New MacBooks have upgradable ssds - but its proprietary

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

The Pro models are not ultrabooks.

Yes. They are. 

[Nowak]

10 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

although, you still have the bad UI scaling of Windows to deal with

Windows UI scaling is poor because a lot of applications are built using their own toolkits, rather than Microsoft ones. WindowsForms applications (basically everything that ships with Windows) scale fine, but things that use their own toolkits don't.

 

Basically, it's a huge clusterfuck of standard and non-standard Windows GUI toolkits.

[79wjd]

Just now, Daring said:

Windows UI scaling is poor because a lot of applications are built using their own toolkits, rather than Microsoft ones. WindowsForms applications (basically everything that ships with Windows) scale fine, but things that use their own toolkits don't.

 

Basically, it's a huge clusterfuck of standard and non-standard Windows GUI toolkits.

Either way, it's still an issue that exists on Windows and not OSX. 

[Nowak]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Either way, it's still an issue that exists on Windows and not OSX. 

Well, hey, it can't be worse than GTK, which only allows for 100% or 200% scaling with nothing in between ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[goodtofufriday]

24 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yes. They are. 

I'd argue differently. But if anything therein lies the problem. MBP of 2013 was an actual professional laptop. Now you can barely tell the difference between the non-pro line.  

[jagdtigger]

41 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Clearly the one who didn't even bother to look at any other device in the ultrabook category.

 

MBP vs. XPS: 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Dell XPS 15: 

• $1850
  • 6700HQ
  • 16gb DDR4 2133mhz
  • 4K touch
  • Adobe RGB display @ 400 nits
  • 960m
  • 256gb PCIE SSD (+$150 for 512gb, +$500 for 1tb)
  • 4-6~ hours depending on the review
  • 4.4lbs, 11-17mm

Macbook Pro 15":

• $2400
  • 6700HQ
  • 16GB LPDDR3 2133mhz
  • 2880x1800 (non-touch)
  • P3 display @ 500nits
  • Pro 450
  • 256gb PCIE SSD (+$200 for 512gb, +$600 for 1tb)
  • 8~ hours (at least for the previous model)
  • 4lb, 15.5mm
• $2000
  • 4770HQ
  • 16GB DDR3
  • 2800x1800
  • sRGB @ 300nits
  • 256GB PCIE SSD
  • Iris Pro (5200)
  • 8~ hour battery
  • 4.5lbs, 18.9mm

Conclusion: 

The XPS 15 has the advantage of having a touch screen and being 4k, however, 4k isn't all that good a on 15" screen especially with Windows poor scaling; and touch is hit or miss (either people want it or they don't). The GPU is relatively close, although a 960m should be a bit faster. The 15" Mac also has an OLED Touch bar and Touch ID, which looks to be contributing at least $200 to the price. In terms of battery life Apple definitely has the advantage. Build quality, I/O, and aesthetics are all pretty much equal imo and both have their advantages. The Mac definitely has the trackpad advantage as I'd say it's both superior and significantly larger (although the XPS trackpad is still excellent). The XPS probably has a better keyboard (at least compared to butterfly gen 1) since Apple went with butterfly gen 2 switches (but only time will tell here, although I'm not super optimistic). The display, at least from my understanding is kind of a toss up, P3 and Adobe RGB extend the standard colorspace in opposite directions, although the Mac gets 25% brighter (at least on paper).

TL;DR: All in all, you're paying 30% more for an OLED touch bar, touchID, better battery life, OSX, and slightly worse GPU performance (with a pretty hefty chunk coming from the OLED bar). IMO the price hike is unjustified, I don't see the OLED bar costing Apple what they're charging (even when considering all BOM costs), and so I think the old Haswell-based model ($2000) is still an excellent choice for many users who want/prefer OSX and don't need the GPU performance but would much rather have better battery life instead. 

