I bought the i9 with 32gb and couldn’t be happier. I wish the SSD was cheaper but it’s anazingly fast. Until Apple puts a more aggressive fan profile, I installed Macs Fan Control. When rendering this week or doing cpu intensive processing, I just turned the fans on max manually and no throttling in FCP.
Since I spent so much money on this thing I have been reading up on all the different “issues” that people have found. The removal of the recovery port actually makes sense since Apple is using HW encryption on the drive now.
Do I like everything on the new MacBook Pro... I don’t, but I’m using it next to my 2016 model and can can see the incremental improvements.
Just as a hint of what we're working on -- you should try FCP without Macs Fan Control running.
I guess I should have been clearer. Since Macs Fan Control keeps me from throttling, Apple can solve this problem with a software fix, almost every new MacBook drop has some software/firmware fix soon after release and then everyone who returned their i9 for an i7 will be upset they didn’t keep it.
For now, a simple downloadable program and a manual step to turn on the fans allows me to use the potential of the i9 in my MacBook Pro without waiting. Which for me is all I need.
This has some interesting info on what might have been wrong with the widely distributed YouTuber tests, and that apparently includes Cinebench itself needing an update.
Engineering is about compromise. Always. The question is which compromises are made.
Apple has repeatedly and significantly compromised on values that they claim are theirs: The high integration of RAM, SSD, keyboard, battery go against the eco-friendliness of their laptops. They are difficult to repair. The lack of internal extension reduces the longevity of the products. (A vast amount of energy for a device is used up not in active usage but during production, so longevity is essential to reducing trash and energy consumption.)
Your environmental claims are nonsense. Macs have a longer useful lifespan than their competitors, and essentially nobody is doing piecemeal upgrades on their netbooks. Still they last just fine on their own. And Macs are extremely recyclable, they receive the highest marks in the industry.
In short, you’re just making things up. Stick to reality.
I for one have upgraded every portable I've ever owned that had the capability, most recently adding a 1TB SSD to a SATA III mbp for less than $250, vs the singular apple option of $800 BTO, albeit a different class of drive speed - is it such flexibility to choose and extend useful life with performance upgrades that is being referred to ?
At some point that same voluminous SSD might get transferred to another faster desktop mac when the mbp becomes repurposed (downgraded) for less demanding tasks once other limitations kick in...
The thing is, a laptop shouldn't have to be this powerful.
I couldn't disagree more. I had a HP Elitebook 8770w Laptop for almost 4 years. Quad i7, 3TB SSD and 32GB Ram. I was employed to build software for a complex industrial environment and needed to run between 10 and 12 VM's when doing end-to-end testing/simulation. At the core were two large DB's. I could get that i7 to almost go into the red CPU wise pretty easily.
Why do this on a Laptop? Because I travelled to a pretty remote place where the site was and needed to have everything with me 'to get things done'. I could have done with more RAM and certainly a more powerful CPU but this was about as good as it got at that time. Now, I do Video rendering on my 2016 MBP or my Hackintosh.
Engineering is about compromise. Always. The question is which compromises are made.
Apple has repeatedly and significantly compromised on values that they claim are theirs: The high integration of RAM, SSD, keyboard, battery go against the eco-friendliness of their laptops. They are difficult to repair. The lack of internal extension reduces the longevity of the products. (A vast amount of energy for a device is used up not in active usage but during production, so longevity is essential to reducing trash and energy consumption.)
Your environmental claims are nonsense. Macs have a longer useful lifespan than their competitors, and essentially nobody is doing piecemeal upgrades on their netbooks. Still they last just fine on their own. And Macs are extremely recyclable, they receive the highest marks in the industry.
In short, you’re just making things up. Stick to reality.
By „non-sensical environmental claims“ you do not disagree, that the lifespan of a product is essential to the economic and ecological balance sheet of a product, right?
Your point is, that Apple is already doing good?
In that you are right … compared to the industry … and in a „if product runs“ scenario.
At the same time Apple is not doing good in a „if product fails“ scenario or „needs an upgrade“. In fact, most Apple products score really bad. Often times many more components than needed must be replaced due to the integration. Costs are high and end the useful life of a device by what otherwise could be a simple repair or upgrade job.
