Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports Now Recommends MacBook Pros (macrumors.com)
Consumer Reports has updated their report on the 2016 MacBook Pros, and is now recommending Apple's latest notebooks. MacRumors reports: In the new test, conducted running a beta version of macOS that fixes the Safari-related bug that caused erratic battery life in the original test, all three MacBook Pro models "performed well." The 13-inch model without a Touch Bar had an average battery life of 18.75 hours, the 13-inch model with a Touch Bar lasted for 15.25 hours on average, and the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar had an average battery life of 17.25 hours. "Now that we've factored in the new battery-life measurements, the laptops' overall scores have risen, and all three machines now fall well within the recommended range in Consumer Reports ratings," reports Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports originally denied the 2016 MacBook Pro a purchase recommendation in late December due to extreme battery life variance that didn't match up with Apple's 10 hour battery life claim. Apple worked with Consumer Reports to figure out why the magazine encountered battery life issues, which led to the discovery of an obscure Safari caching bug. Consumer Reports used a developer setting to turn off Safari caching, triggering an "obscure and intermittent bug reloading icons" that drained excessive battery. The bug, fixed by Apple in macOS Sierra 10.12.3 beta 3, is not one the average user will encounter as most people don't turn off the Safari caching option, but it's something done in all Consumer Reports tests to ensure uniform testing conditions. A fix for the issue will be available to the general public when macOS Sierra 10.12.3 is released, but users can get it now by signing up for Apple's beta testing program.
Cha Ching
This is sketchy. Tests typically involve disabling the cache and reloading pages to measure the overall impact of visiting lots of different pages. Enabling the cache made a big difference, but these tests are usually done with the cache disabled. This is incredibly sketchy and calls into question the quality of this recommendation. I don't really trust consumer reports if they're willing to change a recommendation based on a setting that effectively helps cheat these tests. Why should the browser cache be enabled just for Apple?
defense
Consumer Reports' testing showed a problem, so they did not recommend it. Once they understood the cause of the problem they could see it would not affect normal users, so now they do recommend it. It's good that Apple is planning a fix, but CR would have changed their rating anyhow.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
WHY can't you use it ? What specs are too poor ? Have you actually TRIED one, tested it to see if it does work ? The Specs are BETTER than the older version, so if the 2015MBP will be OK then the new one will be too because its a BETTER machine. And don't give all the BS about adaptors, the number of PC laptops we have around here with port replicators that have been bought at additional cost is amazing, go out and buy a hub and get over yourself. And a waiver process for Linux, i.e. you need to sign a form, yeah where I work has that too, its not that difficult, but if thats the level of barriers which stop you from doing things...WOW, you really need to work a little harder, employers value problem solvers.
Actually, I don't remember anybody saying that it was entirely a hardware problem. It was very obvious from the very beginning that it was both. If it were purely a hardware problem, it would run down quickly all the time. The fact that it only happened when certain apps were running meant that software was causing excessive CPU utilization, which resulted in the battery running down much faster than you would ordinarily expect when running a typically power-thrifty app such as a web browser. And if it were purely a software problem, the remaining time estimate would be wrong, but the computer would continue to operate.
Clearly, it is also not only a software problem. If the hardware had been designed with a proper 100 Wh battery instead of the inadequate 75 Wh battery that they ended up using, then the worst-case battery life for the new MacBook Pro would be a few percent better than the worst-case battery life for the previous generation. Instead, as this software bug so clearly demonstrated, it is possible for CPU-hungry software to burn through the battery in only about 75% of the time that it took on the previous model, because as we all correctly pointed out, the battery is too small, and the CPU isn't significantly more efficient than it was in previous generations.
It is unfortunate that Consumer Reports retracted their complaint. As a result, no doubt a bunch of Apple apologists who don't actually understand how CPU power management works will falsely trumpet that there's nothing wrong with the hardware, when in reality, that couldn't be farther from the truth. The software bug exposed a fundamental design flaw in the hardware. The only thing that the software update fixed was the behavior of a single app (Safari). Although users who never run anything but a web browser can now rest easy in blissful ignorance, power users will still hate this new laptop because they'll still get three-quarters as much battery life as they did in the previous model, give or take a few percent. That's the harsh reality.
