I'll agree with the AI writer: Mac trackpads are the best and everything else pales in comparison. The Mac trackpad, even the one on my 2009 MBP, is my favorite pointing/clicking device of all time. I can't stand the puny one on my Dell work laptop. I've noticed almost nobody uses a mouse while mobile on a Mac yet 80% of the time I see people crack out a mouse with a non-Apple laptop.
I knew I couldn’t be the only one. Maybe people just don’t complain about it. I use Dell laptops for work, too. Every time I get a new one (every 2-3 years), I’m astonished that the trackpad seems exactly the same. They seem to pick up the unintentional input very well, but they seem to really struggle with the intentional input. I always disable mine. It’s too frustrating. Does Dell not know how hard they suck? You’re right. Ten-year-old Apple trackpads are far superior to any Windows system trackpad I have tried.
You should try Surface trackpads. I have a SP4, and the trackpad precision is very close to my MBP 2017, and the same can be said of Surface Book trackpads. The only issue I have with my SP4 trackpad is size, but a part from that is very nice.
Except that you have to deal with Windows. I have to help my coworkers troubleshoot their systems from time to time and am reminded why I got a Mac 15 years ago. i will never say that Macs are completely trouble free, but they definitely have fewer problems and those that they do have are, in general, easier to fix, meaning I spend less time working on my computer and more time using it.
So many uninformed comments around component performance such as SSD and Apple having the fastest/most reliable. Complete bollocks. It's all OEM'ed from the few vendors with some custom firmware, no different to any other vendor.
Too much bullshit to address, and somebody already did it.
One point on your bullshit — Macs are highly recyclable, and probably have the best record for recycling and green initiatives as rated by groups like green peace. So no idea where the fuck you’re dreaming up this “environmental horror” nonsense from.
So basically you conclusion is contrived nonsense.
Dell: + ports Most people won't need them + replaceable SSD and RAM (repair/upgrade) Most people wouldn't upgrade/replace + SSD PCIe (Same as Mac) Already proven the SSD in the new MacBook Pros are NOT the same - Nearly 10 TIMES FASTER than every other on the market + price Same MSRP as the MacBook Pro - Some discounts on the Mac can be found at some online retailers - Mac has resale value - get what you pay for + high quality keyboard Nicer key travel does not mean higher quality + function keys Most people don't use them + 4K display Useless on something this size, and the actual quality isn't as good as the MacBook Pro's screen + slim, nice look Subjective - doesn‘t run macOS - Hardware and software are not created in unison to optimize performance metrics.
Mac: + cool design Nearly every other company is making at least one MacBook knockoff, and have been for years + runs macOS And Windows, if needed - hardware and software created in unison for optimal performance + Maybe better build quality (questionable)Proven - everything soldered and glued (RAM, SSD, battery), environmental horror Most people don't care - obvious since this isn't hurting sales - TouchBar Can be useful depending on the apps used - Weak keyboard, no function keys Those who've adapted don't really complain - see above re function keys - I'm using a 12" MB with first-gen butterfly keyboard - I've adapted. - no ports, just adapters Most people won't care or use more than just a USB-A hub - price See above - the Dell will never touch a Mac's resale value - you get what you pay for - OpenGL deprecated in Mojave It's like Flash all over again - developers need to get with it or lose out - better technology for better performance
Clarified a few things for you. Apple caters to the majority of customers, and the majority of buyers of these machines never use them to their full potential.
Clarifying and shilling are opposite things.
As is using reason and fact from that list of squinty-eyed nonsense.
Dell: + ports Most people won't need them + replaceable SSD and RAM (repair/upgrade) Most people wouldn't upgrade/replace + SSD PCIe (Same as Mac) Already proven the SSD in the new MacBook Pros are NOT the same - Nearly 10 TIMES FASTER than every other on the market + price Same MSRP as the MacBook Pro - Some discounts on the Mac can be found at some online retailers - Mac has resale value - get what you pay for + high quality keyboard Nicer key travel does not mean higher quality + function keys Most people don't use them + 4K display Useless on something this size, and the actual quality isn't as good as the MacBook Pro's screen + slim, nice look Subjective - doesn‘t run macOS - Hardware and software are not created in unison to optimize performance metrics.
Mac: + cool design Nearly every other company is making at least one MacBook knockoff, and have been for years + runs macOS And Windows, if needed - hardware and software created in unison for optimal performance + Maybe better build quality (questionable)Proven - everything soldered and glued (RAM, SSD, battery), environmental horror Most people don't care - obvious since this isn't hurting sales - TouchBar Can be useful depending on the apps used - Weak keyboard, no function keys Those who've adapted don't really complain - see above re function keys - I'm using a 12" MB with first-gen butterfly keyboard - I've adapted. - no ports, just adapters Most people won't care or use more than just a USB-A hub - price See above - the Dell will never touch a Mac's resale value - you get what you pay for - OpenGL deprecated in Mojave It's like Flash all over again - developers need to get with it or lose out - better technology for better performance
Clarified a few things for you. Apple caters to the majority of customers, and the majority of buyers of these machines never use them to their full potential.
