New MacBook Pro & Consumer Reports

<blockquote>

<p>There's something about a battery life difference between using Safari and using Chrome, even more interesting. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chrome is known to be the most resource-intensive browser out of the big three and will effect battery life on a laptop more than the others.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Wrong</strong> again. I provided tests that proved (to me, an actual experienced user of the product) that my new MPB was faster than my older one. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Tests? Where? All I know is that after repeated requests for a simple Lr import/export test between the 2013 and the 2016 mbp, that everyone else on the webernet can preform, you instead timed the duration of copying 17 raw files from memory card to their desktops. Then without even using an Adobe product in that test, you somehow determined that Lr and Ps is quicker on your 2016 mbp. Meanwhile, respectable individuals and bloggers have posted their rigours testing methods and conclude that Lr and Ps is sower on the 2016. But you say otherwise?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tests? Where? All I know is that after repeated requests for a simple Lr import/export test between the 2013 and the 2016 mbp, that everyone else on the webernet can preform, you instead timed the duration of copying 17 raw files from memory card to their desktops.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, your <em>idea</em> of setting up testing methodology is as confused as the rest of your posts here. The parameters I <strong>specifically</strong> asked for were of course misunderstood by you and ignored so I ran a test you missed by your own admission (you ask Where? Then comment) that doesn't involve any ambiguities and of course, the new MBP was faster than the old!<br>

<br /> <em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 29, 2016; 10:36 a.m.</em> <br>

<em>Bring (Import) them into LR how Barry? Just the setting for generation of each previews (Minimal vs. 1:1) would make a difference in the time this takes (although you can begin working just after import).</em></p>

<p>Mr Ad Hominem, I'm not sure how you can flat out lie to us when the link to the thread is contained in this thread? How about saving everyone the trouble of revisiting it and just re-post the method and results of your Lr test between your two mbps?</p>

<p>Mr. fact denier. IF and WHEN you can figure out the testing parameters for import asked for, maybe I will. Or do I need to teach you that the configuration for importing data into LR differs and the settings affect the time it takes to import images? <br>

The one test provided however is clear to those of us on Planet Earth who understand how time operates: the new MBP was faster than the older one. </p>

<p>(I guess we're going for another 100 replies...)</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

the new MBP was faster than the older one.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Was? What happened to it? Returned it due to a number of the issues they are having? But now it makes sense why you wont do a simple Lr speed test comparison between your old and new...you don't have one!<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IF and WHEN you can figure out the testing parameters for import asked for, maybe I will.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you wont. In the "other" thread ( <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00eB7U" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00eB7U</a> ) you also danced around with insults while avoiding a simple Lr speed comparison test. I don't know about anyone else, but with all the know-it-all chest-pounding and badgering you do here and elsewhere with everyone over the decades, one can't help but think that this Lr test should be an easy task for your apparent skill set. Your Lr workflow is fine as one would assume they would be set up similarly on both machines by now. Real world use would be to import 1000 raws, continue to work while building previews, select all, make some adjustments or apply a preset perhaps, then export to jpg size 12 with sharpening. Really basic stuff. Chop chop, please come back with some numbers and prove to us that spending $5000 on a 2016 MBP and dongles has actually sped up Lr!<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>The new MBP <strong>was</strong> faster in the test and continues to be faster today. And it continues to run fine and make my very happy in <strong>my</strong> buying decision. I'm sorry the <strong>reality</strong> of this <strong>fact</strong> continues to ruin your sad and insignificant life on<em> Planet Eric. </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Real world use would be to import 1000 raws</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps if only you lived in a real world instead of on <em>Planet Eric</em>. But as I wrote earlier, go to an Apple store and run your own tests (<em>if</em> you can figure out sound and methodical testing parameters once you understand how Importing into LR actually works) and provide your own results. <em>IF</em> you can.<br>

<br /> And no, I didn't pay <strong>anything</strong> close to $5000 on my MBP, at least using US dollars on Planet Earth. <br /> That you have to make up such ridiculous text illustrates that the <strong>absurd</strong> is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. Or a clue! </p>

<p>I have no agenda in posting <strong>actual</strong>, daily <strong>experience</strong> with the 2016 15" MPB (unlike Eric who's got zero). I have no Apple stock. I could care less if anyone buys this product, an older MPB product or a PC! Eric's agenda seems to be always <em>trying</em> to disagree with me, someone who has <strong>far more actual experience</strong> with this product, professional photography, digital imaging and color than Eric does. Eric's agenda is one only he could come up with from <em>Planet Eric</em>, and should be taken with a massive grain of salt.</p>

