is? I am just comparing Apple to Apple and it is not the same company. We have the right to call a spade a spade and not get belittled for it.

    As a post mortum, my VMware was running too slowly  on my 8 core mac pro so instead of buying a new Mac I bought a Dell small form factor desktop - precision T3420, i7 skylake 16GB RAM latest Nvidia graphics card for - wait for it - $680. I put in the fasted SSD available 1TB Samsung SM961 NVMe for $600. It boots win10 in 1 second - no joke. I still use my mac as my daily driver, but if Apple doesn't come to it's senses I will not replace this loaded mac pro. Money does not grow on trees and I would rather have a nice family trip to Hawaii ($5k) then make Tim Cook more cash he can waste with buybacks (Steve would never waste cash on buy backs!)

    Apple faithful aren't blind sheep - we supported apple because they have a better products and overall value. Our future support must be earned not taken for granted.
    First, if you haven't bought a new machine for 8 years nobody cares what you want to buy next.  Not even Dell.  Your next machine purchase will be in 2024.

    Second, in 2008 your Mac Pro cost more than the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation.  I know because I bought both back in that same time period.  If all you are counting is specs the Dell is a better bang for the buck until you compute the TCO for both machines both then and today.

    Third, There are no 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake workstations for anyone.  Those are all quad core E3 machines.

    Fourth, Computers are not that much cheaper now.  If you spec out a Dell Precision 5810 with the 8 core E5-1680 v3 its $4441 configured the same way as a $5099 Mac Pro 8 core E5-1680 v2.  Yes that's a $700 cost delta...pretty much the same as in 2008.  

    Only when you compare a consumer tower to a workstation do you see a large price delta but that applies to both the Mac Pro and the Dell Precision.  Your T3220 isn't running ECC RAM which may be fine for you but isn't the same type of machine.

    Enjoy Windows.  It's a fine OS as is Linux.
    A Dell Precision Tower 5810 with Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-1660 v4 (8C, 3.2GHz, 3.8GHz Turbo, 2400MHz, 20MB, 140W) starts at ~2k. About like my 2008 mac pro 8 core Xeon. The reality is Apple doesn't really need to go Xeon and ECC, RAM errors are infrequent and Mac Pros aren't data center servers so don't really need it. I think it has always been an upsell by Apple since it doesn't want to sell $800 Mac Pros. 

    Just an update - you can already get a Kaby Lake 4core 7th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-7700 (Quad Core 3.6GHz, 4.2Ghz Turbo, 8MB, w/ HD Graphics 630) Dell Precision T3420 for $854. Why can't Apple update their desktops at this rate (2-4x a year) vs 2-4 years! That's a update rate of 16x - how can crappy Dell being so much more with it!?

    And I would have bought a new machine if Apple had made an decent updates since 2008! that's the entire point! I have added 1 TB PCI SSD and latest graphics cards and latest airport cards to it, so it's still relatively fast and current, but I have had to start stockpiling spare parts. I shouldn't have to do this apple - please get on the ball with desktops!
    williamlondon
  • Reply 47 of 56
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    Apple software quality has degraded.  iOS 10 came out last October. It has undergone over ten updates.  Most of the updates are bug fixes.  This is like Windows OS.  Every time new Windows come out, the media always praise it as more stable.  LOL

    I have a personal experience.  After installing iOS 10.2 iPhone 7 Plus will no longer pair with car bluetooth.  When I try to reconnect, the connection fail. Now I am left with the task to fix the problem myself before going to an Apple Store staff. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 48 of 56
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,273member
    The fact that they now claim the batteries perform in line with Apple's claims, but "up to 18.75 hours" in one case suggests to me that they are still doing the tests wrong. I think, though, that it is not intended to be malicious (and it wasn't the first time, either ... just poor reporting), but rather a problem resulting from the artificial desire to "standardize" battery testing across Windows and Mac platforms. Macs are (evidently) different, particularly in that they use custom-designed batteries.
  • Reply 49 of 56
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    While I don't think there was any malicious intent, their testing methodology resulted in 16-18hrs battery life as opposed to Apple's 10hrs of 'real world' battery life. 

    So how valid is the test. Yes, it's the exact same methodology of every model and brand of laptop but of what value is it to the average Apple user who won't every enable the Developer menu let alone turn off the cache.

    And now absent the bug can the 'pro' users now regularly get in excess of Apple's stated 10hrs by turning off the cache for real world use? If so, yay. If not, then what's the value of testing the MBP in a manner in which in likely won't be used.

