Apple's time machine poll.

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, mrchow19910319 said:

I've heard people said there is a pattern here: 

 

1. 1st gen:  most expensive one, a little bit more buggy, completely new design. 
2. 2nd gen: price drop a little bit, eliminate most of the bugs, machines become more stable.
3. 3rd gen: new feature starts coming in. 
4. 4th gen: minor improvement. 

Look at the last cycle: 2012 retina one came out, 2013 price drop , 2014 force touch pad added,  2015 nothing new, 2016 new design came out. 

So far the biggest issue with the MBP 2016 are the speakers (the new system apparently has some electrical issues when using the device. The speakers will make very subtle pops that tend to correlate with Trackpad and keyboard presses. 

 

The TBMBPs with dGPUs also apparently can Kernel panic. This is most likely due to the Touchbar interfering with the dGPU "hooking." 

 

Speaker issue is not damaging to the machine, the Kernel panics seem to have all but gone away as far as I know with MacOS 10.12.4 and only affect TouchBar models. 

 

 

[DrMacintosh]

From the next MBPs we can expect 

 

New CPU architecture for a slight power efficiency boost. (no noticeable performance improvement)

bigger battery or at least longer battery life as a result of more efficient CPUs

more stable touchbar 

resolved speaker growing pains

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

From the next MBPs we can expect 

 

New CPU architecture for a slight power efficiency boost. (no noticeable performance improvement)

That depends when it is released and what Intel does with Coffee Lake. There's still a very strong chance the new Macs will have Kaby Lake, so it will be the same architecture and we won't see much in terms of battery life improvements unless they make the battery bigger. If that's the case, we also won't see much in the way of CPU performance improvements -- just iGPU improvements. We should also expect a larger memory capacity and a switch to DDR4 (this will also negatively impact battery life and will probably balance out with any battery improvements they make).

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Kaby Lake

Don't think so. 

 

Form what I have seen Intels new CPUS will be ready in time for MBP manufacturing. Thankfully for Apple the demand for the MBP is relatively not that high. 

 

I think Tim Cook, Dan Riccio, and Johny Prouji know they can't keep making machines that are always 1 entire gen behind. 

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Don't think so. 

 

Form what I have seen Intels new CPUS will be ready in time for MBP manufacturing. Thankfully for Apple the demand for the MBP is relatively not that high. 

 

I think Tim Cook, Dan Riccio, and Johny Prouji know they can't keep making machines that are always 1 entire gen behind. 

Coffee Lake isn't much of an improvement over Kaby Lake anyway, so it's not a big deal. And it depends how Coffee Lake is released, KL didn't get mobile quad cores until Q1 2017, so if that happens again we won't see Coffee Lake Macs. Plus Coffee Lake isn't rumored to launch until H2 2017, which could also put it too close to or even past October to make a Coffee Lake 2017 Mac viable. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Mac viable

Were Macs ever really viable?  They have like 12% marketshare lol. 

 

Although I guess for a single OEM to occupy any segment of the market that much is pretty good. 

[79wjd]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

Were Macs ever really viable? They have like 12% marketshare lol. 

 

Although I guess for a single OEM to occupy any segment of the market that much is pretty good. 

Viable as in Apple can't realistically put Coffee Lake in an October Mac if Coffee Lake is released in late August/early September. 

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Viable as in Apple can't realistically put Coffee Lake in an October Mac if Coffee Lake is released in late August/early September. 

well they could just push the date back. Apple is no stranger to announcing a product weeks to months in advance. 

[iTech]

Have an early 2008 Mac Pro running a Time Machine server that I use for backups to a separate hard drive in the system. I use that Mac Pro for a lot of other server/always-on needs but it's very convenient to not have to be connected to a physical cable to backup.

[mrchow19910319]

3 hours ago, iTech said:

Have an early 2008 Mac Pro running a Time Machine server that I use for backups to a separate hard drive in the system. I use that Mac Pro for a lot of other server/always-on needs but it's very convenient to not have to be connected to a physical cable to backup.

I've heard some people said that apple's time capsule is the best for time machine backup while others said it is not reliable enough to do wireless backup. 

They've had issues before like file corruption and such and costed them a huge headache. They were trying to back up multiple TB of photos and bam, time capsule some how gave out a warning and now they had to do it again.... 

 

 

So I dont know which is more truthful.