Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

lvh.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 317 posts

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#101

Post by Skunkleton »

Siecje wrote: post #35
otterley wrote: post #9

We bought a 15" 2016 Macbook Pro ("Retina" is redundant; there are no 2016 MBPs that lack a Retina display.) We also bought a LG 27UD88-W monitor to go with it. (It's one of the few that has a USB-C input.) I have to say, I'm really impressed by the single-cable solution. The monitor charges the laptop (57W maximum, which is less than the Apple charger, but "good enough"), and the laptop sends both video and USB peri…

Why doesn't the Apple-supplied USB charging cable work?

Even worse, you can't expect thunderbolt 3 to work over any cable length. So unless all USB C cables become active cables (unlikely), longer USB C cables won't have thunderbolt support due to signal integrity limitations.

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#102

Post by MitjaBezensek »

rayiner wrote: post #79
MitjaBezensek wrote: post #65

A few other problems I came across: 1. Battery life is much lower than specified: http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/battery-life-for-13-and-... 2. Some users report graphic card problems: http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/pool-do-you-have-graphic... Here is how it looks like: http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/graphic-card-freaks-out-... 3. TouchBar graphics sometimes display on the screen instead of on the Touc…

I wonder how much of the battery life issue is that the new one has a much brighter backlight. Half brightness should get you about 250 nits on the new one, versus 150 nits on the old one. Tests that calibrate to an actual brightness level rather than a given brightness setting don't seem to show worse battery life.

The users used the same settings brightness settings as Apple on their benchmarks (75% brightness) just to be sure. But the observed battery life was often half that of the official one.

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#104

Post by slantyyz »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #46
revelation wrote: post #4

He has a brand new display (which in displays, is Display DisplayPort-to-mDP2 TB 3 to 2 USB-C to TB 3 MacBook What is going on?

I would say "courage" but I am pretty sure I'd get down voted to invisible pretty quick. Monitors last a very long time. I think maybe that wasn't taken into much consideration.

The thing that kills me is how many add-ons you have to buy on day one just to support any peripherals you've got.

It's OK that Apple has bet big on USB-C/TB3, but the least thing Apple could have done (this year at least) is throw in a couple of USB-C to USB-A adapters in the box.

When I bought a Macbook Pro in 2011, the only thing I needed to buy were some miniDP -> [hdmi/dvi/vga] adapters. The standard set of ports and SD reader covered pretty much everything else I could possibly need. And, it included the 3-prong extension to the power brick, which was indispensible to me -- no client I went to ever gave me a cube to sit at with a power bar that was close enough or had enough room for the brick to plug in properly. Now, that extension is an extra $20.

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#105

Post by taurath »

teilo wrote: post #95
otterley wrote: post #9

We bought a 15" 2016 Macbook Pro ("Retina" is redundant; there are no 2016 MBPs that lack a Retina display.) We also bought a LG 27UD88-W monitor to go with it. (It's one of the few that has a USB-C input.) I have to say, I'm really impressed by the single-cable solution. The monitor charges the laptop (57W maximum, which is less than the Apple charger, but "good enough"), and the laptop sends both video and USB peri…

As to 3: the reason is cost. If you are using a cable with your power adapter, you are only using it for charging. To use a USB-C 3.1 cable for that is wasteful because it costs double what the charging/USB2 cable alone would cost. And yeah, it is going to confuse a lot of people.

Its a $2500 laptop. Apple should ship the cable.

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#106

Post by kfinley »

Bytes wrote: post #6

The problems with the new macbook "pro" seem to keep on growing. I am really surprised that Apple did not find the connecting to external display issue in internal testing.

I suspect we will see the share desktop experience extend to other devices.

In an post release interview Jony Ive implied that the touch bar was the first step in a new paradigm.

Imagine the Photoshop toolbar being available on your iPad's touch screen, while you're editing a photo on your Mac. Or playing a video game while using your iPhone for controls.

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#107

Post by compuguy »

lvh wrote: post #57
rayiner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are USB-C to DisplayPort cables. You need some sort of converting cable anyway--the old MBP had Mini DisplayPort and I've never seen a monitor with a MiniDP input.

(Author here) The Dell P2515Q I have has both DisplayPort and mDP2 in and out (for chaining).

Do the new MacBook pros support display port chaining now?

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#108

Post by Kiro »

TheDrizzle43 wrote: post #33
perfmode wrote: post #18

Right now is a great time to score a 2015 model. Doesn't make sense to buy a new MacBook Pro until a 32 GB option is available imho.

Before it was announced I was 100% sure going to grab a new MacBook Pro but now I find myself looking at refurbished 2015 models.

Why not the 2016 model without TouchBar?

Re: 2016 Retina MacBook Pro Caveats

#109

Post by rayiner »

MitjaBezensek wrote: post #102
rayiner wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of the battery life issue is that the new one has a much brighter backlight. Half brightness should get you about 250 nits on the new one, versus 150 nits on the old one. Tests that calibrate to an actual brightness level rather than a given brightness setting don't seem to show worse battery life.

The users used the same settings brightness settings as Apple on their benchmarks (75% brightness) just to be sure. But the observed battery life was often half that of the official one.

75% brightness on a 500 nit display is insane. Did the previous generation specify 75% brightness setting for the wireless web test? Typical indoor tests are conducted at 100-200 nits.
Post reply on HN