 

Dell XPS 13:

• $1400
  • i5-7200u
  • 8GB LPDDR3 1866mhz
  • 3200x1800 touch
  • Adobe RGB display? @ 400nits
  • 256gb PCIE SSD
  • HD 620 (20%~ slower than HD540)
  • 9~ hours battery
  • 2.9lbs, 9-15mm

Macbook Pro 13":

• $1500 (non OLED)
  • i5-6360u
  • 8GB LPDDR3 1866mhz
  • 2560x1600
  • P3 display
  • 256gb PCIE SSD
  • Iris 540
  • 9~ hours battery (presumably)
  • 3lbs, 14.9mm

Conclusion: I'm breaking this up into two comparisons, the non-oled 13" and the $1400 XPS 13. The XPS 13 has a slight CPU advantage (Kabylake vs. Skylake) and a slight display advantage in terms of resolution (although, you still have the bad UI scaling of Windows to deal with) and likely on par in terms of quality, while the Mac has a better iGPU and everything else is relatively similar. So like with the 15", the Mac has the trackpad advantage while the XPS likely has they keyboard advantage. So $1500 vs. $1400 for relatively similar raw performance with each having an advantage in certain conditions. 

 

Dell XPS 13:

• $1850
  • i7-7500u
  • 16GB LPDDR3 1866mhz
  • 3200x1800 touch
  • Adobe RGB display? @ 400nits
  • 512gb PCIE SSD
  • 9~ hours battery
  • 2.9lbs, 9-15mm
  • HD620

Macbook Pro 13":

• $1800 ($2200 w/ comparable ram/ssd)
  • i5-6267u
  • 8GB LPDDR3 2133mhz (+$200 for 16gb)
  • 2560x1600
  • P3
  • 256GB PCIE SSD (+$400 for 16gb/512gb)
  • Iris 550
  • 3lbs 14.9
  • 9~ hours battery (presumably)
  • 3lbs, 14.9mm
  • OLED Bar/Touch ID

Conclusion: This one is a bit tougher and suffers from the same OLED price hike as the 15". I'll be considering the 13" with the 16gb/512gb configuration (i.e. $2200). In terms of CPU performance, the XPS 13 has a bit of an advantage (Kaby Lake vs. Skylake), it also has a bit of display advantage in terms of resolution (while suffering scaling issues), but in terms of quality it's probably fairly similar P3 vs. Adobe RGB. The Mac is using HD550 (HD540 is 20%~ faster than HD620, and I believe HD550 is about 20% faster than HD540), which is about 40% faster than HD620 that's in the XPS 13. The Mac also has the trackpad advantage while the XPS the keyboard advantage, and the Mac also has a touch bar. 

If you're aiming for the 256gb/8gb model, then the 13" MBP is $1800 while the XPS 13 is $1400, so at this configuration the XPS 13 takes a pretty big price lead (With everything mentioned above still holding true).

 

Summary: The non-oled 13" is priced competitively with the XPS 13 while the OLED 13" costs about 20% more for a slower CPU, better iGPU, and an OLED touch bar. Whether or not the GPU performance (or CPU performance for that matter) matters is entirely dependent on the use case, but in all fairness, the performance delta does exist. So all-in-all, the 13" models are priced decently but the OLED bar definitely does add more than it should as far as I'm concerned. 

 

Well from this list only the i7 6700HQ could beat my laptop with its 100 points of difference(cinebenchR15) and the 4770HQ just slightly better(~15 points). In case with the "U" CPU's they dont have a chance... GPU vise (GF GT 650M) its a little bit on the slow side but its still better than the iGPU.

 

And BTW the non o-led MBP 13 is not price competitive with the xps 13, 256GB vs 512GB SSD....(and since this is the only internal storage bigger is better rule applies)

[79wjd]

30 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I'd argue differently. But if anything therein lies the problem. MBP of 2013 was an actual professional laptop. Now you can barely tell the difference between the non-pro line.  

