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

New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

macdaddy.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 224 posts

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#121

Post by seanp2k2 »

qeternity wrote: post #71
nxc18 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see no reason why any of those people benefit from the slightly thinner form of the new mbp than they would benefit from better battery life. Everyone wants batteries that last longer. How often did you look at your last generation mbp and wish it was thinner?

These people are lugging their laptop around all day, from meeting to meeting, or airport to airport. If you can keep battery life constant at ca. 10 hours, which covers an extended work day, then beyond that most people would prefer to have lighter/slimmer/cooler (less hot) devices than one that runs for 20 hours.

Sure, if it actually lasted 10 hours in real-life usage, which it doesn't, which they could have prevented by using the 99wh battery instead of the 76wh which was chosen to make it thinner. I'm nearly positive that it would make a 1mm difference in the overall thickness and a small addition weight-wise (LiPo packs are not super heavy).

At least give people a choice. The 17" used to be fantastic as well, and I still miss it. It was big and bulky enough that causal users didn't want it and so Apple didn't have to try to appease them with it as much.

It'd be great if they licensed MacOS again if they're going to give up on the higher end as we've seen with the Mac Pro 0-upgrades-in-4-years zero-commitment-to-the-platform approach they've taken, as we've seen with killing Xserve, with the dual-core-only Mac minis after the 2012 model, with iMacs using all laptop parts...

They message they send is clear: we make computers to do Facebook and some Excel on, not for making movies (FinalCut Pro X dropping tons of pro features), not for photographers (Aperture is discontinued), not for DJs (no more FireWire and 100% USB-C), not for programmers or hacker types (check how old their versions of unix tools are, dtrace locked out with rootless AKA SIP, non-upgradable/repairable hardware, Mac App Store limitations). All the reasons macs sold so well with pros before are basically nonexistent in 2017, and I predict that they'll slowly fade out of the pro scenes. At some point, consumers will notice ("why doesn't every major DJ have the glowing Apple logo on stage anymore???") and they will stop being cool.

I'm pretty convinced that all it would take to usurp Apple is a really solid design like an old IBM or a sturdy Dell with a touchpad that doesn't register your palm half the time, and a chassis that doesn't droop a few mm on one side when you pick it near the corner. Sadly, even today, there are not many options for laptops that don't feel like complete crap compared to any MacBook.

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#122

Post by amluto »

Why is it reasonable to make claims about the current draw going down without discussing voltage?

There are only two useful figures here: power drawn from the battery (probably mW) and time the battery would last at idle. The current is meaningless unless you know that the voltage (current voltage, not nominal voltage) of the batteries on the systems being compared are the same. Given that battery voltage changes during a discharge cycle, this is far from a given even the batteries are completely identical.

If Apple really wanted to halve battery current, they could just change the cell configuration to double the voltage. Bingo!, except the laptop won't actually run any longer on a charge.

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#123

Post by techdragon »

lstamour wrote: post #112
Someone wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12" may be too small to show stuff to other people sitting around a table, or too uncomfortable on their eyes.

So they'll release a 15" version of the 12" soon enough. The point still stands: if Apple is the only ones making Macs, they need to cater to those who would prefer workstations or gaming rigs as the highest end "Pro" market. If it needs a separate graphics card, it's not for Excel...

Let's be brutally realistic.

They don't "need" to... We just really want them to.

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#124

Post by yoz-y »

lstamour wrote: post #112
Someone wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12" may be too small to show stuff to other people sitting around a table, or too uncomfortable on their eyes.

So they'll release a 15" version of the 12" soon enough. The point still stands: if Apple is the only ones making Macs, they need to cater to those who would prefer workstations or gaming rigs as the highest end "Pro" market. If it needs a separate graphics card, it's not for Excel...

I think the ship on gaming macs has sailed. Apple has shown intermittent interest in high end computing, rendering, compilation and so. But the only "gaming" machine they ever produced is the iPad. None of their PCs was even remotely competitive with the competition and I believe they do not care.

I think that the only thing that could "trick" them into making a gaming machine is VR, as it requires similar hardware.

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#125

Post by [deleted] »

lstamour wrote: post #112
Someone wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12" may be too small to show stuff to other people sitting around a table, or too uncomfortable on their eyes.

So they'll release a 15" version of the 12" soon enough. The point still stands: if Apple is the only ones making Macs, they need to cater to those who would prefer workstations or gaming rigs as the highest end "Pro" market. If it needs a separate graphics card, it's not for Excel...

[deleted]

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#126

Post by rusk »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #102
tmd83 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can agree on lighter, cooler or even smaller (in length/width) but really slimmer? As I said in another thread, what does a slimmer laptop gives you in present day.