I disagree that laptop users in general don‘t do upgrades. (Not netbooks, that’s a misplaced comparison.) The repair and upgrade market was well alive before Apple made it increasingly difficult. So if right now they don‘t as often as they used to, it is out of forced circumstances.
I have personally replaced batteries, RAM, HD, SSD and keyboards on my previous Mac laptops. I have done so for others to repair or increase performance and bottom-line increase the useful life of their devices.
This is especially true for high-value pro products. And several years ago Apple got this right by providing repairable and upgradeable and robust pro products.
Then anorexia set in for laptops and desktops. Not just one product line had to be ultra-portable and reduced to the max (like the Air, the Mini, the iPad), where it makes sense. But all product lines followed this design maxim … even where it does not make sense (Mac Pros, MBPs) and that is not justifiable as a „reasonable engineering compromise“.
The ultraportable design maxim applies to the current MBPs. They are really „Macbook Air Pro“ models, and good at that for users who want that. But MBPs (no „Air“) they are not.
Same problem like the current Mac Pro.
I know folks around me, who are quite happy with the lineup, because they value portability or minimalism more than anything.
I know folks around me, who feel left out by Apple, because their needs are not served any more.
Count me in. Even though I spend a lot of time in hotels and client offices, my portability needs are covered with slightly heavier and thicker devices, if that allows for a more robust, repairable and upgradeable design.
Engineering is about compromise. Always. The question is which compromises are made.
Apple has repeatedly and significantly compromised on values that they claim are theirs: The high integration of RAM, SSD, keyboard, battery go against the eco-friendliness of their laptops. They are difficult to repair. The lack of internal extension reduces the longevity of the products. (A vast amount of energy for a device is used up not in active usage but during production, so longevity is essential to reducing trash and energy consumption.)
Your environmental claims are nonsense. Macs have a longer useful lifespan than their competitors, and essentially nobody is doing piecemeal upgrades on their netbooks. Still they last just fine on their own. And Macs are extremely recyclable, they receive the highest marks in the industry.
In short, you’re just making things up. Stick to reality.
I for one have upgraded every portable I've ever owned that had the capability, most recently adding a 1TB SSD to a SATA III mbp for less than $250, vs the singular apple option of $800 BTO, albeit a different class of drive speed - is it such flexibility to choose and extend useful life with performance upgrades that is being referred to ?
At some point that same voluminous SSD might get transferred to another faster desktop mac when the mbp becomes repurposed (downgraded) for less demanding tasks once other limitations kick in...
Are netbooks a fair comparison ?
I have to wonder how much soldered RAM and SSDs (and keyboards) add to the value and functionality of the MBP. If they don't add to its value to the user, why does Apple do it?
I'm not defending the soldered and glued together machine. The ability to upgrade is important. I just added 8Gb of RAM and an SSD to my 7 Thinkpad and now it runs like a charm. But, I suspect that I'm missing something. If it was being done by HP I would say to save money. But that doesn't fit for Apple. Is it just to make them thinner and lighter? I hope not. For me, that's not a good trade off.
Engineering is about compromise. Always. The question is which compromises are made.
Apple has repeatedly and significantly compromised on values that they claim are theirs: The high integration of RAM, SSD, keyboard, battery go against the eco-friendliness of their laptops. They are difficult to repair. The lack of internal extension reduces the longevity of the products. (A vast amount of energy for a device is used up not in active usage but during production, so longevity is essential to reducing trash and energy consumption.)
Your environmental claims are nonsense. Macs have a longer useful lifespan than their competitors, and essentially nobody is doing piecemeal upgrades on their netbooks. Still they last just fine on their own. And Macs are extremely recyclable, they receive the highest marks in the industry.
In short, you’re just making things up. Stick to reality.
I for one have upgraded every portable I've ever owned that had the capability, most recently adding a 1TB SSD to a SATA III mbp for less than $250, vs the singular apple option of $800 BTO, albeit a different class of drive speed - is it such flexibility to choose and extend useful life with performance upgrades that is being referred to ?
At some point that same voluminous SSD might get transferred to another faster desktop mac when the mbp becomes repurposed (downgraded) for less demanding tasks once other limitations kick in...