<p>IF anyone has questions, wants to know what I don't like about this product and wants honest, <strong>fact based, experience based</strong> answers, do ask. Otherwise, this back and forth with someone who no chops and an agenda is rather pointless and a vortex of confusion and a waste of all our time. That's probably why most have left this thread as I hope to do as well!</p>

<p>As Benjamin Franklin said: "<em>Experience is a hard teacher, but fools will have no other.</em>" Some fools have little to no experience and continue to post foolish text. Ignore it</p>

<p>Yawn...just a skipping record with more words and no results. It's no wonder you're not on social media trying to pull this make-believe crap. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yawn...just a skipping record with more words and no results. It's no wonder you're not on social media trying to pull this make-believe crap.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is always my pleasure to go out of my way to make you look the fool. Someone with not much experience but with a massive opinion with no basis in fact. As such, here are some real world speed results:<br /> Import 122 CR2's from a Canon 5DMII. <br /> <br /> <strong>NEW</strong> 2016 MacBook Pro: <strong>3 minutes, 11 seconds</strong><br /> <strong>OLD</strong> 2013 MacBook Pro: <strong>4 minutes 27 seconds. </strong><br /> Import and convert to DNG, create standard Previews. <br /> 16GB 400X card using USB 3 card reader.</p>

<p>On Planet Earth, not<em> Planet Eric</em>, the new MBP is faster at this task! <br /> Now from <em>Planet Eric</em>, we'll be told some utter <strong>rubbish</strong> about not using enough images for import, something about how could I be only using a 16GB card or what an armchair photographer I am for shooting on a 5DMII or how the tests are invalid because I also converted to DNG etc, etc, etc. The sole inhabitant on <em>Planet Eric</em> is a fool! He posts FUD. He has so little experience in telling us about a MPB he's never used, or recommending displays he's never seen, or telling us about how we should protect and back up our files when he's the victim of computer virus. He'll tell us how I am an <em>armchair photographer</em> when the FACT is, I've got far more experience at that profession than he does (we can go there if you want facts to embarrass you further Eric, I'm armed and ready).</p>

<p>Do you ever get the feeling <strong>prior</strong> to posting here that what you're writing isn't utterly foolish? What a sad, confused, opinionated by fact less reality you must be living; I almost, almost feel sorry for you.</p>

<p>Congratulations! But why did it take weeks to do this little test? Is this how long it took Apple to replace your first 2016?</p>

<p><a href="http://planeteric.ca/">Planet Eric</a>. I love that so much I bought the domain! http://planeteric.ca/. Thanks Andrew, you're the best!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is this how long it took Apple to replace your first 2016?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>More <strong>foolish</strong> text from your unreality bubble! It's of course the <strong>same</strong> MacBook Pro I received; <em>no</em> replacement, no need for one. And it's still faster than the old. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks Andrew, you're the best!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarcasm or not, that too is a massively naive and foolish comment. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The criticism of the product had to do with battery issues.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And Consumers misunderstandings of how to run Safari it seems! <br /> http://www.macworld.com/article/3156350/macs/apple-resolves-the-macbook-pro-battery-life-issues-found-in-consumer-reports-testing.html<br /> <br /> <em>In its statement, Consumer Reports said that when it turned caching on and did an initial set of retests, the <strong>MacBook Pro produced “consistently high battery life results.”</strong> Consumer Reports said it is retesting the MacBook Pro and will update its review.</em><br /> “This is not a setting used by customers and does not reflect real-world usage,” Apple said in a statement.<br /> I have Developer mode ON as well as it's default so, no battery issue.<br>

And it's still faster than my old MBP! </p>

<p>Consumer Reports turns caching off on all its laptop battery tests. The problem was a bug in Safari, not caching turned off. It will be very interesting to see what happens after the re-test now that the bug is fixed.</p>

<p>Indeed Dave, it is a bug in Safari but I agree with Apple that the setting doesn't reflect what most users would see as AFAIK, the default is on. Apple states they will fix the bug which is good! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It will be very interesting to see what happens after the re-test now that the bug is fixed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I presume it will be what we now see with the setting on and Consumers reported that <em>when it turned caching on and did an initial set of retests, the <strong>MacBook Pro produced “consistently high battery life results.”</strong></em><br>

