Review: Apple's Late-2016 MacBook Pro without Touch Bar

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,860member
    paxman said:
    I live by my Mac(s). I run my company from my macs. Most of the time I have at least 10 apps running on two large monitors. Apps usually include Numbers, Mail, Preview, Photoshop, Calendar, Contacts, Transmit, Dreamweaver, Preview, Safari and Firefox. My 2013 iMac has 8gb Ram, and ditto my 2015 MBP. I have never had a RAM issue whatsoever. The question is - am I a pro user?

    I suspect the new base model 13" mbp would serve me just fine (though I'd more likely go for the TB version. Just because. 
    You are a pro user. Basically anybody using a Mac as a tool for a business or other activity is a pro user. I'm sure somebody doing video editing will consider themselves a "true pro" but most of those sorts of people are full of themselves. As for upgrades or new machines I wouldn't rush into he new machines until the market settles a little. That is the case with every new generation of machines from Apple, let the early adopters take the arrows.
    Solimacplusplusavon b7
  • Reply 42 of 67
    irelandireland Posts: 17,648member
    wizard69 said:
    ireland said:
    polymnia said:
    ireland said:
    armchair executives complaining about apple pricing -- news at 11. 
    Who's an armchair executive? This isn't MacRumors. My criticisms were sensibly phrased and thought about. I've long-since owned AAPL. I think like a customer now. If you think price shouldn't matter to the customer, you are wrong.
    I'm not a price-sensitive purchaser of Apple gear. So this is rather academic to me. 

    That said, there has been a lot of international market volatility this year. Brexit and such. So currency markets on top of a price hike make for a large jump in some areas. 

    It might seem easy for me to say as an American, but in light of our recent election it's quite possible tarrifs on Asian manufactured Macs will cause a jump in American pricing soon. 
    Lord have mercy when this knee-jerk neanderthal gets in. Between that and George Bush taking to acrylic painting I don't know what to make of it all anymore.
    Knee Jerk Neanderthal  --  Really?
    Really.
    baconstangSolidreyfus2neo-techduervoavon b7argonautmazda 3s
  • Reply 43 of 67
    "more than sufficient for most users." and "fills a certain niche" is not a Pro machine.
    baconstangavon b7entropys
  • Reply 44 of 67

    ireland said:
    The price is high because people still buy the obsolete Macbook Air. When Macbook Air is retired, it is expected that all products shift to a lower price slot.
    Expected by whom? Also, isn't another way of looking at it people will buy MacBook Air because these are priced high.
    There is precedent of Apple reducing prices on Mac products a year or two year later. The MBA after a couple of years got much cheaper and faster / better. The Retina 5K iMac also had its price dropped significantly after a year. So it isn't out of the realm of possibility that after a year or two, the MBA and old 13" / 15" rMBP will be retired and the new products will come down in price to fill their respective price slots
    And the 3 year old Mac Pro is still the same price.
    irelandentropysbaconstang
  • Reply 45 of 67
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,979member
    My eary 2015 MBP is plenty fast and I refuse to spend $1800 for a new 13" with TouchBar even though I love it a lot. I'll wait for a year before getting one from Apple Refurbished store. I got my early 2015 MBP retina for $1000...best deal ever!
    edited November 2016 ireland
  • Reply 46 of 67
    I gotta say, I am SO UNDERWHELMED by this new macbook pro. The keyboard actually has much much MUCH less "throw" or "Travel"  on it... makes it feel so cheap. I wanted to see and use the new macbook pro hoping it would convince me out of being so negative about it, but seriously, just affirmed my disappointment. This thing is just a macbook, at best. I did like the Grey color though, the non-lit chrome apple logo on the back SUCKED...riddled with fingerprints, and smudges. I guess that design idea is just another smart example of how Apple is the ultimate in design and innovation... yea, right. Still waiting to see the TB Macbook Pro, hopefully that will give me something more positive to say about this all. :neutral: 
    irelandavon b7
  • Reply 47 of 67
    jdwjdw Posts: 774member
    Article QUOTE: "More importantly, the storage technology helps to alleviate perceived system slowdowns blamed on MacBook Pro's 16GB RAM ceiling... batch processing and video editing did momentarily cue the spinning beach ball of death, likely due to our system's 8GB of RAM."