    A bug squashed is a good thing, so there's that. But otherwise, I don't think CR has really done anyone, particularly the consumer, any favors, not to mention they never should have released that first report without knowing why they got such odd results in the face of Apple's rated battery life.
  • Reply 50 of 56
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    No. Not after "software fix", after their FRAUD was exposed to everyone.

    Running the machine with a hidden developer setting that is DESIGNED to reduce performance, and then not disclosing that fact, and then claiming an independant test shows the machine under-performs the manufacturers claims is FRAUD.  Possibly Libel/Slander as well.
    This is ridiculous on its face. PROVE fraud. Show the INTENT to commit FRAUD. And learn the definition of both libel and slander.



    CU is not a credible organization.
    I'm not so sure I disagree, but only on that point. Years and years ago, I subscribed to CU but stopped after the first year because of the methodology of their testing. They most frequently reduced their testing to a point system that often gave misleading results when one area scored low often because of some absent feature they deemed more important than many others might. Often products that later found very satisfactory didn't fare well with CR.

    I don't know that they were trying to garner attention, the only purpose being to increase subscriptions, or had any other malicious intent. But I believe they were absolutely irresponsible to release the first review under the circumstances. I've never regretted not continuing my subscription.
    Soli
  • Reply 51 of 56
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    macgui said:
    No. Not after "software fix", after their FRAUD was exposed to everyone.

    Running the machine with a hidden developer setting that is DESIGNED to reduce performance, and then not disclosing that fact, and then claiming an independant test shows the machine under-performs the manufacturers claims is FRAUD.  Possibly Libel/Slander as well.
    This is ridiculous on its face. PROVE fraud. Show the INTENT to commit FRAUD. And learn the definition of both libel and slander.



    CU is not a credible organization.
    I'm not so sure I disagree, but only on that point. Years and years ago, I subscribed to CU but stopped after the first year because of the methodology of their testing. They most frequently reduced their testing to a point system that often gave misleading results when one area scored low often because of some absent feature they deemed more important than many others might. Often products that later found very satisfactory didn't fare well with CR.

    I don't know that they were trying to garner attention, the only purpose being to increase subscriptions, or had any other malicious intent. But I believe they were absolutely irresponsible to release the first review under the circumstances. I've never regretted not continuing my subscription.
    I agree. No fraud, but it's plausible they reported in a way to generate clickbait instead of reporting in the same way they had done previously.

    But all that aside, I also agree their methodology is flawed to the point of near uselessness, and that's even without consideration for the CE era. They are simply not equipped for this era of computing. Thewirecutter.com is a much better resource.
    edited January 2017
  • Reply 52 of 56
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    wiggin said:
    nht said:
    gatorguy said:
    nht said:

    lkrupp said:
    The kerfuffle uncovered a bug. Apple admits a bug caused the issue for CR’s testing. The bug was squashed. The new tests caused CR to change its recommendation. We should be happy.
    Exactly right. All the bile being vented over CR is really misplaced.  CR used the same testing parameters on multiple brands, and Apple alone failed. That's good science.  Apple found that the failure was due to "an obscure bug", and they fixed it.  Now CR is being responsible and cooperative by re-testing the Apple product(s) and giving a passing score.  Bravo!  Rather than pretend the bug didn't exist and point fingers, let's be happy that everything has worked out.

    Just because the average user might not have encountered the bug doesn't mean it didn't exist.  And CR found it.  GREAT!  Apple should have found it first.
    FALSE.  CR did NOT use the same testing parameters as on other brands.  Had they kept to their standard testing procedure they would have ended up with a 10.4 hour batter life.  Instead they changed their standard testing method to only using the lowest battery life score instead of an average artificially scoring the MBP low even through they KNEW the test was flawed given that Chome produced the correct run times.

    You are mistaken sir. Chrome is not a browser that the MacBook would have come with. That's why they used Safari which would be the more typical one that Apple buyers would work with and the one pre-installed as the default. AFAIK they used the same test procedures with all other laptops including previous Apple models without major issue, and using whatever the default browser was. This was an odd man out, thus CU/CR reaching out to Apple for assistance is discovering the problem, which Apple identified and apparently now fixed. That's a good thing isn't it? 
    I am not mistaken at all.  They admitted they deviated from their standard procedures in their article. Their standard procedure is to average the results of the tests.  They choose not to do so but to use the lowest time instead.  Had they kept to their standard procedure they would have gotten a score that may have been lower than other MBPs but likely above their recommendation threshold. 