Are netbooks a fair comparison ?
I have to wonder how much soldered RAM and SSDs (and keyboards) add to the value and functionality of the MBP. If they don't add to its value to the user, why does Apple do it?
I'm not defending the soldered and glued together machine. The ability to upgrade is important. I just added 8Gb of RAM and an SSD to my 7 Thinkpad and now it runs like a charm. But, I suspect that I'm missing something. If it was being done by HP I would say to save money. But that doesn't fit for Apple. Is it just to make them thinner and lighter? I hope not. For me, that's not a good trade off.
I read a technical comment that suggested known ram could be tuned more tightly for tolerance and could potentially perform better. This may also apply to storage. One obvious downside is that needs and value changes over time as we all know, and the 2TB SSD that may not have even been available when the hardware I use was designed is now available very economically.
I even wonder about the merits of a fusion drive using two SSD, one being the ultra fast if 128 or 256, paired with a slower large capacity SATA III ssd (2TB) at maybe 25% of the price of the apple options ? I certainly don't need the ultrafast to store voluminous non-business, music, ebook, video or other content I might find useful while on the road, and I really don't want to deal with an extra external drive for such, or be dependent on an iCloud tether...
Engineering is about compromise. Always. The question is which compromises are made.
Apple has repeatedly and significantly compromised on values that they claim are theirs: The high integration of RAM, SSD, keyboard, battery go against the eco-friendliness of their laptops. They are difficult to repair. The lack of internal extension reduces the longevity of the products. (A vast amount of energy for a device is used up not in active usage but during production, so longevity is essential to reducing trash and energy consumption.)
Your environmental claims are nonsense. Macs have a longer useful lifespan than their competitors, and essentially nobody is doing piecemeal upgrades on their netbooks. Still they last just fine on their own. And Macs are extremely recyclable, they receive the highest marks in the industry.
In short, you’re just making things up. Stick to reality.
I for one have upgraded every portable I've ever owned that had the capability, most recently adding a 1TB SSD to a SATA III mbp for less than $250, vs the singular apple option of $800 BTO, albeit a different class of drive speed - is it such flexibility to choose and extend useful life with performance upgrades that is being referred to ?
At some point that same voluminous SSD might get transferred to another faster desktop mac when the mbp becomes repurposed (downgraded) for less demanding tasks once other limitations kick in...
Are netbooks a fair comparison ?
I have to wonder how much soldered RAM and SSDs (and keyboards) add to the value and functionality of the MBP. If they don't add to its value to the user, why does Apple do it?
I'm not defending the soldered and glued together machine. The ability to upgrade is important. I just added 8Gb of RAM and an SSD to my 7 Thinkpad and now it runs like a charm. But, I suspect that I'm missing something. If it was being done by HP I would say to save money. But that doesn't fit for Apple. Is it just to make them thinner and lighter? I hope not. For me, that's not a good trade off.
I read a technical comment that suggested known ram could be tuned more tightly for tolerance and could potentially perform better. This may also apply to storage. One obvious downside is that needs and value changes over time as we all know, and the 2TB SSD that may not have even been available when the hardware I use was designed is now available very economically.
I even wonder about the merits of a fusion drive using two SSD, one being the ultra fast if 128 or 256, paired with a slower large capacity SATA III ssd (2TB) at maybe 25% of the price of the apple options ? I certainly don't need the ultrafast to store voluminous non-business, music, ebook, video or other content I might find useful while on the road, and I really don't want to deal with an extra external drive for such, or be dependent on an iCloud tether...
One solution to that is my Thinkpad. I use an SSD as the C: drive to boot from and contain all the apps, then an older, slower harddrive for data and as a backup drive. The newer one I bought for my friend can actually hold three drives -- all of them user replaceable (well, one takes removing the keyboard & stuff to get to it, but still, its a 15-20 minute upgrade.)
Are any 2018 MacBook Pro 15" i9 owners running Mojave Dev or Public beta experiencing an issue where MBP does NOT detect attached external monitors? Perhaps related, the "Automatic graphics switching" option in Systems Preferences\Energy Saver option does not display.