For a consultancy job I carry two notebooks around. A company provided Lenovo laptop and Macbook pro. Would love to have a lighter laptop, without resorting to cheap plastic. I don't want a smaller screen as I can't connect external monitors there and my eyes are not that great. I love the fact that I don't have to carry a charger for the Macbook, even after 2 years of usage it still runs long enough to last a workda…

> even after 2 years of usage

Okay so its not the new Macbook we're talking about here. I think I may have the same one, I bought it in 2014 and I love it. It still takes everything I throw at it, and it connects to everything. Full SSD which I was wary of at first but once you get used to no moving parts - which don't break - it's hard to imagine going back to clunky spinning platters.

I'd be hard pressed to go for the new MBPs though. My 2014 is so light it barely registers as it is. I'd prefer to keep the same degree of connectivity and utility. The new one I'm afraid seems a bit much of show pony.

I'm concerned with the direction Apple's software is taking as well. Others here mention the abandonment of the high end, with regards to photography, video, music etc. but even the middle-ground is a mess. iTunes keeps getting clunkier and clunkier to the point where I'm seriously considering not getting an iPhone because that's the last reason I need to use it at this stage.

I think the Photos app leaves a lot to be desired as well. A lot of people moaned about iPhoto - but to me it seemed way better.

Then there was Yosemite, which is actually the only dark period in my MBP's life. Things would just mysteriously stop working, and regular reboots were fairly common. What particularly stands out is that fiasco around mDnsResponder / Discoveryd - which ironically most acutely affected users with a mostly Apple ecosystem.

Each of these three instances, as well as other notables such as Apple maps, are cases where Apple just couldn't "leave well enough alone"; took something that worked okay and foisted a big steaming pile of dog poo on us instead.

In fairness though the emphasis seems to be on "think different" these days rather than "it just works" but it may as well be "software is hard, lets go shopping".

Sorry, I seem to have gone way off on a tangent here. Though I feel the general sentiment is still OT. Thanks!

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#127

Post by Veen »

exergy wrote: post #106
djrogers wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at least for professionals? Professional whats? Executives, salespeople, real estate agents, pediatricians, beer distributors - all of these people are professionals, and all of them can and do benefit from smaller and lighter computing power. Clearly your idea of a professional is someone who is chained to a desk writing code or processing complex 3D graphics. No question those are professional uses as well, but t…

Please explain to me how complicated and demanding is the workflow of these "salespeople, real estate agents, pediatricians and beer distributors (!)" that you talk about? What exactly is stopping them from getting the smaller 12" MacBook? Or the infinite other ultrabooks available now? Something called the "Pro", and something that costs a pretty penny, shouldn't just cater to the ones out and about and only needing…

I'm a writer, and I consider myself a "pro" in that field. I don't really need the power of the Macbook Pro, but I do need a larger retina screen. The Macbook Pro is really the only laptop Apple makes at the moment that fits my needs.

I'm not sure why people who need high performance are so sniffy and condescending about those who don't. A requirement for massive computer resources doesn't make the work more valuable or respectable. Your moral worth is not linked to the number of processors you require to get your work done.

> Or the infinite other ultrabooks available now?

They don't run MacOS.

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#128

Post by konstruktors »

It's 76Wh in 2016 vs 99Wh in 2015 -- a 24% smaller battery. To have the same battery time, it must draw 24% less current than it did with the 2015 model.

Secondly, we should always compare watts instead of amps unless we know the batteries have the exact same voltages.

For example, for a battery life of 18h it must draw 4.2W on average (76Wh/18h). I don't think that's possible because only the 2016 MacBook uses that little power -- 4.1W (41Wh/10h).

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#129

Post by techdragon »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #87
snowwrestler wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mac laptops these days are built with backlights strong enough to compete with daylight. In typical working conditions, 100% is way overkill. For max long term comfort, your display should be no brighter than the ambient light levels. Otherwise--if the display is way brighter--your pupils will have to contract when you look at the screen, and dilate when you look away. Your pupils are controlled by muscles and like a…

In a dark room I find the minimum brightness much too bright. Weird feature to wish for, but I think they need to crank the minimum brightness down by at least 25%.

I've wanted a "lower minimum brightness" option on every apple product I've owned... with the exception of an iPod shuffle which has no screen.

Re: New Macbook Pro power efficiency and time remaining

#130

Post by unwind »

ardaozkal wrote: post #119
otheotheothe wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does slow charge, i use my external Anker Powercore Plus battery pack with it, while its not able to charge it while running because the MBP draws more Power than the Anker Battery can output it EXTENDS its battery lifetime very noticeably.

While that'd work, I'd advise against it as I feel like that'd needlessly heat the battery and reduce its life.

If that were true, wouldn't it be the job of the computer's battery management system to make sure it didn't happen?

Forcing user to learn all kinds of magic rules for how to "treat their battery" seems very old-fashioned and strange.

Post reply on HN