Consumer Reports Stands By Its Verdict, Won't Recommend Apple's MacBook Pro (mashable.com) 268
Consumer Reports took many by surprise last week -- certainly Apple -- when it said it doesn't recommend the company's new MacBook Pro models. The American magazine, which has garnered credibility over 80 years of its existence, said battery life on Apple's new laptops was all over the place -- hitting 19 hours in a test, but less than four hours in another. Last week, Apple's VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller insisted that Consumer Reports' findings didn't match the company's field data, and that Apple was working with Consumer Reports to understand its review. Now Consumer Reports has responded: The nonprofit organization is standing by its initial verdict in which it did not give the MacBook Pro (2016) its "recommended" rating. The organization has now said it doesn't think re-running the tests will change anything. "In this case, we don't believe re-running the tests are warranted for several reasons. First, as we point out in our original article, experiencing very high battery life on MacBooks is not unusual for us -- in fact we had a model in our comparative tests that got 19 hours," it said. "Second, we confirmed our brightness with three different meters, so we feel confident in our findings using this equipment. Finally, we monitor our tests very closely. There is an entry logged every minute, so we know from these entries that the app worked correctly," it added.
Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Consumer Reports has no incentive but to produce accurate reports on consumer products. Apple on the other hand has a motive to produce positive results with its product tests. But this is not the first time Apple has over inflated battery life and I am sure it's tests were done to provide a good specification under certain conditions. But my own experience with devices today has tended to be overly optimistic battery life tested under not so realistic conditions. Consumer Reports has always provided more accurate battery life results.
Re:Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not "over inflated battery life" - and actually, Apple has (in the past) gotten kudos for being one of the few companies that consistently provided reasonably accurate battery numbers for their products.
No, the issue is there's something as-yet-unexplained which, under some circumstances, causes the battery life of the newest MacBook Pros to plummet to ridiculously low levels. Consumer Reports saw it in their testing; but, even before that, some customers were experiencing it (and justifiably complaining).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is not "over inflated battery life" - and actually, Apple has (in the past) gotten kudos for being one of the few companies that consistently provided reasonably accurate battery numbers for their products.
No, the issue is there's something as-yet-unexplained which, under some circumstances, causes the battery life of the newest MacBook Pros to plummet to ridiculously low levels. Consumer Reports saw it in their testing; but, even before that, some customers were experiencing it (and justifiably complaining).
See my Post here [slashdot.org], for a possible cause.
Re: (Score:3)
That MacBook sure has some widely offset tits [cloudfront.net]! I bet the excessive cleavage is causing the battery drain.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
from Consumer Reports: "said battery life on the new MacBook Pro was all over the place, hitting 19 hours in a test, but less than four hours in another. "
Seems like if they can't get consistent answers they would want to find out why?
Re: Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple (Score:2, Informative)
They're not Apple's QA department. Why should they care why the new Macs aren't performing acceptability? All they need to know is that they don't. It's Apple's job to find out why and fix it.
This is of course one of the many dangers of using an OS with only one hardware supplier. I can't understand how anyone could not see what a stupid idea that is...
Re:Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not CR's job to find out why the product isn't working as expected/advertised. Their only job is to test the system in controlled and repeatable ways that can be demonstrated and are consistent with current quality assurance methods, and then to report on those tests to their paying subscribers. CR does not take money from anyone but their subscribers and buys off-the-shelf/lot products in order to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety.
In this case, they were comfortable enough with their results, even after Apple contacted them, to keep them. If they felt that the consistency was in issue with the tests (the same tests/test-systems that are run/used on other computer systems) then they would have stated that and reworked the tests. They have done this in the past when their tests were not working as expected.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not CR's job to find out why the product isn't working as expected/advertised. Their only job is to test the system in controlled and repeatable ways that can be demonstrated and are consistent with current quality assurance methods, and then to report on those tests to their paying subscribers. CR does not take money from anyone but their subscribers and buys off-the-shelf/lot products in order to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety.