 

22 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Well from this list only the i7 6700HQ could beat my laptop with its 100 points of difference(cinebenchR15) and the 4770HQ just slightly better(~15 points). In case with the "U" CPU's they dont have a chance... GPU vise (GF GT 650M) its a little bit on the slow side but its still better than the iGPU.

 

And BTW the non o-led MBP 13 is not price competitive with the xps 13, 256GB vs 512GB SSD....(and since this is the only internal storage bigger is better rule applies)

That's not Apple's fault. Blame intel for their marginal performance gains. And it also consumes more power and yields worse battery life. Compare it to other ultrabooks, and it's normal to have an iGPU.

 

The first XPS 13 with > FHD:

• $1400
• i5-7200u 
• 8gb 
• 3200x1800 touch
• HD620
• 256GB PCIE

The first XPS 13 with > FHD and 512gb SSD:

• $1850
• 7500u
• 16gb
• 3200x1800 touch
• hd620
• 512gb PCIE

MBP 13": 

• $1800
• Skylake i5 
• 8gb
• 2560x1600
• Iris 550
• 256GB PCIE

MBP 13": 

• $2200
• Skylake i5 
• 16gb
• 2560x1600
• Iris 550
• 512GB PCIE

So, the standard base config ($1800 vs. $1400), with the better config ($2200 vs. $1850). So for an extra $350-$400 you're getting, a much getter iGPU, oled touch bar/touchID (which isn't exactly cheap due to RnD), bigger trackpad, a better SSD, and a better display (albeit while lacking touch -- so this is dependent on whether you want touch or not). 

 

And if you want to ignore the OLED bar, then there is a non-oled option. 

[jagdtigger]

11 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

 

That's not Apple's fault. Blame intel for their marginal performance gains. And it also consumes more power and yields worse battery life. Compare it to other ultrabooks, and it's normal to have an iGPU.

 

The first XPS 13 with > FHD:

• $1400
• i5-7200u 
• 8gb 
• 3200x1800 touch
• HD620
• 256GB PCIE

The first XPS 13 with > FHD and 512gb SSD:

• $1850
• 7500u
• 16gb
• 3200x1800 touch
• hd620
• 512gb PCIE

MBP 13": 

• $1800
• Skylake i5 
• 8gb
• 2560x1600
• Iris 550
• 256GB PCIE

MBP 13": 

• $2200
• Skylake i5 
• 16gb
• 2560x1600
• Iris 550
• 512GB PCIE

So, the standard base config ($1800 vs. $1400), with the better config ($2200 vs. $1850). So for an extra $350-$400 you're getting, a much getter iGPU, oled touch bar/touchID (which isn't exactly cheap due to RnD), bigger trackpad, a better SSD, and a better display (albeit while lacking touch -- so this is dependent on whether you want touch or not). 

 

And if you want to ignore the OLED bar, then there is a non-oled option. 

Sorry but that oled thingy is mostly just a gimmick, touch ID could be useful but if you store any critical data on them i wouldn't trust in it. Sticking the "Pro" name onto these weaklings is a shameful act on apple's part, especially the ones with  the "U" CPU's. On top of all this those high res displays need a dGPU instead of the pathetic iGPU...

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Sorry but that oled thingy is mostly just a gimmick, touch ID could be useful but if you store any critical data on them i wouldn't trust in it. Sticking the "Pro" name onto these weaklings is a shameful act on apple's part, especially the ones with  the "U" CPU's. On top of all this those high res displays need a dGPU instead of the pathetic iGPU...

In your opinion it's just a gimmick. I see it being useful, certainly more so than the traditional function row. Touch ID is quite secure, the only "issue" with it is that you legally can be forced to unlock a device with a fingerprint, you can't legally be forced to enter a password (although, if you're in that situation you have bigger problems).