More here:<br>

http://www.powerpage.org/apple-consumer-reports-find-smoking-gun-that-caused-variable-life-in-initial-review/</p>

<p><em>“[Consumer Reports’] use of this developer setting also triggered an obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons which created inconsistent results in their lab. After we asked Consumer Reports to run the same test using normal user settings, they told us their MacBook Pro systems consistently delivered the expected battery life.”</em></p>

<p>You can get the bug fix on Apple's Beta site, I think. Otherwise, you have to wait awhile for an OS update.</p>

<p>Consumer Reports (on this planet) updates its MacBook Pro review <strong>with a recommendation</strong><br>

http://www.macworld.com/article/3157544/macbook/consumer-reports-updates-its-macbook-pro-review-with-a-recommendation.html</p>

<em>After discovering the Safari bug, Apple created a fix, and Consumer Reports reran its battery life test. On its website, Consumer Reports said that the new MacBook Pro, “all performed well.” The publication tested a 13-inch Touch Bar model, a 13-inch non-Touch Bar model, and a 15-inch model. The retests resulted in battery life of 15.75 hours, 18.75 hours, and 17.25 hours, respectively.</em>

<p>http://www.powerpage.org/apples-market-share-grows-in-q4-2016-following-launch-of-macbook-pro-with-touch-bar/<br>

<em>Apple apparently gained some market share in the fourth quarter of 2016 <strong>thanks to the refreshed MacBook Pro with the Touch Bar built in. </strong></em><br>

<em>The latest data from research firms Gartner and IDC show Apple gaining ground in the PC industry, despite the market continuing to slow as a whole. IDC’s new data shows that 70.2 million PCs shipped in the fourth quarter of 2016, marking a 1.5 percent year-on-year decline, but showing a continued stabilization of the market. </em><br>

<em>For the year, IDC says that PC shipments hit 260 million, <strong>down</strong> 5.7 percent compared to 2015. Worldwide, <strong>Apple saw its marketshare rise from 7.4 percent in Q4 2015 to 7.5 percent,</strong> though overall shipments fell by .9 percent for the year as a whole. Overall, Apple ranks as the fourth largest PC vendor worldwide, with Lenovo coming in at the top, followed by HP and Dell.</em><br>

<br /><em>The rise in Apple’s market share seems to have been boosted by the late 2016 MacBook Pro.</em></p>

<p>In other news, the entire editorial staff of <em>Consumer Reports</em> is on an all-expense-paid vacation in Hawaii. Just kidding, just kidding.</p>

<p>MacOS Sierra 10.12.3 update fixes the Safari bug that affected MacBook Pro battery life.<br>

http://www.macworld.com/article/3159737/macs/macos-sierra-10123-update-fixes-the-safari-bug-that-affected-macbook-pro-battery-life.html</p>

<p>In other news, <a href="https://petapixel.com/2017/01/31/1300-5k-lg-monitor-apple-sells-unusable-near-wifi-routers/">"That $1,300 5K LG Monitor Apple Sells is ‘Unusable’ Near WiFi Routers"</a> https://petapixel.com/2017/01/31/1300-5k-lg-monitor-apple-sells-unusable-near-wifi-routers/</p>

<p>What the hell is going on with quality control over at Apple?</p>

You mean LG! On planet Earth, LG not Apple built that product! But thanks for an opinion built with alternative facts.

<p>One has to wonder if Eric <em>thinks</em> that every product in the Apple store is a product they built and tested. <br /> One has to wonder if Eric <em>thinks</em> that every product in on B&H Photo is a product they built and tested. <br /> One has to wonder if Eric <em>thinks</em> that every product on Amazon is a product they built and tested. <br /> One has to wonder if Eric <strong><em>thinks</em></strong> (before, during or after he posts here). <br /> And soon, a word from someone who's not a sponsor (of this site) with more hilarious text from a planet far, far away in a vortex of unreality. Sit back, relax, it's coming.....<br>

What the hell is going on with quality control over at <em>Planet Eric? ;-)</em></p>

Apple stores stop selling the LG UltraFine 5K Display after Wi-Fi interference issues

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/3169308/macs/apple-stores-stop-selling-the-lg-ultrafine-5k-display-after-wi-fi-interference-issues.html