In this case, they were comfortable enough with their results, even after Apple contacted them, to keep them. If they felt that the consistency was in issue with the tests (the same tests/test-systems that are run/used on other computer systems) then they would have stated that and reworked the tests. They have done this in the past when their tests were not working as expected.
They're getting inconsistent results here, so either there's a flaw in the test, or there's a very intermittent issue. And given that (i) CR hasn't disclosed their full test protocol, and (ii) CR apparently did a second test using Chrome on the Mac and got consistently high results (ruling out hardware issues), there are very good reasons to suggest there's a flaw in the test.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not their responsibility to figure out why the answers are different, as long as the questions are consistent. If the results are inconsistent, that's Apple's problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Consumer Reports I trust more than Apple (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, no, they are under no obligation. They would still likely do it since it would be in the best interest of their subscribers and of their reputation.
Furthermore, there is no official fix from Apple yet. As far as I know there are rumors of some beta version faring better, but nothing more. CR didn't say they won't re-test the devices if/when Apple releases a fix, they won't re-test the devices *as they are* since they are confident of their previous test's methodology and findings.
Note that CR shared the diagnostic files from their tests with Apple and will definitely re-test the devices as soon as Apple claims they figured out the battery problems and fixed them. Until then they trust their results and find a re-test pointless.
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
Re: (Score:2)
The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.
It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times the
Re: (Score:2)
The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.
It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times these tests were conducted without issues and how many users complained about the battery life of the new model even before CR's results... you know, Occam's razor.
Except that CR ran the tests with Chrome and the battery life was both long and consistent. So, no, it couldn't be that the battery life is actually inconsistent - there's nothing wrong with the hardware, and it's a software issue, probably due to some caching behavior. So, there's either a flaw in Safari, or a flaw in their testing software. But they won't reveal details about the latter.
On top of that, Apple actually patched away the "remaining time" indicator from the battery widget shortly after this model's release via software update since apparently it's "confusing". If you think there is nothing suspicious about *that* maybe you should sell that eCat reactor to yourself.
There isn't - apparently, some people did think it was confusing to have the estimated time remaining go up when your us
Re: (Score:2)
CR ran the tests with Chrome and the battery life was both long and consistent. So, no, it couldn't be that the battery life is actually inconsistent - there's nothing wrong with the hardware, and it's a software issue, probably due to some caching behavior. So, there's either a flaw in Safari, or a flaw in their testing software.
Or there's a flaw in the video driver which isn't triggered by the way Chrome uses the API. Or, there's a flaw in the graphics hardware which similarly isn't triggered by Chrome. etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? They're just reporting how devices work to consumers. If i buy a car and it gives me 4hs on a full tank most people, me included, don't want to understand the mechanical reason why it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Not their problem. Their job is to report what consumers might expect from normal usage. Apparently that would be battery life all over the place.
It's Apple's job to figure that out and improve the battery life. I'm sure CR will dutifully test an updated model and report on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer Reports has no incentive but to produce accurate reports on consumer products.
You mean other than this being their core business premise?
The stupid is strong with this one.
I don't see why they would change (Score:3, Insightful)
Consumer Reports, as they said, is pretty careful with testing. But even if they were not quite as careful as they are, as long as they tested different devices in the same way and used consumer purchased models, they results they found should stand.
Hopefully Apple will get to the bottom of what happened in the tests, and make the laptops better. Then they can get back on the list next year. It does seem like some mix of software and hardware has some quirk if you can find the range of times Consumer Reports found.
One thing I wonder is if it will even have much of an effect. Do many people really rely on consumer reports for laptop info? It seems like there are so many other sites comparing laptop hardware, that consumer reports is just one of many data points...
And for Apple in particular that matters even less, because if you want a MacBook Pro you are buying what they are selling. It may mean someone would wait another year. Or it might mean that you would possibly purchased an older model instead (I had read somewhere that refurbished 2015 MacBook Pros were selling really well).
I think Apple will iron this out within a month or so and then it really will not matter, but it makes me think more of Consumer Reports that they are willing to stick by results as they found them and not cave into pressure for a re-test.