Did you mean to say: "Spun a few things for you."?
When did the haters, trolls, and pundits start hitting AI? Is Macrumors too busy for you, can’t get enough likes in all the noise there?
So many uninformed comments around component performance such as SSD and Apple having the fastest/most reliable. Complete bollocks. It's all OEM'ed from the few vendors with some custom firmware, no different to any other vendor.
The only uninformed one is you. Apple’s SSD has long been faster than removable SSD drives and more replicable, this is simply fact. Links have been posted, speeds have been identified. Read up and cry into your knockoff’s display.
GeorgeBMac said: (That said, it is important for Apple to put out high level hardware. It's just that that is no longer sufficient to maintain high end status).
And, I guess that's why some of us are complaining. Apple could do both, and even do better on that OS/eco-system than I think they have been. I'm encouraged with some of the hardware (iMac Pro, and at least some of the improvement of these laptops), and it will be interesting to see what the Mac Pro brings, and hopefully Mini/iMac updates.
The OS/software/UI/UX stuff might just be stuff we have to deal with (i.e.: those of us who feel it is degrading). It is still better. I just wish it would stay way better.
I'll agree with the AI writer: Mac trackpads are the best and everything else pales in comparison. The Mac trackpad, even the one on my 2009 MBP, is my favorite pointing/clicking device of all time. I can't stand the puny one on my Dell work laptop. I've noticed almost nobody uses a mouse while mobile on a Mac yet 80% of the time I see people crack out a mouse with a non-Apple laptop.
I knew I couldn’t be the only one. Maybe people just don’t complain about it. I use Dell laptops for work, too. Every time I get a new one (every 2-3 years), I’m astonished that the trackpad seems exactly the same. They seem to pick up the unintentional input very well, but they seem to really struggle with the intentional input. I always disable mine. It’s too frustrating. Does Dell not know how hard they suck? You’re right. Ten-year-old Apple trackpads are far superior to any Windows system trackpad I have tried.
Same with mouse input. It's a PC thing (well, and Unix too). The Mac has always been more 1:1 when it comes to that kind of input, whereas PCs feel like you're operating it via some kind of clunky remote mechanism.
My problem with the trackpad, though, is the size... but I need more time on it. It's a bit in the way, but rejection seems reasonably good so far. That said, I use external keyboard/trackpad/mouse 80% of the time anyway. But, I prefer the previous size of the trackpad.
It looks like there is a long list of people that still care for ports.
...
I find interesting that you have to adapt to the keyboard. If it's good, why you have to adapt to it? For example, Apple trackpads are excellent, and I haven't heard of someone that needed time to adapt to it. Why it's different with the latest keyboards if they are so good?
re: ports - I like the new ports (aside from USB-C confusion aspects and missing MagSafe), but what I don't get (and I'm not alone) is why not have a few more ports (even if they are 'legacy'... which they aren't) on the bigger machines that can fit them? Until the USB-C ecosystem gets more established, the users are just being inconvenienced.
Good point on the keyboard. That's how I feel as well... should I have to adapt, when the previous gen was perfectly fine?
You mention the XPS has double the SSD storage - but you didn’t give any information about their relative performances. Not all SSDs are created equal. Personal example: started a new job last year and they gave me a super powerful Lenovo Windows desktop w. 64gb RAM and a 1TB SSD. A complete build of our application - very IO intensive activity - took 15 seconds. Very fast compared to my colleague’s hard disk based times (30+ seconds). When I needed to replace it with a laptop, I got a 2017 15” MBP with 16gb RAM and a 512gb SSD. It builds the same application in 7 seconds flat. Because the SSDs in Macs are the fastest on the planet.
This is brought up a lot and, in my opinion, is one of the most uninformed issues on the planet when it comes to Apple devices. Apple DOES NOT MAKE IT'S OWN SSDs OR RAM! Apple purchases these components from the exact same 3rd party manufacturers as Dell and other Windows PC makers. The difference is that Apple charges more for the exact same SSD and then solders it in so you can replace/upgrade it. On almost ALL Windows laptops, including the XPS, you can replace/upgrade the SSD to whatever size and model you want -- to include whichever one the Macbook is currently using. Most of the time you can do this for less than what the exact same size and model SSD costs in the Macbook. Same with the RAM, although I think Dell solders the RAM in on the XPS line.
I had this exact same argument with someone in another Apple forum when the 2016 model MBPs came out. I chose to go with a mid-range Windows gaming laptop instead of the MBP. My laptop was faster and more powerful than the highest end 2016 MBP and cost nearly $2000 less: faster processor, faster (and upgradeable) RAM, and faster GPU. The only drawbacks were the battery life (speed comes with a price) and storage. My laptop had a 1TB HDD and an option for NVME SSD that was slower than the one in the MBP, which the other person made it a point to mention (ignoring everything else). I ordered the laptop without an SSD,Now, there are third-party SSDs that are crazy fast, such as the Samsung 970 EVO, but we haven’t seen anyone put it inside a laptop yet. then bought the exact same SSD as the MBP (the Samsung 960 Pro) for $100 less and installed it in my laptop. Funny thing is, I can upgrade my laptop to the same SSD as the 2018 MBP, which you can't do with a 2016 MBP. When the 2020 MBP comes out, I will also be able to upgrade to that SSD, as long as the NVME standard is still being utilized.