I suspected defective Radeon Pro 560X so downgraded to High Sierra test and THEN external monitors were successfully detected and the "Automatic graphics switching" option now displayed.
Are any 2018 MacBook Pro 15" i9 owners running Mojave Dev or Public beta experiencing an issue where MBP does NOT detect attached external monitors? Perhaps related, the "Automatic graphics switching" option in Systems Preferences\Energy Saver option does not display.
I suspected defective Radeon Pro 560X so downgraded to High Sierra test and THEN external monitors were successfully detected and the "Automatic graphics switching" option now displayed.
Thanks for any insights!
That is a known bug in the current Mojave beta on the 2018 15-inch.
Are any 2018 MacBook Pro 15" i9 owners running Mojave Dev or Public beta experiencing an issue where MBP does NOT detect attached external monitors? Perhaps related, the "Automatic graphics switching" option in Systems Preferences\Energy Saver option does not display.
I suspected defective Radeon Pro 560X so downgraded to High Sierra test and THEN external monitors were successfully detected and the "Automatic graphics switching" option now displayed.
Thanks for any insights!
That is a known bug in the current Mojave beta on the 2018 15-inch.
Whew! Thank you very much Mike. First time I've celebrated a bug; but that's a relief to know that I don't have a shiny new "lemon"-MBP. 🙂
Any chance you have the related Apple Dev or public link? Thanks again!
Thermal throttling in a laptop these days is primarily done to protect the overall life of the battery. Prolonged exposure to high heat will degrade lithium ion batteries much more quickly.
That is not accurate. Thermal throttling exists to prevent the CPU from being (fatally) damaged.
When a MBP or other laptop is connected to the power, battery life cannot be an issue by definition, yet thermal throttling is active. This is of course valid for all CPUs, including those in desktops and servers. A CPU cannot work beyond a certain temperature.
Engineering is about compromise. Always. The question is which compromises are made.
Apple has repeatedly and significantly compromised on values that they claim are theirs: The high integration of RAM, SSD, keyboard, battery go against the eco-friendliness of their laptops. They are difficult to repair. The lack of internal extension reduces the longevity of the products. (A vast amount of energy for a device is used up not in active usage but during production, so longevity is essential to reducing trash and energy consumption.)
Your environmental claims are nonsense. Macs have a longer useful lifespan than their competitors, and essentially nobody is doing piecemeal upgrades on their netbooks. Still they last just fine on their own. And Macs are extremely recyclable, they receive the highest marks in the industry.
In short, you’re just making things up. Stick to reality.
Hey Dr. StrangeLOVE gotta disagree with you man I've been an IT TECH MAC USER for 30+ Plus years and you off base and incorrect SIR:
APPLE INC has JUMP THE SHARK with these UN-UPGRADEABLE MACHINES WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE if you want to extend the LIFE of your MACBOOK PRO!!!
I am replying to your post on my mid 2010 15" MACBOOK PRO laptop which i've upgraded with 16GB of RAM and a 500GB SSD Drive and I am a music production artist who uses my machine for MUSIC and i have FIREWIRE 800 DRIVE and many USB Devices that I NEVER HAVE TO USE DONGLES WITH and if you really understood what APPLE is doing by removing these pros and leaving us out to SPEND MORE $$$ without reducing the cost of these laptops when they remove these much needed ports and if you knew that they USE EOL components now on their entire LINE End_OF_Life means these machine have a LIFE -DEATH SPAN that will only work past XXX date or usage of these newer machines and REMOVING THE ABILITY to UPGRADE RAM by SOLDERING EVERYTHING TO THE GAWWDAMN MOTHER IS SO YOU CANNOT EXTEND YOUR MACHINE AND ARE FORCED TO BUY A NEW ONE in a few years... LEARN YOUR TECH BRO - understand that APPLE IS NOW JUST CONCERNED ABOUT $$$ and not the END USER - hope your not a TROLL and that I'm not wasting my time trying to teach you something BUT SOME PENNY PINCHER AT CUPERTINO CA IS SMOKING SOME REALLY GOOD DOPE and MAKING THESE F'D UP DECISIONS to practically FORCE BUYERS TO KEEP UPGRADING and don't get me started on the 3 MEONS I GOT FROM THEM in the last 10-12 years and they wouldn't address the issue and kept denying me the truth until a class action lawsuit forced their hand.. WAKEUPALREADY
Comments
For now, a simple downloadable program and a manual step to turn on the fans allows me to use the potential of the i9 in my MacBook Pro without waiting. Which for me is all I need.