Re:I don't see why they would change (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been waiting since 2011 to upgrade but every model they put out has been more and more retarded. Soldered memory. Proprietary storage. Removing ports even when it destroys compatibility between the few products in their own meagre lineup.
Apple has basically abandoned the professional market, and are now exclusively catering to rich people who sit all day in Starbucks looking at Facebook. I can think of no other reason for their direction in the last few years.
Re:I don't see why they would change (Score:5, Interesting)
You're behind the times. The newest Macbook Pros have their NAND storage soldered to the mainboard [ifixit.com].
The previous iteration of their proprietary SSD had encrypted communications. It took OWC over a year to reverse-engineer it and offer compatible SSD upgrades. I guess Apple took that as a sign that they needed to eliminate any possibility of a third party upgrade. After all, you can't have customers modifying their hardware to their liking.
Re:I don't see why they would change (Score:5, Funny)
Oh FFS...
Re: (Score:2)
You're behind the times. The newest Macbook Pros have their NAND storage soldered to the mainboard [ifixit.com]. The previous iteration of their proprietary SSD had encrypted communications. It took OWC over a year to reverse-engineer it and offer compatible SSD upgrades. I guess Apple took that as a sign that they needed to eliminate any possibility of a third party upgrade. After all, you can't have customers modifying their hardware to their liking.
Actually, it probably took OWC that long to get the Flash memory that was on Allocation due to commitments to Apple and others.
Re: (Score:3)
Removed the SD card slot too, so no cheap and more or less flush secondary storage either.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention forcing customers to pay for SSD storage at a rate of $800 / TB, more than twice what it would cost if purchased as a removable module from a vendor like
Re: (Score:2)
rich people who sit all day in Starbucks looking at Facebook.
In which case they'll probably get a lot closer to the stated battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully Apple will get to the bottom of what happened in the tests, and make the laptops better.
Odds are good it is a software problem. Either that or a firmware problem that can be patched with software. I would look at the two GPUs and ensure they were not both turned on at the same time. But regardless of the cause, if they can get 19 hours after being patched then that makes for some amazing run times.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't see why they would change (Score:4, Insightful)
Time. If they start giving some companies special attention, then everyone else will start demanding that, too. If, on the other hand, they stick to the "We give you one chance and that's that" they can actually get a lot more work done.
Not to mention credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting such massively variant results (including exceeding twice the listed max battery life?!?!) suggests that further tests are needed.
Getting the result on just one type of device despite testing a variety of different devices would point to that device being the problem. They had a control group.
Re: (Score:2)
They had a control group.
This. Very much this. Their testing methodology is perfectly ok and it hints at a real issue with MBPs memory management. People should be raising questions to Apple instead of doubting CRs findings.
So now, they're digging in their heels? (Score:4, Interesting)
HOWEVER, an interesting anecdote comes from reading another online forum (MacRumors.com), last evening, where a poster with a tbMBP 15" noted that, ONE TIME, when he unplugged an external Thunderbolt display (TB displays FORCE the MBP to use the dGPU), "Activity Monitor" said in the "Energy" tab that, instead of the 10 or 11 hours he was getting on average, it was showing that he was expected to get 3 hours.
However, no Processes were showing as being Energy-Hogs, and, he also stated that the "CPU" Tab showed that nothing was using over 1.5% CPU (which was reasonable for what he had running). And what he did have running SHOULD (and probably was) running on the iGPU. (???)
But, what was really "telling", was that he reported that the area under the "E" and "R" keys on the Keyboard was getting REALLY HOT. Hot enough that he panicked, and Rebooted the laptop.
Everything returned to normal, battery life report back to normal, no heating, hasn't happened since...
So, looking at the iFixit teardown of the 15" MBP [ifixit.com], you can see in Step 6, that the components that would be under that area of the Keyboard would plainly be the AMD GPU (outlined in Yellow) (and not the CPU, which is over nearer to the "I" and "O" keys, basically).