    I interpret the above-mentioned "perceived" slowdowns as a term to fend off other stories in the media which decry the 16GB RAM limit.  But as mentioned above, the super-fast SSD is used an excuse for why 16GB of RAM is enough, but it appears that the SSD is not an adequate excuse for having only 8GB of RAM. How long was "momentary" with regard to that "spinning beachball of DEATH"?

    The beachball appeared due to the fact RAM was not sufficient and the fact that even the super fast SSD in these new Macs is still not speed-match for the speed of RAM. As such, it goes without saying that there will be times when that same "spinning beachball of DEATH" will appear even with 16GB of RAM. This is an important consideration for anyone pondering a purchase of these MacBook Pros, especially for people who like to use multiple users (like a husband and wife team) and who tend to leave apps open in each user.

    Lastly, another benefit to 32GB even for people who normally don't use a lot of RAM hungry apps is that you almost never will see anything under "Swap Used" in the "Memory" section of Activity Monitor. I can vouch for the truth in this with my late 2015 5K iMac which has 32GB of RAM. My older iMac at home has only 16GB, and "Swap Used" on that machine is always several GB in size.

    edited November 2016 duervo
  • Reply 48 of 67
    xzuxzu Posts: 139member
    Got one... expensive... Screen makes it more "PROish" it is beautiful. Thunderbolt ports are actually kinda cool.. i kinda get it now... not just USB-C... so really a lot of utility... still had to buy dongles... overall a good replacement for the AIR ... 8/10. 

    I think Apples desire to market a laptop as a desktop replacement and not making/update a desktop feeds into the narrative that Macs are "toys". Its a shame its a nice portable.. for the low end.
    Solibaconstang
  • Reply 49 of 67
    One reservation I would have with this is that yes, there are two ports, but one of them is required for power, so you can really only connect one device at a time while the laptop is plugged in (which mine normally is 99.9% of the time) unless you have a dock or hub, which can cost hundreds of dollars. For example, I often find myself copying files from a memory card to an external drive, which you wouldn't be able to do unless the computer isn't plugged in or you have an external hub. And my NAS connects over Ethernet, but my fastest external drive connects over FireWire 800, so for the NAS I'd need one $49 adapter, and for the other drive I'd need two other $29 adapters (Thunderbolt 3 -> Thunderbolt 2 -> FIreWire 800). 

    On the plus side, it will be nice when there are lots of third-party options for the power supply, and the versatility of these ports is pretty impressive if you have all of the necessary adapters. I'll probably go for the MBP, but I'll still need about $155 in adapters (at the currently discounted price) to able to connect to my existing peripherals.
    ireland
  • Reply 50 of 67
    jdw said:
    Article QUOTE: "More importantly, the storage technology helps to alleviate perceived system slowdowns blamed on MacBook Pro's 16GB RAM ceiling... batch processing and video editing did momentarily cue the spinning beach ball of death, likely due to our system's 8GB of RAM."

    I interpret the above-mentioned "perceived" slowdowns as a term to fend off other stories in the media which decry the 16GB RAM limit.  But as mentioned above, the super-fast SSD is used an excuse for why 16GB of RAM is enough, but it appears that the SSD is not an adequate excuse for having only 8GB of RAM. How long was "momentary" with regard to that "spinning beachball of DEATH"?

    The beachball appeared due to the fact RAM was not sufficient and the fact that even the super fast SSD in these new Macs is still not speed-match for the speed of RAM. As such, it goes without saying that there will be times when that same "spinning beachball of DEATH" will appear even with 16GB of RAM. This is an important consideration for anyone pondering a purchase of these MacBook Pros, especially for people who like to use multiple users (like a husband and wife team) and who tend to leave apps open in each user.