While it’s true Apple doesn’t manufacture the memory chips, it’s untrue that they’re the exact same as a stock removable SSD drive. They are faster and more reliable. MBPs are famous for their very fast SSD chips.
You missed the entire point. No one, especially not I, are saying that the SSD in the MBP is not fast or the fastest. What I am saying is that Apple DOES NOT MAKE ITS OWN SSDs. Windows users can buy the exact same SSD that Apple uses and put it in their laptops for a lot less! From my understanding, Apple sources its SSDs chips from Samsung or Toshiba, usually before anyone else gets them. For example in the 2016 MBP, Apple used the same chips found in the Samsung 960 Pro SSD -- I believe almost two months before they were available to general consumers.
Straight from the article: "To be fair, Apple’s relatively new APFS file system is designed to speed up file copies using a technology Apple calls Instant Cloning. But that translates to performance that feels faster." So the article says that the file system only "feels faster," meaning that it is just a good placebo, kind of like how animations in iOS make it seem like some applications are opening faster when they really aren't.
Apple has used a proprietary controller for their SSDs since 2010. However, their controllers have pretty much stuck to the industry's (highest) standard throughout the years. For the current crop of MBPs, Apple's controller is using the PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe standard, if I am not mistaken. My 2016 gaming laptop uses the exact same standard for its controller, BTW.
Just because it is proprietary doesn't means it is better or that Apple somehow reinvented the wheel. They just changed a few things around to make it so standard SSDs won't fit in their devices. That is so they can charge you extra by making you upgrade the entire laptop just to get the same SSD and controller everyone else is using.
What truly makes MBPs SSDs "faster" is that fact that Apple buys the fastest SSD chips they can get, almost exclusively from Samsung, before anyone else can get them, then puts those SSD chips into the MBP. I applaud Apple for this. The only SSD option available directly from the manufacturer for my laptop was a lot slower than 960 Pro that Apple used in the 2016 MBP. However, once those chips become available, EVERYONE ELSE has access to them. I only had to wait two months to purchase the 960 Pro for my laptop. I have the exact same SSD, using a controller with the same specifications (PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe), with the exact same read and write speeds as the 2016 MBP, and it cost me hundreds of dollars less than what MBP owners paid for it. Also, I am able to upgrade mine...
Note this from the article you posted: "Now, there are third-party SSDs that are crazy fast, such as the Samsung 970 EVO, but we haven’t seen anyone put it inside a laptop yet." Now look at the performance on the 970 Pro:
This is probably the SSD that Apple is using, since the write speeds are near identical (if not faster) than the MBP. BTW, this is available for purchase right now on Amazon.
You mention the XPS has double the SSD storage - but you didn’t give any information about their relative performances. Not all SSDs are created equal. Personal example: started a new job last year and they gave me a super powerful Lenovo Windows desktop w. 64gb RAM and a 1TB SSD. A complete build of our application - very IO intensive activity - took 15 seconds. Very fast compared to my colleague’s hard disk based times (30+ seconds). When I needed to replace it with a laptop, I got a 2017 15” MBP with 16gb RAM and a 512gb SSD. It builds the same application in 7 seconds flat. Because the SSDs in Macs are the fastest on the planet.
This is brought up a lot and, in my opinion, is one of the most uninformed issues on the planet when it comes to Apple devices. Apple DOES NOT MAKE IT'S OWN SSDs OR RAM! Apple purchases these components from the exact same 3rd party manufacturers as Dell and other Windows PC makers. The difference is that Apple charges more for the exact same SSD and then solders it in so you can replace/upgrade it. On almost ALL Windows laptops, including the XPS, you can replace/upgrade the SSD to whatever size and model you want -- to include whichever one the Macbook is currently using. Most of the time you can do this for less than what the exact same size and model SSD costs in the Macbook. Same with the RAM, although I think Dell solders the RAM in on the XPS line.
That’s a fair comment, but while many components are off the shelf, not all of them are, and Apple often uses their own tech to drive them. A bit like having Bootcamp handle the Windows installation. The SSDs are a good example. Standard modules driven by a proprietary controller designed to increase the performance and lifespan of SSDs.
Please see my (long and drawn out) reply to Entropys. Apple's current controllers use the same NVMe standard as most other manufacturers do. My 2016 laptop uses this standard, and the Samsung 960 Pro SSD that I put in my laptop has the same read/write speeds as the (Samsung 960 Pro) SSD chips that were source for the 2016 MBP. I can also upgrade my 960 Pro with a 970 Pro right now, which is probably where Apple sourced the SSD chips for the 2018 MBP. You can't upgrade the SSD in ANY of the current MBP (2015-2018) once you buy it.