So, something is (maybe) occasionally causing the AMD GPU, not the CPU, to run amok (or even be in some sort of power-guzzling "SCR-Lockup" state (hopefully not!)), sucking down the juice. Obviously, CR and others haven't triggered this behavior in the same way as the MacRumors poster; but there may be more software paths to this bug, likely involving switching between dGPU and iGPU modes, and/or power-savings involving same.
More than likely this is still a software issue; but it is not one that Users can see in Activity Monitor (other than it does seem to "know" that the battery is being drained by something, hence the low "Time Remaining" number). Apparently, Activity Monitor doesn't report separately on GPU Energy usage (they need to change that!)
Just an interesting little tidbit, that belies the assertion that a "retest" wouldn't make a difference (after Apple has a chance to address this issue, of course).
Re:So now, they're digging in their heels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, something is (maybe) occasionally causing the AMD GPU, not the CPU, to run amok (or even be in some sort of power-guzzling "SCR-Lockup" state (hopefully not!)), sucking down the juice. Obviously, CR and others haven't triggered this behavior in the same way as the MacRumors poster; but there may be more software paths to this bug, likely involving switching between dGPU and iGPU modes, and/or power-savings involving same.
I hope you're wrong. Otherwise, in two years, Apple is going to end up doing yet another logic board recall....
What that tells me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the response makes you think that? The only relevant piece of information I actually can see in the response is the inference that Apple is asking them to re-run the tests (presumably with Apple engineers in attendance). The implication is that Apple is trying to reproduce what Consumer Reports saw, and is unable to, so is asking them to do it again. This sounds exactly like what everyone involved should want to happen: make sure that the tests are reproducible, and thus representative of what us
Re: (Score:3)
The customer is not your QA lab. CR ran their tests, and saw what they saw. They'll re-test next year. It's not their job to help Apple solve the problems, any more than it is to help Tesla solve their reliability problems (Tesla at least got he Model S off the CR shit-list this year, but it was replaced by the Model X), or a microwave oven vendor, or debug a blender or ...
Re: (Score:2)
The customer is not your QA lab. CR ran their tests, and saw what they saw.
Then why haven't they disclosed the full test protocol so that Apple could repeat it? If I test your product, publish a review saying it catches fire, and never mention that my test protocol was throwing it on a fire, are you really to blame? And is my excuse that I'm not your QA lab at all reasonable?
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with disclosing your full test protocol is it tends to result in producers making their item specially tuned to look good for your protocol--while still being bad in actual use.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with disclosing your full test protocol is it tends to result in producers making their item specially tuned to look good for your protocol--while still being bad in actual use.
OTOH, if you don't disclose it, then it's no more reputable than Rossi's E-Cat or any other "you just have to trust me that it works" test.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you have an solid unbroken 80 year reputation in the testing field, like Consumer Reports does.
Shall we wait? (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/~TheFakeT... [slashdot.org]
Shall we wait for him to turn up, or does somebody want to go bait him?
Lol, of course (Score:2)
"Last week, Apple's VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller insisted that Consumer Reports' findings didn't match the company's field data"
What's he supposed to say? "Yeah, the whole battery thing is a clusterfuck and Consumer Reports is spot-on."
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck is "field data"?
CR should release its test procedures (Score:3)
Anything less is unscientific anecdotal evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
CR is kind of like Gartner and all the other 'benchmark' companies. Whoever subscribes the most to their 'services' gets the top spot. Look at their car lineups, recommending Chevy, Subaru and Ford as "best" in their respective classes. Same for their small electronics department, only recommending big brand names like Linksys, D-Link and Netgear, actually their recommendations are the same routers that have obvious back doors yet they rate them high for security. On the other hand there are a lot of smalle
Re: (Score:2)
If you disagree with their results, why not devise your own test, perform it, and release your findings? That's just as valid as repeating CR's test, so long as you make a good faith effort to devise a test that faithfully reflects the way users actually use computers.
