saarek

gatorguy said:

saarek said:

ampo said:

AF_Hitt said:

jbcreate said:

spend the extra money on a device with a sub 1080p display lol... ok... a phone $350 less with the best camera out, 1080 amoled...ya..better get the ipxr I get it, finally an iphone can be touted heavily against a google pixel/nexus device but this phone isnt about the specs, its about the software and UX. We can talk about processors and RAM all day but will the average consumer using instagram notice? not at all.

Thanks for registering just to post this single troll comment, but you can leave now. Will the average user notice the speed difference? No, not right away. But in a couple years, it will be painfully obvious. The Pixel 3a will have the equivalent of 5-6 year old technology in it by then. The iPhone XR has the exact same performance as the fastest flagship phone on the market, and therefore will be just as fast as them for the entirety of its lifespan. My XR could easily last me 4 years if I so choose. Can you say the same of the 3a?

Your iPhone will slow as well unless you change the battery, Apple makes sure of that. That and he's right, this bargain Pixel phone will be fine years from now. My back up phone, a 3 year old Pixel, is as fast as day one so if that's any indication these new phones will remain plenty fast for most all common and basic smartphone tasks and at this price point that's all it's meant for. They won't do stuff more expensive phones like the XR do obviously, 60 fps video for example, but they will run great for a device in this price range and punch well above it's weight for things like cameras, AI and support etc. 

Out of interest, are you running the latest version of Android on that 3 year old Pixel? The CPU was far inferior to Apple's A9 which came out a year prior and I wonder how it holds up now.

My fathers iPhone 6S Plus has never had it's battery changed and is running like a brand new phone on iOS 12.

I am, beta versions of course since it's not yet "released". The phone is holding up just fine, doing everything I need it for. As a plus Google continues to roll out features for it from the latest Pixel models, things like call screening, Night Sight, Duplex....

IMO very few people really need the latest processors with maxed out storage. I think a two or three year old iPhone (or Pixel) will serve just as well as the newest one for most folks who only call, text, browse, watch some videos, play a few casual games, check facebook, mail, news, and photos. Yes there's a minority who run their business from one or regularly rely on high-resource iPhone apps or intensive gaming but relatively it's not many of you. For everyone else "new" is nice and all but...

deminsd said:

doggone said:

Sure parents will generally not spend a lot on a kids computer.  They can buy any laptop for less that $500.  It will likely be heavy, easily get loaded with Malware and fall to pieces after a few years. Go ahead and get a PC if that is for you.
Every Mac I have bought has lasted over 5 years.  And I don't have to worry about software, OS or security. Their longevity and staying power seems to be increasing over time.  My 1st gen rMBP has lasted for 6 years and is still as fast as it was when I got it.   The 2016 MBP is even better because it has a smaller footprint and is 50% lighter with the same screen size.  
HD die a lot faster than SSD, especially those for laptops.  SSDs are a lot faster and are no longer a huge bottleneck.  How often does a motherboard die, and even it is does a Time Machine back up can restore everything if you have it set up properly.
If you are using a MBP for professional applications then wouldn't you have a external monitor, keyboard, mouse etc. The 15 inch MBP has 4 TB3 ports that allow you to configure externals how you like.  I got a dock that provides all the back compatibility I need and can charge from either side. Way more flexible that in the past.

The way I see your math, a $500 Windows laptop lasts "a few years"...a few means at least 3 (or it would be a couple).  $500 for 3 years.  Then another $500 for a newer machine, faster, later tech, etc. for another 3 years.  At this point, your $1500 6 year old MBP is looking pretty old and SLOW compared to that $500 Windows machine.  And that Windows machine can be upgraded.  Bigger SSD's, more memory, etc.  Your stuck with whatever Apple has glued into your MBP.  Forever.  Or until you shell out another $2000 to replace it.

I get people religiously want macOS.  But it's a losing argument when it comes to hardware, value and the ability to cheaply upgrade the performance and capacity of a Windows PC.    And, reliability these days isn't even an issue with Windows PC.  It's all the same hardware now!

brian green said:

This comparison reminds me of the days when Phil would do a speed test on stage with the latest and greatest PC versus the Mac, and the Mac would always win.  It was a smack down.  

I think the best thing we can do as a computer community is show Apple that they persistently come up short, and that engineers ought to actually focus on the best specs possible, rather than settling for average or bare minimum for a premium price point.  

I'd love to see Phil out there again with a MacBook Pro trouncing the competition like they did in the old days.  Sadly, when all of the components are off the shelf compatible to every other manufacturer, Apple would have to make the conscious decision to spec out a laptop with that specifically in mind, and it's my opinion that Apple engineers have no plans to be the best in regard to performance.  

I am aware that a critical component to functionality is the OS itself and Windows 10 has made significant improvements in stability from what I've read.  MacOS is stable, and functional, while I believe we're well past the days of seeing significant improvements and speed increases from one version of the OS to another.  Most of us run the latest version and it "just works", much to our daily contentment.  I feel the significant disparity is revealed in speed of workflow throughput.  We've seen 4k become the standard for video, and HEVC has proved a significant space saver while remaining visibly lossless to the average user, yet creating more work to be done by the CPU and GPU.  I have not seen a noticeable speed improvement with the change of filesystem to APFS either.   When we're seeing other laptops outperforming the MacBook Pro, it's not only a loss of pride in the brand we choose to spend our hard earned money on, it's also taking more time because the laptops we're offered by Apple Engineers are less capable than those by other manufacturers.  

It has been my opinion, for several generations of Mac products, that Apple Engineers have cared significantly less about performance, and more about esthetics.  While Apple laptops look nice, they fall short in providing the best performance for their Prosumer users, which is truly unfortunate for those of us who refuse to leave the Mac ecosystem.  When the components of laptops are largely from the same vendors and assembled by other manufacturers, it's harder to differentiate them.  While I hope Apple persists in incorporating more of their own chips into their products, I am finding it difficult to imagine the day when Phil will be back out on that stage showing us the Mac trouncing the PC once again.  At least the Mac will look nice though.