Here's my point so you folks understand it: Yes, most Windows manufacturers put SSDs in their laptops that are way slower than what Apple puts in the MBP. That is a fact. However, if you own a Windows laptop, you can put the same SSD that Apple uses in the MBP in your Windows laptop, and usually for a lot less than what Apple charges.
Too much bullshit to address, and somebody already did it.
One point on your bullshit — Macs are highly recyclable, and probably have the best record for recycling and green initiatives as rated by groups like green peace. So no idea where the fuck you’re dreaming up this “environmental horror” nonsense from.
So basically you conclusion is contrived nonsense.
I think you missed the point: since everything is soldered and glued on a Mac, you have to sell or toss the entire machine when you need to do a simple upgrade. That means more computers in landfills, which means an environmental horror. Apple slyly tries to get around this by advertising that their machines are "highly recyclable." I don't think they are more recyclable than most PCs, since they use the exact same parts and materials. However, if they just allowed you to upgrade the machines more, they would have a longer life and stay out of landfills more.
This reminds me of the "Adam Ruins Everything" video on electric cars where the expert has to explain to the guy who wanted to buy an electric car "to save the environment" that he was better off getting and keeping a reliable gasoline powered car for longer, so it wouldn't end up in a landfill. Basically, if the guy change his buying habits and quit buying a new car every 4 years, electric or not, he would do more for the environment that just not burning gas exclusively. Same can be said for keeping a computer longer. However, if you are unable to keep that computer longer because the manufacturer purposely makes it so that it can't be easily upgraded, any effort to save the environment gets defeated.
Re-iterating others here, I prefer the mac screen dimensions, and also I prefer the larger bezels.
And of course MacOS is far better than Windows 10.
That is highly subjective. I use Linux, and I would rate MacOS below Windows 10 for several reasons. The number one reason is that gaming support in MacOS sucks, and is not better when you run games in Windows on a MBP because the GPU on MBPs suck for gaming and Macs don't have good Windows driver support. Second, and I have seen this WAY TOO MANY TIMES, MacOS does not support (or properly support) all of the hardware and software, personal or professional, that you can run on Windows (or even Linux). Third, MacOS is not very customizable -- you can customize Windows 10 and Linux to do just about everything you can do in MacOS natively, but you can't customize MacOS to the same extent. Also, MacOS hasn't really changed in the last 10 years (that's not all bad)...
Windows 10 has its problems. For one, it is more of a virus magnet than MacOS. This can be managed with free anti-virus and spyware software. Microsoft forces Windows 10 upgrades on users and you can't turn that crap off! Windows is not as customizable as Linux, and reading from multiple file systems is not built in by default on Windows 10 as it is in MacOS or Linux. However, you can dual boot Linux on a Windows machine and get full use of both OS, plus WAY BETTER HARDWARE than what you get with a Mac (minus the trackpad, which hardly anyone uses anyway!).
You mention the XPS has double the SSD storage - but you didn’t give any information about their relative performances. Not all SSDs are created equal. Personal example: started a new job last year and they gave me a super powerful Lenovo Windows desktop w. 64gb RAM and a 1TB SSD. A complete build of our application - very IO intensive activity - took 15 seconds. Very fast compared to my colleague’s hard disk based times (30+ seconds). When I needed to replace it with a laptop, I got a 2017 15” MBP with 16gb RAM and a 512gb SSD. It builds the same application in 7 seconds flat. Because the SSDs in Macs are the fastest on the planet.
This is brought up a lot and, in my opinion, is one of the most uninformed issues on the planet when it comes to Apple devices. Apple DOES NOT MAKE IT'S OWN SSDs OR RAM! Apple purchases these components from the exact same 3rd party manufacturers as Dell and other Windows PC makers. The difference is that Apple charges more for the exact same SSD and then solders it in so you can replace/upgrade it. On almost ALL Windows laptops, including the XPS, you can replace/upgrade the SSD to whatever size and model you want -- to include whichever one the Macbook is currently using. Most of the time you can do this for less than what the exact same size and model SSD costs in the Macbook. Same with the RAM, although I think Dell solders the RAM in on the XPS line.
I had this exact same argument with someone in another Apple forum when the 2016 model MBPs came out. I chose to go with a mid-range Windows gaming laptop instead of the MBP. My laptop was faster and more powerful than the highest end 2016 MBP and cost nearly $2000 less: faster processor, faster (and upgradeable) RAM, and faster GPU. The only drawbacks were the battery life (speed comes with a price) and storage. My laptop had a 1TB HDD and an option for NVME SSD that was slower than the one in the MBP, which the other person made it a point to mention (ignoring everything else). I ordered the laptop without an SSD, then bought the exact same SSD as the MBP (the Samsung 960 Pro) for $100 less and installed it in my laptop. Funny thing is, I can upgrade my laptop to the same SSD as the 2018 MBP, which you can't do with a 2016 MBP. When the 2020 MBP comes out, I will also be able to upgrade to that SSD, as long as the NVME standard is still being utilized.