Apple quest to be super thin needs to stop! (Score:2)
Apple quest to be super thin needs to stop!
or at the very least not on the mac pro and maybe at least 1 mac mini system.
The mac pro is held back by being that thin that it can even run both video cards and it's cpu at full power. An bigger one with 2 cpu's will give them the needed pci-e for TB 3.0 or they just to back to the tower case and have an voodoo like look back cable to feed DP over the TB bus like how other pro workstations do it!
Fanboys, defend the hive! (Score:4, Interesting)
Since this thread is full of fanboys rationalizing Apple's failures, I think I'll eat their mod points by recounting my personal experiences with their failures.
I bought a 2007 MBP. It's battery swelled and had to be replaced. Eventually, it's 3d graphics card died and the only way to use it was to boot into safe mode.
I bought a 2012 MBP. It's trackpad quit working and had to be replaced. The replacement trackpad also failed within a month, but by then it was out of warranty. I quit trying to get it fixed because I use a mouse anyway, and I'm sure those cunts would try to charge me because I didn't buy "Apple Care".
I was given a 2015 MBP. So far it hasn't failed, but it has behavior that is intolerable. With the lid closed, it goes to sleep unless there is a keyboard plugged in. Apple says "Fuck you, software KVM users". And even with a keyboard plugged in, it immediately goes to sleep if the power cord is yanked out. Apple says, "Fuck you, cat owners".
I have no interest in their new crippled laptop and its gimmicky function key overlay. That shit was lame when it was called the Optimus Maximus in 2008 and it is just as lame now. Apple says, "But muh innovation! Muh courage!"
My first laptop, a ThinkPad from 1998, still works and boots to a 2.4 kernel. (Many nostalgia, such rugged, wow.) My other Toshiba, Dell, and HP laptops also worked up until I got rid of them, and they all took way more abuse than my precious, delicate MPBs.
So this year, I bought a cheap laptop from Dell. I'm using Linux again for the first time in a decade, and it is liberating. Buh-bye Apple, you prissy, shark jumping freaks. I can't wait until I retire and never have to touch your shit again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
0xdeadbeef, you're really just complaining about bad luck that could happen to anyone, regardless of buying Apple products.
I've been using Apple since around 2001, and owned 6 of their computers at once, at one point in time. I currently work for a company that has deployed about 60 of them to mobile workers and I do support for them (along with another 60 or so using Windows machines).
The 2007 MBP you're speaking of with the battery that swelled? There were a TON of defective Li-On batteries out there, use
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you try "pmset -a hibernatemode ##" to attempt to control the sleep behavior?
Probably an Engineering issue on these machines .. (Score:3)
I forget now where I read it (might have been over on Engadget)? But supposedly, some employees at Apple spoke about this new Macbook Pro off the record, saying it was supposed to receive a multi-tiered, custom battery in it, similar to what Apple did with the new Macbook in 2015. Except at the last minute, they ran into some issues and were told they'd have to scrap that and just make a standard battery fit inside it instead.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if these odd power problems are a direct result. (Had no time to really re-optimize the system for a battery that wasn't going to supply as much power as what they intended all along.)
I'd have say I side with Consumer Reports on not recommending this notebook right now. I think the touch-bar is very cool and the computer looks great in the new "Space Gray" color option. Not a fan of losing all the ports besides USB-C, *but* if everything else was fine, I'd accept that as a downside I could live with. The problem is, this one seems to have fundamental flaws of the type that you won't see fully corrected until the next revision is released.
If you've been following things closely on the Mac-specific forums, you'd see there are some serious questions about this computer's video performance too. There's a guy on YouTube who put the high-end configuration through its paces running a number of modern 3D video games and the performance was, frankly, god-awful! In one title, he was only getting 3 or 4FPS! As he admitted himself, people aren't buying the new 15" Macbook Pro as a gaming machine. But they ARE paying a premium price to get the latest AMD Polaris series GPU in it, and that's supposed to be 2 generations newer than the best available mobile GPU AMD had to offer for any older laptops. The graphics performance in games is so abysmally bad though, it's clear something else is going on here. IMO, Apple probably underclocks the GPU to help conserve power and to control heat generation -- and may have done so far too aggressively, given the last minute battery change that had to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a long time Mac user, this is exactly what I'm doing. It's not only over-priced, but I truly see no advantage to upgrading from my current Macbook Pro to the new one. If anything, I'd have to buy tons of adapters which I'm not keen on doing, and until GPU performance is fixed on laptops, there's no way I'm going to upgrade.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What does everyone else use? You know those non-cool people?