 

Meanwhile, even a wimpy Mac in FCP will out render a top end desktop with a top tier GPU in Adobe Premiere. And again, tell that to every other ultrabook manufacturer. And it really doesn't need a dGPU. My SP3 (2160x1440) and my Mac (2880x1800) run just fine on integrated graphics. 

[goodtofufriday]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Meanwhile, even the wimpy 12" Macbook running a Core M in FCP will out render a top end desktop with a top tier GPU in Adobe ____. And again, tell that to every other ultrabook manufacturer. And it really doesn't need a dGPU. My SP3 (2160x1440) and my Mac (2880x1800) run just fine on integrated graphics. 

O_o While you are not wrong when it come to running those apps on a mac it is not a result of the hardware but rather the programs. So thats not a comparison that can be made in earnest here.

And adobes programs do benefit from beefier cpus.

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

O_o While you are not wrong when it come to running those apps on a mac it is not a result of the hardware but rather the programs. So thats not a comparison that can be made in earnest here.

And adobes programs do benefit from beefier cpus.

You're right, it is the software. It's not an unoptimized piece of shit like Premiere. But it also only works on OSX. So why do the raw hardware specs matter more than actual performance? 

[RexinOridle]

Apple totally shot at their own foot with the new release. It's freaking expensive, not professional at all considering the name PRO, the new I/O is so screwed up that they can't even plug in their own products in there. Well, at least they have the headphone port.

[goodtofufriday]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

You're right, it is the software. It's not an unoptimized piece of shit like Premiere. But it also only works on OSX. So why do the raw hardware specs matter more than actual performance? 

I mean more hardware = more performance. if all a person was doing was FCP then thats fine. But there are plenty of applications that Apple hasnt built that just need more power. The "Pro" line no longer stands for what it used to and does not give the features once expected. Anyone doing constant video work is not going to want to carry around tons of adapters for different sized sd cards or cf cards, or the many proprietary formats. 

 

And lets take performance away for a minute. Upgradability is almost null now. Repair is less and less possible, especially for a cracked screen. Build quality has taken at a component level. Did you know there is a service connector near the exhaust ports that can get corrosion from humidity build up? It prevents the mac from starting. Gluing the monitor into the shell so when your flex cable breaks then youre dead in the water? The list goes on. 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I mean more hardware = more performance. if all a person was doing was FCP then thats fine. But there are plenty of applications that Apple hasnt built that just need more power. The "Pro" line no longer stands for what it used to and does not give the features once expected. Anyone doing constant video work is not going to want to carry around tons of adapters for different sized sd cards or cf cards, or the many proprietary formats. 

 

And lets take performance away for a minute. Upgradability is almost null now. Repair is less and less possible, especially for a cracked screen. Build quality has taken at a component level. Did you know there is a service connector near the exhaust ports that can get corrosion from humidity build up? It prevents the mac from starting. Gluing the monitor into the shell so when your flex cable breaks then youre dead in the water? The list goes on. 

Anyone doing professional work will already have a card reader since most professional cameras don't use SD cards, and most built in card readers use USB 2.0. Most professionals will also have no problem switching to USB-C (especially since most drives have detachable cables). 

 

Upgradability on any laptops almost always basically been non-existent. Before ultrabooks you could replace the RAM and HDD/SSD (sure you could sometimes replace the CPU but you were usually limited with what was compatible in terms of the socket/cooling and it was rarely ever done -- certainly not in the professional market where they can afford to get new hardware when older hardware is too slow). So what's actually changed? Now you can't upgrade the RAM. Okay, well, if you're a professional you should probably max it out from the get go (stupidly, the new Macs don't go above 16gb because, and I quote, "battery reasons"). And the SSD is still upgradeable after the fact (it won't be long before someone, like OWC, releases a compatible SSD), and if you're buying a laptop, as a professional, and find that you need more storage immediately, then you're doing something very wrong. 