Sigh: laptop magazine https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/2018-macbook-pro-benchmarks (reformatted table curtesy macrumors, but that is just an extract from laptop magazine). Apple has invested a lot in ssd controllers in recent years, a new file system and the algorithms that go with it. The sum of the parts is much greater than it seems.
Edit: in my view the only negs of this machine is the price, price and price, with graphics perhaps a distant fourth. Whether it is worth it though for the performance is up to the buyer and their needs.
I wanted to update this to show you the SSD benchmark running under Windows 10 on my 2016 laptop. This is with a 512MB Samsung 960 Pro SSD. The drive was not a "clean" install. It is partitioned for both Windows 10 and Linux (KDE Neon) and I have used it for over a year:
The performance is right on par with what I have seen from the 2016 MBP. Edit: Ok, I take this back. My write speed is on par with the 15 inch 2016 MBP. However, my read speed blows it away! According to Notebookcheck.net, the read speed on my SSD is 800 MB/s faster than the 15 inch 2016 MBP. BTW, that laptop had the "fastest SSD ever" when it came out.
I'm pretty sure my performance would come close to matching or beating the 2018 MBP if I bought the Samsung 970 Pro SSD, which averages 2737 MB/s for the write speed and 3344 MB/s for read speed, according to Tom's Hardware.
I've also noticed that some publications have been very careful to note that the MBP has the fastest default SSD and that 3rd party SSDs (like the one I added in my laptop) are just as fast.
I also forgot to mention that my boot times are insane -- around 7-15 seconds on average for both operating systems after the POST.
Edit: I also ran Cinebench R15 tests on my laptop: I got close to the exact same results as the 15 inch 2016 MBP with the same processor as my laptop (i7 6700HQ). My scores were around 140 and 660, respectively for single core and multi-core CPU. My GPU (a 6GB GTX 1060) scored 78.12 FPS, which is 9 FPS faster than the 15 inch 2016 MBP. The total cost for my laptop was $1600 USD new with the addition of the 512MB Samsung 960 Pro SSD. The 15 inch 2016 MBP (that was used in the benchmark) cost a whopping $3100 USD new. That is almost twice the cost of my laptop. Here is the breakdown:
17 inch 75Mhz 1080p Screen w/Nvidia G-Sync Intel Core i7 6700HQ Processor Nvidia GTX 1060 GPU with 6GB GDDR RAM (VR Ready) 16GB DDR4 2133 MHz RAM, upgradeable to 32GB 512MB Samsung 960 Pro PCIe x4 NVMe SSD 1TB 7200 RPM SATA HDD 3 USB 3.0 Type A ports, 1 USB 3.1 Type C/Thunderbolt 3 port, 1 full size SD card slot, 1 full size HDMI port, 1 mini-display port, 1 Ethernet port, Headphone/microphone jack Integrated 802.11a/b/g/n/ac(2x2) WiFi Bluetooth
Things that are better on the MBP: Screen Trackpad MBP is lighter Battery life
Things that are worse on MBP: Thermals Price GPU (I can play games on ultra settings in 1080p and get 60-100 FPS)
Not trying to sell anyone a competing laptop. Noticed that I didn't say which brand/model I got. I just wanted you to see the pros and cons of going the Windows route, and to explain how to get around the "Apple has the fastest SSDs" roadblock.
k4ever said: Apple is doing nothing magical with their SSDs.
Note: at least in regard to the 2018 MBP, Apple is using the T2 chip, so you get things like hardware encryption and offloading any overhead to that chip rather than the CPU. That's a bit magical, or at least something a typical PC isn't going to do.
k4ever. It isnt the same as an off the shelf Samsung 970 pro. The controller is in the T2 chip not “on board” the ssd. we will see how real world performance compares once everything settles down and software is optimised etc.
k4ever said: Apple is doing nothing magical with their SSDs.
Note: at least in regard to the 2018 MBP, Apple is using the T2 chip, so you get things like hardware encryption and offloading any overhead to that chip rather than the CPU. That's a bit magical, or at least something a typical PC isn't going to do.
I don't know what you consider a typical PC, but Thinkpads have include hardware encrypted hard drives for years. And still, I don't think CPU overhead is an issue with current multicore CPU's.
k4ever. It isnt the same as an off the shelf Samsung 970 pro. The controller is in the T2 chip not “on board” the ssd. we will see how real world performance compares once everything settles down and software is optimised etc.
Yes we will be able to see how "real world performance compares." However, if history repeats itself like it often does, the SSD performance on the MBP will be either similar to or slower than 3rd party SSDs for Windows PCs. Just like every other perceived "advantage” on the MBP or other Macs in general, once the smoke and mirrors clear you find that there is absolutely nothing special or advantageous about Apple's implementation. Besides, since Apple chose to solder the SSD chips to the main board, Windows PC owners will be able to move to faster SSDs when they become available without replacing our machines and MBP owners will be stuck with slower chips.