Re: (Score:2)
umm you are either with us or against us....
however if you find out the third category let me know.
sent from a windows vm on a mac
Re: (Score:2)
Consoles.
Re: (Score:2)
Chromebooks
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
When my 8 year old macbook died, I needed something quick, and Best Buy was my option. I was pissed at apple for general product shittiniess over the past few years, and especially pissed because what killed my macbook was it turning on and roasting itself in my backpack (over temp shutdown? We don't need that... we're Apple). So I bought an HP laptop with some trepidation, as the last HP laptop I bought 12 years ago was an utter piece of shit that failed after 4 months and they refused to warranty. (2
Re: macs are for gays (Score:3)
Well on the plus side, for once Apple has run into a publication that it can't simply "press blacklist" for the crime of not giving one of their products a glowing review, like it has done to so many others.
Then again, maybe they will, because fuck it, they're Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
The software that hp has been putting on their computers has been slow as crap and laggy for years go ahead try and tick a box during inital setup and watch that thing hang there and stutter at the extra fancy transitions they just had to do but don't happen to sell a computer fast enough to play them smoothly.
Anyway as for your problem you must have one of the newer hp's with the center pin for communication (dells have these too) check and see if your center pin is bent off to the side on your power adapt
Re: (Score:2)
The bent pin was the power problem... THANK YOU! What a spectacularly fragile piece of shit this connector is... its like they deliberately added plastic to make the cord stiffer so there would be more stress on the whole assembly. I'm not going to begin to speculate on why a data pin is needed, or why the default reaction to no data isn't "Power the fucking laptop" Unfuckingbelivable.
I spent 2 hours going back and forth with support. Flashed the bios. Upgradeded all drivers.... at which point they wa
Re: (Score:2)
Next time get something from ASUS. IIRC Apple manufactures at least some of their laptops at Pegatron. Guess where ASUS manufactures their laptops... In their Pegatron division.
Re: (Score:2)
Well ya, even PC fans know not to buy an HP PC. This is not the same Hewlett-Packard that used to be a technology company.
Re: (Score:2)
Moral of the story? Fuck, I don't know.
The moral of the story is that HP/Compaq is shit and has always been shit. Compaq was shit before being acquired by HP and the resulting combination is also shit. In case you're wondering, Sony is also shit. You want Asus, Lenovo, or Toshiba, in no particular order.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as bad as the last HP that died after 3 months... .that one was $2500
Re: (Score:3)
In the olden times, Asus only made motherboards, and there was no alienware.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2015 Macbook Pro at work. It's very nice. I wouldn't touch one of the 2016 models though.
Re: (Score:3)
At least he didn't post at Slashdot as an AC. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I even hate Wozniak because he didn't have the basic human decency to tell Steve Jobs to go fuck himself and go elsewhere.
You hate someone for working with someone else decades ago. I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day, Apple made machines for hackers. If the Woz had foreseen them turning into Silicon Gucci you might have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
That direction was clear from the first Mac, though. Apple was designing a better machine for hackers and the first Mac in parallel. Sadly, the Mac was the way of the future for Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can say I certainly would have gotten a computer anyway (my introduction was actually a mainframe), but I don't think my life would have been better without Apple by any means. I did enjoy some Apple ][ hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that my first computer was a C64 yep I would have gotten one without Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not courageous enough? (Score:2)
Woosh! Different kinds of intelligence, demonstrated right before our eyes!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's battery life advantage is because of the limited number of hardware configurations they have to support. They can fine-tune OS X to run on a few dozen models with minimal power use. Windows has to support millions if not billiions of possible hardware combinations, so a lot of times has to sacrifice power-thriftiness in order
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sigh. Apple does not have battery battery technology. Heck, they don't even make the Macbooks. Quanta [wikipedia.org] does, and Quanta also makes laptops for all the other major brands..