 

Less and less repairability is just the nature that tech industry is trending towards. All devices are getting smaller, thinner, and more complex. So that's not entirely Apple's fault. Apple doesn't need to glue the battery in place though. But other things, there isn't much of an option as the desire for smaller and more compact devices (i.e. ultrabooks) rises. If you have corrosion issues, then you probably have bigger problems that need to be worked out (i.e. even if that "service port" didn't exist, you'd still have a major issue of the laptop itself crapping out). 

[Tocsin_786]

4 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

Sintech made plenty of adapters so that you could use any manufactures drive though

 

 

 

 

 

None of those adapters work. I had to personally bring my own macbook air into work in order to recover a customers data off theirs. 

[MoonSpot]

New MacBooks have upgradable ssds - but its proprietary

 

So they actually are not upgradable.  Or are these drives available from apple on their own?

[79wjd]

12 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

 

 

 

So they actually are not upgradable.  Or are these drives available from apple on their own?

They will be available by third party sellers eventually (based on previous releases). The SSDs in the 2013-2015 MBPs are also proprietary, but you can buy a compatible one from OWC. 

[Mr.Meerkat]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

HD 620 (20%~ slower than HD540)

And it's actually nice decision to keep Skylake rather than move to Kabylake  

Well dun Apple  

 

On a side note, time to think carefully what I'd rather have as my new laptop, an Apple MacBook pro 13" or a XPS 13, even maybe the Razer blade stealth as it's actually priced pretty competitively  (or stick with my "more powerful" [i7 4500u and 840m] 15 inch laptop till I actually go to uni)

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

And it's actually nice decision to keep Skylake rather than move to Kabylake  

Well dun Apple  

 

On a side note, time to think carefully what I'd rather have as my new laptop, an Apple MacBook pro 13" or a XPS 13, even maybe the Razer blade stealth as it's actually priced pretty competitively  (or stick with my "more powerful" [i7 4500u and 840m] 15 inch laptop till I actually go to uni)

Keep the 15" forever. 13" is too small. 

 

Also, I'm not the best person to ask, I'd get a Mac unless Apple really screwed things up as I prefer OSX. (and build quality/support issues would keep me away from razer)

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

Keep the 15" forever. 13" is too small. 

But I miss my 13.3 inch laptop ;-;

Although it was thicker, it was lighter, allowed me to use it in bed easier ect. and when your current laptop is basically 3KG, after carrying it around with around 5-10KG of books as well, it's not nice  

[Doobeedoo]

Screw that.

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Sorry but that oled thingy is mostly just a gimmick, touch ID could be useful but if you store any critical data on them i wouldn't trust in it. Sticking the "Pro" name onto these weaklings is a shameful act on apple's part, especially the ones with  the "U" CPU's. On top of all this those high res displays need a dGPU instead of the pathetic iGPU...

As has been showcased very well in modern phones, an IGPU is perfectly happy rendering a high resolution display,at least, until you throw gaming at it, in which case, it has long been known Macbooks are not made for modern gaming anyway. 

[226477_1454181668]

11 hours ago, Dutch-stoner said:

Just don't buy apple stuff? Problem solved.

 

And oh, desktop pc's were already upgradable for a LONG time.

But apple stuff is just better in almost every way. Its more expensive, but its worth paying for. 

[Kamina]

Sigh... Apple.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, 226477_1454181668 said:

But apple stuff is just better in almost every way. Its more expensive, but its worth paying for. 

Not exactly (they all have their pros and cons), but I do agree it's (usually) worth paying for if you prefer iOS/OSX (which I personally do). Apple would have to fuck up pretty badly to make me want something like an XPS 15/Pixel over a 15" Mac/iPhone. That's not to say I think the XPS 15/Android is bad, I just really prefer iOS/OSX (especially together).

 

Plus from my experience, Apple products tend to feel usable longer -- I've had windows/OSX laptops in the past and I ended up upgrading the windows laptops after about three years and the Mac after six years.