    Lastly, another benefit to 32GB even for people who normally don't use a lot of RAM hungry apps is that you almost never will see anything under "Swap Used" in the "Memory" section of Activity Monitor. I can vouch for the truth in this with my late 2015 5K iMac which has 32GB of RAM. My older iMac at home has only 16GB, and "Swap Used" on that machine is always several GB in size.
    Just playing devil's advocate here:

    Would you believe someone who told you 15 years ago that a laptop would someday host 16GB of RAM and [insert your favorite pro app here] would STILL slow down and show you the pinwheel of death?

    i suggest that MacBook Pros (or any other laptop) with 32GB or even more RAM will still slow down sometimes. Maybe even often.

    i don't buy that there will ever be a computer that can effortlessly power through every task, run buggy application code and generally make all the internet trolls happy.
    edited November 2016 SoliirelandRayz2016
  • Reply 51 of 67
    jdwjdw Posts: 774member
    polymnia said:

    i don't buy that there will ever be a computer that can effortlessly power through every task, run buggy application code and generally make all the internet trolls happy.
    Like I said, I don't have beachballs or slowdowns on my 5K iMac because it has 32GB of RAM, and when I sometimes check in Activity Monitor if a Swap is used, there never is.  But on my 2009 iMac at home with 16GB, there is always a SWAP used, and despite my having an internal SSD inside it, there are times when I can feel that I'm running out of RAM.

    So it's not about a computer that "effortlessly powers through every task and makes all trolls happy."  (By the way, to imply we are "trolls" to even speak on this topic is unnecessarily insulting to your fellow Mac users who continue to hold Apple in high regard.) It's about using one's experience and personal frame of reference (in my case, a 32GB equipped 5K iMac) to intelligently guess what the situation will be like on a somewhat RAM-constrained 16GB MBP.  This is not necessarily a knock against the MBP as much as it is a matter of fact.  Rather than avoid talking about it or using "a super-fast SSD" as an excuse, we should simply put out the facts so buyers can make more intelligent and informed decisions.  The funny part is, when KABY Lake finally appears in the MBP, Apple will certainly add a 32GB RAM option, and then all the excuses made for why 16GB is all one every needs (akin to Bill Gate's "nobody needs more than 640k") will fade into oblivion where they belong.  The only reason some people bemoan the lack of a 32GB option now is of course because there isn't one and like me they may feel they need more RAM.  And yes, we know all the tech reasons why 16GB is the current limit.  But simply telling people "why" isn't giving them more RAM, and in some cases, you may actually need more RAM to keep your Mac running at full speed with no beachballs.  Again, I don't get RAM-induced beachballs on my 5K iMac because it has 32GB of RAM.  I speak from practical experience here.  Surely I am not alone.
    edited November 2016 duervonubusavon b7
  • Reply 52 of 67
    jdw said:
    polymnia said:

    i don't buy that there will ever be a computer that can effortlessly power through every task, run buggy application code and generally make all the internet trolls happy.
    Like I said, I don't have beachballs or slowdowns on my 5K iMac because it has 32GB of RAM, and when I sometimes check in Activity Monitor if a Swap is used, there never is.  But on my 2009 iMac at home with 16GB, there is always a SWAP used, and despite my having an internal SSD inside it, there are times when I can feel that I'm running out of RAM.

    So it's not about a computer that "effortlessly powers through every task and makes all trolls happy."  (By the way, to imply we are "trolls" to even speak on this topic is unnecessarily insulting to your fellow Mac users who continue to hold Apple in high regard.) It's about using one's experience and personal frame of reference (in my case, a 32GB equipped 5K iMac) to intelligently guess what the situation will be like on a somewhat RAM-constrained 16GB MBP.  This is not necessarily a knock against the MBP as much as it is a matter of fact.  Rather than avoid talking about it or using "a super-fast SSD" as an excuse, we should simply put out the facts so buyers can make more intelligent and informed decisions.  The funny part is, when KABY Lake finally appears in the MBP, Apple will certainly add a 32GB RAM option, and then all the excuses made for why 16GB is all one every needs (akin to Bill Gate's "nobody needs more than 640k") will fade into oblivion where they belong.  The only reason some people bemoan the lack of a 32GB option now is of course because there isn't one and like me they may feel they need more RAM.  And yes, we know all the tech reasons why 16GB is the current limit.  But simply telling people "why" isn't giving them more RAM, and in some cases, you may actually need more RAM to keep your Mac running at full speed with no beachballs.  Again, I don't get RAM-induced beachballs on my 5K iMac because it has 32GB of RAM.  I speak from practical experience here.  Surely I am not alone.
    I understand your point based on your practical experience. But the lack of swap under 32GB doesn't resolve the discussion. Because the point is not whether or not swap exists, but who benefit from more RAM. Self-claimed "pros" claim that their "pro" apps need more RAM, Apple does not give that to them, consequently Apple is not "pro" anymore. This is such a simpleton mentality we're dealing with.