So no, the experts weren't wrong. You just didn't understand what we said.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yea uh, you missed the mark there by a mile. We don't hate technology - that's your fundamental error in judgment right there. We just hate overpriced, over-hyped consumer-grade usury. We're trying to protect people like you, who are so easily herded by advertising like so much cattle to the slaughter. Once you assume that because Apple gets grief from greybeards because of technology you've failed to make the critical mental distinction between good technology, bad technology, and marketing. When that happens, you've let the advertisers win control over your fundamental understanding of facts, which they will simply replace with much more easily manipulable emotions.
These planted emotions they've programmed you with are why you actually felt the need to make this post to which I'm replying. Take a few moments to think about it calmly and rationally in private, with no fear of reprisal. You deserve it.
Next, ask yourself if Apple really deserved to have a concession made to a testing procedure that no other company or product has previously ever received.
First, I think it's important to point out that positive moderation on Slashdot doesn't necessarily mean you're right about what you said, it just means that your opinion is popular.
Second, it's also important for us all to understand that Slashdot mod points are not rare or valuable, they do not make or break a person's reputation, and nobody cares what your Slashdot karma score is.
Third, literally revising history to retroactively alter a person's karma score is actually crazy for a few reasons... the two listed above, plus the reason that going back and changing the mod points doesn't mean it actually happened that way. Even making the suggestion that this is what should happen seems to indicate a profound misunderstanding of cause and effect, and of the world in general.
Jesus, we don't just erase our past when people say things that turn out to be incorrect. You're advocating a fucking sci-fi dystopia.
Shane_Optima was wrong.
I most certainly was not wrong. I said that if it was a software bug in Safari (as alleged) that it was obviously still Apple's fault. I didn't address the possibility of CR screwing up one way or another. And guess what? According to TFS, Apple *did* screw up.
Apple is responsible for Safari bugs. That was my assertion then, and it's my assertion now.
How was that Slashdot comment, which turned out to be right, modded? -1.
Wow. So you're complaining that an Anonymous Coward (you?) speculating baselessly (yes baselessly, because no preliminary observations or experiments were mentioned) about the possible cause of the poor test result and then implying that Apple should be let off the hook if it's a Safari bug received a single -1 downmod instead of being modded up to +5, Nostradamus?
No one is going to have their mod privileges revoked. Instead, try re-working your tone to sound less like a perpetually whining fanboy.
I mean, for many years I liked Google (still do, in some ways) but I don't flip the fuck out when people criticize, for example, their decision to drop microSD card slots from their devices. That was a horrible anti-consumer decision and I made sure to mention it any time I talked to someone who was thinking about buying a Nexus device. There's a reason why Apple fanboys have the reputation that they do. No other tech company on Earth inspires this kind of rabid and unthinking loyalty.
Incidentally, if you register for an account people are around here will be less likely to assume you're a blithering fool or astroturfer.
The real moderation tragedy is that your comment here is currently modded up to +4. "Admins, go back and fix the moderation and mod everyone else down! My speculative Apple apologia turned out to be correct in fact [just not in conclusion]!", Jesus fucking Christ...
lol are you new here? Anti-apple posts always get modded up, defending Apple will usually get you modded down. It's slashdot: home to cranky old people who hate technology, any big tech companies, the government, and kids on their lawns.
No, we hate bad technology and overpriced technology. Every single tech company that makes bad decisions around here gets criticized; every single one. Show of hands: who here likes Google's anti-microSD card policies? Who is willing to write a lengthy screed defending it and pretending that anyone who likes microSD card slots must be "an old person who hates technology" ?
This shit ONLY happens with Apple because only Apple has this contingent of fanboys who treat every conversation about flaws in its products as if it were a conversation about how ugly their mothers are.
And the fact that this utter rubbish (from an AC, no less) has been modded up to +5 really gives the lie to your thesis here. As I explained elsewhere, the crux of the matter is the AC here is/was attempting to claim that Consumer Reports is responsible for bugs in Safari.