The XPS has the better display...that surprised me! I know it’s higher-res, but that isn’t everything. But more color accurate than the Mac too! I thought Apple led the industry in product display quality...apparently not.
k4ever said: Apple is doing nothing magical with their SSDs.
Note: at least in regard to the 2018 MBP, Apple is using the T2 chip, so you get things like hardware encryption and offloading any overhead to that chip rather than the CPU. That's a bit magical, or at least something a typical PC isn't going to do.
I don't know what you consider a typical PC, but Thinkpads have include hardware encrypted hard drives for years. And still, I don't think CPU overhead is an issue with current multicore CPU's.
You got to this before I did... I was too busy running benchmarks. I hate how this folks always respond with something that is supposedly new and Apple is magically doing that supposedly no one else is doing (like hardware encryption), only to find out that other PC manufacturers have been doing it for years. I also love how they respond with something that sounds really technical and cool at first blush (like offloading overhead to the T2 chip), only to find out that it really doesn't matter to performance in the long run. It's almost like they want us to believe Apple's press release at face value and that Apple's way is better without testing or comparison.
Honestly, I think these folks are trying to deflect. They have responding to the two glaring issues that I pointed out in my previous post:
1) Apple's SSDs ARE NOT FASTER than 3rd party SSDs for Windows PCs -- You can get the exact same SSD, with the exact same performance for your Windows machine for less.
2) Apple's SSDs ARE NOT UPGRADEABLE like the ones in Windows PCs -- If you bought a 2015-2018 MBP, when a newer faster SSD comes out you won't be able to put it in your current machine.
I also wanted to post my benchmark results. I remember arguing with someone in an Apple forum, prior to buying my laptop, that Apple charge over $1000 USD more for a similar spec'd MBP that had less performance. Of course that led to the SSD speed argument (that I was proven right on) and a whole lot of other nonsense that meant nothing in the end. He made it sound like Apple created a whole bunch of new technologies in the MBP, then sprinkled it with fairy dust and grounded unicorn horn. I already posted my SSD speed, in which my 2016 Windows laptop trounced the 2016 MBP, which had the fastest SSD ever tested in a laptop at the time! Here are the processor benchmarks. Note that the base clock is listed wrong on my processor by GeekBench. The base clock is actually 2.6 GHz and turbo boost is 3.5 GHz for the i7-6700, same as in the MBP. My laptop was not in Turbo Boost mode, unless it can somehow sustain it indefinitely. I ran it both performance and power save modes, and got similar results.
The XPS has the better display...that surprised me! I know it’s higher-res, but that isn’t everything. But more color accurate than the Mac too! I thought Apple led the industry in product display quality...apparently not.
It isn't more color accurate... the article has an error. P3 is a wider gamut than sRGB.
k4ever said: ... once the smoke and mirrors clear you find that there is absolutely nothing special or advantageous about Apple's implementation.
I'd restate that a bit. Once the smoke and mirrors clear, maybe we'll find that some other high-end PC implementations match what Apple has done, but the average PC typically won't. The problem in this case, though, is as Apple goes to more and more custom hardware, even that might not be the case.
k4ever said: I also love how they respond with something that sounds really technical and cool at first blush (like offloading overhead to the T2 chip), only to find out that it really doesn't matter to performance in the long run. ... I already posted my SSD speed, in which my 2016 Windows laptop trounced the 2016 MBP, which had the fastest SSD ever tested in a laptop at the time!
Well, the T2 is about more than just performance, but I can't help but think that offloading that has to help some, even if it is quite small.
Second, you're talking about a 2016 MBP, which is fair in that you're comparing your 2016 PC... but we're talking about 2018. If the argument is that some PC laptops are more upgradable, and that by later adding more recent, improved hardware, will make them faster... no contest. I'm not sure anyone is arguing the contrary.
Yes, PCs are typically a bit cheaper, often more upgradable, and sometimes even faster if you pick just the right components. Then, the problem comes down to that they generally don't run macOS.
I've built PCs (especially worked on high-end PC servers) for years. If I didn't mind mucking with a Hackintosh, I'd probably have one. A friend of mine still has a box that would kill anything stock Apple, except possibly the new iMac Pro... and he built it several years ago. I prefer the 'off-the-shelf' nature of Apple's hardware and software combo. It costs a bit more, but my time and frustration are worth it.
Comments
One point on your bullshit — Macs are highly recyclable, and probably have the best record for recycling and green initiatives as rated by groups like green peace. So no idea where the fuck you’re dreaming up this “environmental horror” nonsense from.
So basically you conclusion is contrived nonsense.
When did the haters, trolls, and pundits start hitting AI? Is Macrumors too busy for you, can’t get enough likes in all the noise there?
I'm encouraged with some of the hardware (iMac Pro, and at least some of the improvement of these laptops), and it will be interesting to see what the Mac Pro brings, and hopefully Mini/iMac updates.