    So, the lack of swap file doesn't necessarily mean that your very "pro" app benefits from that extra RAM. The operating system may not give that extra RAM to your app and fill it with file cache for example. You own the hardware of your computer but you don't own its RAM usage. The owner of the RAM is the operating system. Can you allocate the desired amount of RAM to an application? No. Then you have absolutely no control on how the RAM is used.

    All your application can do is to spread to the wired memory, which is not swappable. Even in this case, the operating system may kill your application or set it aside if it doesn't obey the strict RAM usage rules dictated by the operating system.

    This is why your PC dealer will suggest first to replace the hard disk with a faster one or SSD before suggesting a RAM upgrade. Because the outcome of a RAM upgrade is essentially unpredictable in today's modern operating systems.
  • Reply 53 of 67
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member
    One reservation I would have with this is that yes, there are two ports, but one of them is required for power, so you can really only connect one device at a time while the laptop is plugged in (which mine normally is 99.9% of the time) unless you have a dock or hub, which can cost hundreds of dollars. For example, I often find myself copying files from a memory card to an external drive, which you wouldn't be able to do unless the computer isn't plugged in or you have an external hub. And my NAS connects over Ethernet, but my fastest external drive connects over FireWire 800, so for the NAS I'd need one $49 adapter, and for the other drive I'd need two other $29 adapters (Thunderbolt 3 -> Thunderbolt 2 -> FIreWire 800). 

    On the plus side, it will be nice when there are lots of third-party options for the power supply, and the versatility of these ports is pretty impressive if you have all of the necessary adapters. I'll probably go for the MBP, but I'll still need about $155 in adapters (at the currently discounted price) to able to connect to my existing peripherals.
    You need one $65 USB-C hub, one $20 USB-3 external drive enclosure (+screwdriver) and depending on the speed of the NAS just wireless 802.11AC or the Ethernet adapter.

    FW-800 is so slow in comparison I've ditched all my old and moderately expensive FW800/eSATA enclosures in favor of USB3 3 years ago.
  • Reply 54 of 67
    Is it now possible to plug 4 chargers and charge this thing up in 5 minutes?
    macplusplusargonaut
  • Reply 55 of 67
    macapfel said:
    Is it now possible to plug 4 chargers and charge this thing up in 5 minutes?
    With that sort of thinking you could get yourself a job at Samsung :smile: 
    macplusplusSolitallest skilargonautwatto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 67
    scartart said:
    macapfel said:
    Is it now possible to plug 4 chargers and charge this thing up in 5 minutes?
    With that sort of thinking you could get yourself a job at Samsung :smile: 
    Yeah right, and the everything is going up in flames again. But seriously, what would happen if you plug in more than one charger? Just out of curiosity. 
    macplusplusargonaut
  • Reply 57 of 67
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,179member
    macapfel said:
    scartart said:
    macapfel said:
    Is it now possible to plug 4 chargers and charge this thing up in 5 minutes?
    With that sort of thinking you could get yourself a job at Samsung :smile: 
    Yeah right, and the everything is going up in flames again. But seriously, what would happen if you plug in more than one charger? Just out of curiosity. 
    I plan on testing that with my vehicle's 3 charging ports. 2 are cig lighters and 1 a USB port.
  • Reply 58 of 67
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,779member
    Soli said:
    "A nation always gets the government they deserve." ~ Unknown
    Not "Unknown". Joseph de Maistre.
  • Reply 59 of 67
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,779member
    jdw said:

    The funny part is, when KABY Lake finally appears in the MBP, Apple will certainly add a 32GB RAM option, and then all the excuses made for why 16GB is all one every needs (akin to Bill Gate's "nobody needs more than 640k") will fade into oblivion where they belong.
    This should indeed be extremely interesting, since Kaby Lake has exactly the same limitations as Skylake.