    Perhaps true, but I'd bet that those other results that were averaged probably were all within the same ballpark, so taking the average as a single, representative number is valid. But if you have hugely varying numbers as in the first set of tests on the MBP, for a test that should produce fairly consistent, repeatable results, then presenting only a single number (the average) would border on testing malpractice. In the world of statics it would be an average with a very low confidence level.

    And you seem to be confusing testing procedure with reporting. The report is the interpretation of the testing results, and that includes pointing out any anomalies. You don't just publish a low confidence average without discussing the outliers. The fact that they told you they normally present the average and then explained to you why they didn't in this case is a level of transparency we should beg for more of in all of our new sources!

    Now, if you can show us were they tested other computers and got similarly wild results but then only presented the average, then we can talk about conspiracy, bias, unfairness to Apple. But until then, these are just the facts.
    You can change your process but you cannot simultaneously claim that the process was identical across the board.  That is a falsehood.

    What should have been done is either providing no score saying they couldn't get consistent results which is not the same as "not recommended" OR scoring as normal and asterisking the result because of the large variations in battery time.

    Transparency would have been to say that if scored normally it would have gotten a Recommend result.

    Instead they choose to deviate from their normal procedure, give an invalid result and then claim this is the same procedure followed for all other laptops in order to get wide tech press coverage.
    Soli
  • Reply 53 of 56
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    nht said:
    MacPro said:
    How about mentioning that baseline apple software of late seems buggier then ever. Do they even test the non standard modes at apple at all? Disabling cache is not that uncommon, I think some blame at apple's software quality control is in order - pony up 500 million and hire more testers, it's a rounding error in a stock buyback for them. 
    You seem to be pretty negative in your posts, why is that?  By the way, as a 33yr mac user I've long since learned underscores are not needed in a Mac OS for long names, are you using Windows XP by any chance?  ;)

    It's just a fact - compare Apple's 2008 product line price/performance vs PCs to 2017 product line price/performance vs PCs and other phone vendors.

    In 2008 I bought a 8 core mac pro for $2689. I also bought a MacBook (subsequently renamed MacBook Pro) maxed out 2.4 Ghz for $1692
    Not to mention the first iPad on the first day 4/3/2010 for $499

    Fast forward to now: 
    If I want a top of the line 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake processor for a Mac Pro - it doesn't exist. If I get the 3 year old version 8 core it is $5499 for an non upgradable 256 GB SSD. So I really have to get a 1TB SSD, which is $6099 !!!! Thats an extra $3410 not to mention I need an extra thunderbolt 2 storage - at $1599 - so now It's $7698 to get the same thing! $5k more! Computers are cheaper now then 9 years ago. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see something is WAY WAY wrong with the apple of 2017 vs 2008. The real cost for a skylake one should be $2000 tops since you have to buy half the computer as add ones, for 3 year old technology should be $1300.

    The Macbook is similar but again a maxed out 13" MacBook pro is now $1999 vs $1692 in 2008, it should be cheaper - PCs are cheaper now vs 2008. The real cost should be no more then $1300 in 2017 for this MacBook Pro.

    The Second Gen Macbook Airs were reasonably priced at $799/$999 and sold like hot cakes. They had lots of ports were small and were great computers. I have the replacement - the new Macbook - great (but slower) computer but at $1299/$1599 ? And only one port? I now have a laptop bag of dongles I am always misplacing and need the USB dongle almost every time I use it. And I like most I really don't like the new keyboard - but live with it.

    If we the Apple faithful don't keep Apple honest - who is? I am just comparing Apple to Apple and it is not the same company. We have the right to call a spade a spade and not get belittled for it.

    As a post mortum, my VMware was running too slowly  on my 8 core mac pro so instead of buying a new Mac I bought a Dell small form factor desktop - precision T3420, i7 skylake 16GB RAM latest Nvidia graphics card for - wait for it - $680. I put in the fasted SSD available 1TB Samsung SM961 NVMe for $600. It boots win10 in 1 second - no joke. I still use my mac as my daily driver, but if Apple doesn't come to it's senses I will not replace this loaded mac pro. Money does not grow on trees and I would rather have a nice family trip to Hawaii ($5k) then make Tim Cook more cash he can waste with buybacks (Steve would never waste cash on buy backs!)