The OS/software/UI/UX stuff might just be stuff we have to deal with (i.e.: those of us who feel it is degrading). It is still better. I just wish it would stay way better.
Same with mouse input. It's a PC thing (well, and Unix too). The Mac has always been more 1:1 when it comes to that kind of input, whereas PCs feel like you're operating it via some kind of clunky remote mechanism.
My problem with the trackpad, though, is the size... but I need more time on it. It's a bit in the way, but rejection seems reasonably good so far. That said, I use external keyboard/trackpad/mouse 80% of the time anyway. But, I prefer the previous size of the trackpad.
re: ports - I like the new ports (aside from USB-C confusion aspects and missing MagSafe), but what I don't get (and I'm not alone) is why not have a few more ports (even if they are 'legacy'... which they aren't) on the bigger machines that can fit them? Until the USB-C ecosystem gets more established, the users are just being inconvenienced.
Good point on the keyboard. That's how I feel as well... should I have to adapt, when the previous gen was perfectly fine?
Straight from the article: "To be fair, Apple’s relatively new APFS file system is designed to speed up file copies using a technology Apple calls Instant Cloning. But that translates to performance that feels faster." So the article says that the file system only "feels faster," meaning that it is just a good placebo, kind of like how animations in iOS make it seem like some applications are opening faster when they really aren't.
Apple has used a proprietary controller for their SSDs since 2010. However, their controllers have pretty much stuck to the industry's (highest) standard throughout the years. For the current crop of MBPs, Apple's controller is using the PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe standard, if I am not mistaken. My 2016 gaming laptop uses the exact same standard for its controller, BTW.
https://beetstech.com/blog/apple-proprietary-ssd-ultimate-guide-to-specs-and-upgrades#hdr-1
Just because it is proprietary doesn't means it is better or that Apple somehow reinvented the wheel. They just changed a few things around to make it so standard SSDs won't fit in their devices. That is so they can charge you extra by making you upgrade the entire laptop just to get the same SSD and controller everyone else is using.
What truly makes MBPs SSDs "faster" is that fact that Apple buys the fastest SSD chips they can get, almost exclusively from Samsung, before anyone else can get them, then puts those SSD chips into the MBP. I applaud Apple for this. The only SSD option available directly from the manufacturer for my laptop was a lot slower than 960 Pro that Apple used in the 2016 MBP. However, once those chips become available, EVERYONE ELSE has access to them. I only had to wait two months to purchase the 960 Pro for my laptop. I have the exact same SSD, using a controller with the same specifications (PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe), with the exact same read and write speeds as the 2016 MBP, and it cost me hundreds of dollars less than what MBP owners paid for it. Also, I am able to upgrade mine...
Note this from the article you posted: "Now, there are third-party SSDs that are crazy fast, such as the Samsung 970 EVO, but we haven’t seen anyone put it inside a laptop yet." Now look at the performance on the 970 Pro:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-970-pro-ssd-review,5572.html
This is probably the SSD that Apple is using, since the write speeds are near identical (if not faster) than the MBP. BTW, this is available for purchase right now on Amazon.
https://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_11?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=samsung+970+pro+512gb&sprefix=samsung+970,aps,177&crid=2VPT14H5CMZ2M
Apple is doing nothing magical with their SSDs.
Here's my point so you folks understand it: Yes, most Windows manufacturers put SSDs in their laptops that are way slower than what Apple puts in the MBP. That is a fact. However, if you own a Windows laptop, you can put the same SSD that Apple uses in the MBP in your Windows laptop, and usually for a lot less than what Apple charges.
I did this.
This reminds me of the "Adam Ruins Everything" video on electric cars where the expert has to explain to the guy who wanted to buy an electric car "to save the environment" that he was better off getting and keeping a reliable gasoline powered car for longer, so it wouldn't end up in a landfill. Basically, if the guy change his buying habits and quit buying a new car every 4 years, electric or not, he would do more for the environment that just not burning gas exclusively. Same can be said for keeping a computer longer. However, if you are unable to keep that computer longer because the manufacturer purposely makes it so that it can't be easily upgraded, any effort to save the environment gets defeated.
Windows 10 has its problems. For one, it is more of a virus magnet than MacOS. This can be managed with free anti-virus and spyware software. Microsoft forces Windows 10 upgrades on users and you can't turn that crap off! Windows is not as customizable as Linux, and reading from multiple file systems is not built in by default on Windows 10 as it is in MacOS or Linux. However, you can dual boot Linux on a Windows machine and get full use of both OS, plus WAY BETTER HARDWARE than what you get with a Mac (minus the trackpad, which hardly anyone uses anyway!).