    LPDDDR4 support, which will allow more than 16 GB RAM with low power mobile chips, isn't coming until Coffee Lake — which won't include mobile CPUs of the class Apple uses for MacBooks Pro. 

    So we'll probably have to wait until early 2018, when Cannon Lake launches (if it launches on time). 

    IF Apple support more than 16 GB before early 2018, it will be extremely interesting to see how they do it — how they engineer their machine to support desktop RAM, and how they sell it to the public. 

    My hunch is that they will not do so until the technology they want exists. Probably a year and a half down the line from now.
  • Reply 60 of 67
    jdw said:
    polymnia said:

    i don't buy that there will ever be a computer that can effortlessly power through every task, run buggy application code and generally make all the internet trolls happy.
    Like I said, I don't have beachballs or slowdowns on my 5K iMac because it has 32GB of RAM, and when I sometimes check in Activity Monitor if a Swap is used, there never is.  But on my 2009 iMac at home with 16GB, there is always a SWAP used, and despite my having an internal SSD inside it, there are times when I can feel that I'm running out of RAM.

    So it's not about a computer that "effortlessly powers through every task and makes all trolls happy."  (By the way, to imply we are "trolls" to even speak on this topic is unnecessarily insulting to your fellow Mac users who continue to hold Apple in high regard.) It's about using one's experience and personal frame of reference (in my case, a 32GB equipped 5K iMac) to intelligently guess what the situation will be like on a somewhat RAM-constrained 16GB MBP.  This is not necessarily a knock against the MBP as much as it is a matter of fact.  Rather than avoid talking about it or using "a super-fast SSD" as an excuse, we should simply put out the facts so buyers can make more intelligent and informed decisions.  The funny part is, when KABY Lake finally appears in the MBP, Apple will certainly add a 32GB RAM option, and then all the excuses made for why 16GB is all one every needs (akin to Bill Gate's "nobody needs more than 640k") will fade into oblivion where they belong.  The only reason some people bemoan the lack of a 32GB option now is of course because there isn't one and like me they may feel they need more RAM.  And yes, we know all the tech reasons why 16GB is the current limit.  But simply telling people "why" isn't giving them more RAM, and in some cases, you may actually need more RAM to keep your Mac running at full speed with no beachballs.  Again, I don't get RAM-induced beachballs on my 5K iMac because it has 32GB of RAM.  I speak from practical experience here.  Surely I am not alone.
    That's great for your iMac. I've used a client's 64GB MacPro for extremely high-res Photoshop image composition, and guess what? Even a 64GB MacPro can be beachballed under heavy load. You have to work hard to push them that far, but it can be done.

    Unfortunately, 32GB (let alone 64GB) is not possible in a MacBook today, if the uber nerds who know about memory controllers and low voltage RAM are right. And we are discussing today's MBP, are we not? You mention all kinds of things about 32GB 'when KABY Lake finally appears' and compare it with the 16GB MBP that is here NOW. Obviously I'd love 32GB in a MBP. Who wouldn't? I am not silly enough to compare next year's MBP to this year's. Since next year's tech is clearly not coming in this year's MBP…

    …Apple did the next best thing: Juice up the SSD as much as possible to backup the limited RAM.

    Would you prefer they sit on their hands until they can build a 32GB MBP?

    As an aside, it's possible to slow down your 32GB iMac. I've been working on Macs in the creative field for almost 25 years and I have yet to meet a Mac that couldn't be pushed past its limits. If, by chance, you find it impossible to beachball you iMac now, rest assured that Adobe, BlackMagic and even Apple itself are hard at work on software that will make your Mac scream "Uncle!" soon enough.

    Don't be so sensitive. I'm not calling you a troll. Unless you are a troll.
    edited November 2016 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.