    Apple faithful aren't blind sheep - we supported apple because they have a better products and overall value. Our future support must be earned not taken for granted.
    First, if you haven't bought a new machine for 8 years nobody cares what you want to buy next.  Not even Dell.  Your next machine purchase will be in 2024.

    Second, in 2008 your Mac Pro cost more than the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation.  I know because I bought both back in that same time period.  If all you are counting is specs the Dell is a better bang for the buck until you compute the TCO for both machines both then and today.

    Third, There are no 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake workstations for anyone.  Those are all quad core E3 machines.

    Fourth, Computers are not that much cheaper now.  If you spec out a Dell Precision 5810 with the 8 core E5-1680 v3 its $4441 configured the same way as a $5099 Mac Pro 8 core E5-1680 v2.  Yes that's a $700 cost delta...pretty much the same as in 2008.  

    Only when you compare a consumer tower to a workstation do you see a large price delta but that applies to both the Mac Pro and the Dell Precision.  Your T3220 isn't running ECC RAM which may be fine for you but isn't the same type of machine.

    Enjoy Windows.  It's a fine OS as is Linux.
    A Dell Precision Tower 5810 with Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-1660 v4 (8C, 3.2GHz, 3.8GHz Turbo, 2400MHz, 20MB, 140W) starts at ~2k. About like my 2008 mac pro 8 core Xeon. The reality is Apple doesn't really need to go Xeon and ECC, RAM errors are infrequent and Mac Pros aren't data center servers so don't really need it. I think it has always been an upsell by Apple since it doesn't want to sell $800 Mac Pros. 

    Just an update - you can already get a Kaby Lake 4core 7th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-7700 (Quad Core 3.6GHz, 4.2Ghz Turbo, 8MB, w/ HD Graphics 630) Dell Precision T3420 for $854. Why can't Apple update their desktops at this rate (2-4x a year) vs 2-4 years! That's a update rate of 16x - how can crappy Dell being so much more with it!?

    And I would have bought a new machine if Apple had made an decent updates since 2008! that's the entire point! I have added 1 TB PCI SSD and latest graphics cards and latest airport cards to it, so it's still relatively fast and current, but I have had to start stockpiling spare parts. I shouldn't have to do this apple - please get on the ball with desktops!
    You specifically stated:
    If I want a top of the line 8 core Skylake or Kaby Lake processor for a Mac Pro - it doesn't exist. 

    The reason why is those chips do not exist.  A 4 Core i7 isn't 8 core.

    The $2K version of the 5810 doesn't come with SSD or dual GPU and is 4 core. The E5-1660 is a $1000 option.
  • Reply 54 of 56
    linkmanlinkman Posts: 1,035member
    macgui said:
    And now absent the bug can the 'pro' users now regularly get in excess of Apple's stated 10hrs by turning off the cache for real world use? If so, yay. If not, then what's the value of testing the MBP in a manner in which in likely won't be used.
    There is almost no utility in turning off the browser cache for anyone but a developer. Turning if off will cause the computer to work harder and increase the network load by reloading page elements that could otherwise be loaded from the cache. It would decrease battery life in almost all cases.
  • Reply 55 of 56
    Fourth, Computers are not that much cheaper now.  If you spec out a Dell Precision 5810 with the 8 core E5-1680 v3 its $4441 configured the same way as a $5099 Mac Pro 8 core E5-1680 v2.  Yes that's a $700 cost delta...pretty much the same as in 2008.  
    A Dell Precision Tower 5810 with Intel® Xeon® Processor E5-1660 v4 (8C, 3.2GHz, 3.8GHz Turbo, 2400MHz, 20MB, 140W) starts at ~2k. About like my 2008 mac pro 8 core Xeon. The reality is Apple doesn't really need to go Xeon and ECC, RAM errors are infrequent and Mac Pros aren't data center servers so don't really need it. I think it has always been an upsell by Apple since it doesn't want to sell $800 Mac Pros. 

    The $2K version of the 5810 doesn't come with SSD or dual GPU and is 4 core. The E5-1660 is a $1000 option.
    I priced the 8 core 5810 on the dell website just for you it's $2k. if you actually procure Dells regularly you would know that the standard sale / coupon prices are 40% under list.
  • Reply 56 of 56
    I'm sorry but CR have lost all credibility with their poor, and arguably fraudulent, testing of the Macbook Pro.  I just don't trust their recommendation and reject it.
Sign In or Register to comment.