This has some interesting info on what might have been wrong with the widely distributed YouTuber tests, and that apparently includes Cinebench itself needing an update.
At some point that same voluminous SSD might get transferred to another faster desktop mac when the mbp becomes repurposed (downgraded) for less demanding tasks once other limitations kick in...
Are netbooks a fair comparison ?
I had a HP Elitebook 8770w Laptop for almost 4 years. Quad i7, 3TB SSD and 32GB Ram.
I was employed to build software for a complex industrial environment and needed to run between 10 and 12 VM's when doing end-to-end testing/simulation.
At the core were two large DB's.
I could get that i7 to almost go into the red CPU wise pretty easily.
Why do this on a Laptop? Because I travelled to a pretty remote place where the site was and needed to have everything with me 'to get things done'.
I could have done with more RAM and certainly a more powerful CPU but this was about as good as it got at that time.
Now, I do Video rendering on my 2016 MBP or my Hackintosh.
Your point is, that Apple is already doing good?
In that you are right … compared to the industry … and in a „if product runs“ scenario.
At the same time Apple is not doing good in a „if product fails“ scenario or „needs an upgrade“. In fact, most Apple products score really bad. Often times many more components than needed must be replaced due to the integration. Costs are high and end the useful life of a device by what otherwise could be a simple repair or upgrade job.
I disagree that laptop users in general don‘t do upgrades. (Not netbooks, that’s a misplaced comparison.) The repair and upgrade market was well alive before Apple made it increasingly difficult. So if right now they don‘t as often as they used to, it is out of forced circumstances.
I have personally replaced batteries, RAM, HD, SSD and keyboards on my previous Mac laptops. I have done so for others to repair or increase performance and bottom-line increase the useful life of their devices.
This is especially true for high-value pro products. And several years ago Apple got this right by providing repairable and upgradeable and robust pro products.
Then anorexia set in for laptops and desktops. Not just one product line had to be ultra-portable and reduced to the max (like the Air, the Mini, the iPad), where it makes sense. But all product lines followed this design maxim … even where it does not make sense (Mac Pros, MBPs) and that is not justifiable as a „reasonable engineering compromise“.
The ultraportable design maxim applies to the current MBPs. They are really „Macbook Air Pro“ models, and good at that for users who want that. But MBPs (no „Air“) they are not.
Same problem like the current Mac Pro.
I know folks around me, who are quite happy with the lineup, because they value portability or minimalism more than anything.
I know folks around me, who feel left out by Apple, because their needs are not served any more.
Count me in. Even though I spend a lot of time in hotels and client offices, my portability needs are covered with slightly heavier and thicker devices, if that allows for a more robust, repairable and upgradeable design.
I'm not defending the soldered and glued together machine. The ability to upgrade is important. I just added 8Gb of RAM and an SSD to my 7 Thinkpad and now it runs like a charm. But, I suspect that I'm missing something. If it was being done by HP I would say to save money. But that doesn't fit for Apple. Is it just to make them thinner and lighter? I hope not. For me, that's not a good trade off.
I even wonder about the merits of a fusion drive using two SSD, one being the ultra fast if 128 or 256, paired with a slower large capacity SATA III ssd (2TB) at maybe 25% of the price of the apple options ? I certainly don't need the ultrafast to store voluminous non-business, music, ebook, video or other content I might find useful while on the road, and I really don't want to deal with an extra external drive for such, or be dependent on an iCloud tether...
I suspected defective Radeon Pro 560X so downgraded to High Sierra test and THEN external monitors were successfully detected and the "Automatic graphics switching" option now displayed.
Thanks for any insights!
Any chance you have the related Apple Dev or public link? Thanks again!
When a MBP or other laptop is connected to the power, battery life cannot be an issue by definition, yet thermal throttling is active. This is of course valid for all CPUs, including those in desktops and servers. A CPU cannot work beyond a certain temperature.