You don't know the first thing about the difference between Design and Manufacturing. Apple Designs all their Products in-house. But, ever since the early 21st century, I don't think they actually manufacture any of them, except possibly the Mac Pro.
You're a moron. Go away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seems overwrought to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, they don't even make the Macbooks
By your standards neither does many other computer "manufacturers"
Its customers include Apple Inc., Dell, Hewlett-Packard Inc.,[3] Alienware, Amazon.com, Cisco, Fujitsu, Gericom, Lenovo, LG, Maxdata, MPC, BlackBerry Ltd, Sharp Corporation, Siemens AG, Sony, Sun Microsystems, Toshiba, Verizon Wireless, and Vizio.
Apple's battery life advantage is because of the limited number of hardware configurations they have to support. They can fine-tune OS X to run on a few dozen models with minimal power use. Windows has to support millions if not billiions of possible hardware combinations, so a lot of times has to sacrifice power-thriftiness in order to maintain compatibility.
The last time I checked every computer manufacturer could customize the parts in their laptops including selecting the Intel CPU, MB, etc. Apple optimizes their machines does not mean other cannot.
Topping the list is, not surprisingly, the Microsoft Surface Pro. Like the Macbooks, putting the OS-maker in charge of picking the hardware allows Microsoft to fine-tune Windows to work best with the hardware.
Or that for the Surface Pro, MS doesn't try to skimp out on hardware.
Re:Apple wouldn't give us money (Score:5, Informative)
CR does not accept vendor payments, nor does it accept advertising.
Re: Apple wouldn't give us money (Score:5, Informative)
Look in a copy of CR magazine. Notice what's missing? Advertisements. Same with the website.
Also Consumer's Union is a non-profit which publishes its financial statements. The income statement is particularly simple in that operating revenue comes from the following sources: subscriptions, newsstand sales, tax-deductable grants, and interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how idiotic your comment is you'll probably sell it for $10 despite it being solid gold.
Re: Apple wouldn't give us money (Score:5, Informative)
Arstechnica's test shows similar results to Consumer Reports. Stop parroting Apple's head PR guy.
Under a very basic web browsing test, which the author admits that "this test is probably actually too light", the Mac book pro got good battery life.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/charts.010.png
But under a heavier test using webgl, the Mac book pro got 2hrs 13m
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/charts.011.png
Re: Apple wouldn't give us money (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what is wrong with Intel's approach to power management. Its idle current can approach that of arm chips, but once it works on full steam it munches close to ~90% of its TDP.
Intel guys once thought that pushing cpu to work on full steam will allow it finish the task faster, and enter the idle state. It is of course not so easy, and even in the ideal scenario such approach would only work for certain work profiles like work with low interactivity apps like msoffice
Re: (Score:3)
but once it works on full steam it munches close to ~90% of its TDP.
Are you seriously saying that if a workload start using 100% CPU would would rather Intel make its CPUs throttle instead of actually running at the frequency that you paid for?
I'm sorry but Intel is the LAST thing you can blame for the MBP battery life sucking. If it was Intel's fault then we would see it in all the Skylake Windows laptops, which we definitely do not (most Skylake laptops have 10+ hour battery life.)
Blame for this issue falls squarely on Apple. My best guess is its a combination of small ba
Re: (Score:2)
Stop parroting Apple's head PR guy.
Wait! There's a guy at Apple in charge of who gives/gets head? Does he decide on time of day, locations & frequency as well? Whats the salary?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No love for systemd???
Probably a new fleshlight HW module under development by Lennart.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Macbook Pro's aren't potentially deadly
Depends on how hard you bash Phil Schiller in the head with one.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with me. I do still occasionally check them in the library for things like washing machines, but I don't rely on their numbers.