The performance is right on par with what I have seen from the 2016 MBP. Edit: Ok, I take this back. My write speed is on par with the 15 inch 2016 MBP. However, my read speed blows it away! According to Notebookcheck.net, the read speed on my SSD is 800 MB/s faster than the 15 inch 2016 MBP. BTW, that laptop had the "fastest SSD ever" when it came out.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-15-Late-2016-2-6-GHz-450-Notebook-Review.185254.0.html
I'm pretty sure my performance would come close to matching or beating the 2018 MBP if I bought the Samsung 970 Pro SSD, which averages 2737 MB/s for the write speed and 3344 MB/s for read speed, according to Tom's Hardware.
I've also noticed that some publications have been very careful to note that the MBP has the fastest default SSD and that 3rd party SSDs (like the one I added in my laptop) are just as fast.
I also forgot to mention that my boot times are insane -- around 7-15 seconds on average for both operating systems after the POST.
Edit: I also ran Cinebench R15 tests on my laptop: I got close to the exact same results as the 15 inch 2016 MBP with the same processor as my laptop (i7 6700HQ). My scores were around 140 and 660, respectively for single core and multi-core CPU. My GPU (a 6GB GTX 1060) scored 78.12 FPS, which is 9 FPS faster than the 15 inch 2016 MBP. The total cost for my laptop was $1600 USD new with the addition of the 512MB Samsung 960 Pro SSD. The 15 inch 2016 MBP (that was used in the benchmark) cost a whopping $3100 USD new. That is almost twice the cost of my laptop. Here is the breakdown:
17 inch 75Mhz 1080p Screen w/Nvidia G-Sync
Intel Core i7 6700HQ Processor
Nvidia GTX 1060 GPU with 6GB GDDR RAM (VR Ready)
16GB DDR4 2133 MHz RAM, upgradeable to 32GB
512MB Samsung 960 Pro PCIe x4 NVMe SSD
1TB 7200 RPM SATA HDD
3 USB 3.0 Type A ports, 1 USB 3.1 Type C/Thunderbolt 3 port, 1 full size SD card slot, 1 full size HDMI port, 1 mini-display port, 1 Ethernet port, Headphone/microphone jack
Integrated 802.11a/b/g/n/ac(2x2) WiFi
Bluetooth
Things that are better on the MBP:
Screen
Trackpad
MBP is lighter
Battery life
Things that are worse on MBP:
Thermals
Price
GPU (I can play games on ultra settings in 1080p and get 60-100 FPS)
Not trying to sell anyone a competing laptop. Noticed that I didn't say which brand/model I got. I just wanted you to see the pros and cons of going the Windows route, and to explain how to get around the "Apple has the fastest SSDs" roadblock.
Honestly, I think these folks are trying to deflect. They have responding to the two glaring issues that I pointed out in my previous post:
1) Apple's SSDs ARE NOT FASTER than 3rd party SSDs for Windows PCs -- You can get the exact same SSD, with the exact same performance for your Windows machine for less.
2) Apple's SSDs ARE NOT UPGRADEABLE like the ones in Windows PCs -- If you bought a 2015-2018 MBP, when a newer faster SSD comes out you won't be able to put it in your current machine.
I also wanted to post my benchmark results. I remember arguing with someone in an Apple forum, prior to buying my laptop, that Apple charge over $1000 USD more for a similar spec'd MBP that had less performance. Of course that led to the SSD speed argument (that I was proven right on) and a whole lot of other nonsense that meant nothing in the end. He made it sound like Apple created a whole bunch of new technologies in the MBP, then sprinkled it with fairy dust and grounded unicorn horn. I already posted my SSD speed, in which my 2016 Windows laptop trounced the 2016 MBP, which had the fastest SSD ever tested in a laptop at the time! Here are the processor benchmarks. Note that the base clock is listed wrong on my processor by GeekBench. The base clock is actually 2.6 GHz and turbo boost is 3.5 GHz for the i7-6700, same as in the MBP. My laptop was not in Turbo Boost mode, unless it can somehow sustain it indefinitely. I ran it both performance and power save modes, and got similar results.
I'd restate that a bit. Once the smoke and mirrors clear, maybe we'll find that some other high-end PC implementations match what Apple has done, but the average PC typically won't. The problem in this case, though, is as Apple goes to more and more custom hardware, even that might not be the case.
Well, the T2 is about more than just performance, but I can't help but think that offloading that has to help some, even if it is quite small.
Second, you're talking about a 2016 MBP, which is fair in that you're comparing your 2016 PC... but we're talking about 2018. If the argument is that some PC laptops are more upgradable, and that by later adding more recent, improved hardware, will make them faster... no contest. I'm not sure anyone is arguing the contrary.
Yes, PCs are typically a bit cheaper, often more upgradable, and sometimes even faster if you pick just the right components. Then, the problem comes down to that they generally don't run macOS.
I've built PCs (especially worked on high-end PC servers) for years. If I didn't mind mucking with a Hackintosh, I'd probably have one. A friend of mine still has a box that would kill anything stock Apple, except possibly the new iMac Pro... and he built it several years ago. I prefer the 'off-the-shelf' nature of Apple's hardware and software combo. It costs a bit more, but my time and frustration are worth it.