5 ms·

The article gets some stuff wrong. 1. Though macbook pro battery capacity has been reduced to 76Wh, he still attributes not adding more RAM to 100Wh ceiling by

The article gets some stuff wrong. 1. Though macbook pro battery capacity has been reduced to 76Wh, he still attributes not adding more RAM to 100Wh ceiling by FAA 2. States that only laptops with 32GB is as heavy as 17 pounds and bulky. But Dell XPS 15 comes with 32 GB and weighs only 4.5 pounds. https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Dell-XPS-15-9550-Signature-Edition-Laptop/productID.326871600 https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Dell-XP... 3. Dell XPS 15 comes with 1 USB-C, 2 USB-3.0 ports, HDMI and SD card reader and thus don't need dongles and is reasonably slim. Seriously, if Apple had released something like XPS-15 in features, there would have been no criticism.

erebrus 10y ago
1. I believe you got the first point wrong. The claim is that they needed more than 100W to go to 32GB, and not going for 16GB, they didn't need the extra 26W. 2. You are partially right. Yes, 4.5 pounds is very different from 18kg, but if you care about portability, it is still a big different from 3 pounds. 3. The argument he presents is that you need dongles for now, but in the long term, you will need less dongles. So a bit different from what you are arguing.
- jbmorgado 10y ago
  Doubling the RAM, increases the energy consumption of the equipment, but it obviously doesn't double the energy consumption of the equipment.
  - erebrus 10y ago
    Sure. I'm not in position to say whether the claim that the RAM increase would require more than 26W. I'm just arguing that the previous comment was missing the point of what the article was claiming.
    - boundlessdreamz 10y ago
      I'm not missing the point. The author is purely speculating and has no data to backup his claims. Also RAM does not use much power. See here - http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-compon... This is very old data. Newer RAM will use even less
- kbutler 10y ago
  4.4 _pounds_ for xps 15 vs the macbook's 4.02 pounds (15" version). (and if you want a smaller battery for portability on the xps 15, you can get one at 3.9 pounds) Looks like the article author was either blinded by fandom or intentionally misleading. https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ (choose 15") http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-15-9550-laptop http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-15-9550-la...
  - erebrus 10y ago
    I will be suspicious of any opinion in a website with the word mac or apple in it's url. First, the mbp is 3 pounds (from your own link). Second, I looked up the xps 15 also. Not only it is 50% heavier, but it is also much thicker and in bigger in general. Finally, battery life seems to be 5h vs 10h of the mbp. These are different compromises that will please different people and not be acceptable for others.
    - detaro 10y ago
      The 13" is 3 pounds. The 15" is 4, kbutler even reminded you to look at the right one.
    - boundlessdreamz 10y ago
      Check the link. The MBP 15" is 4.02 pounds. 13" is 3.02 pounds. Also the dimensions are roughly the same +-----------+------------------+--------------------+ | Dimension | MBP 15" | XPS 15" | +-----------+------------------+--------------------+ | Height | 0.61" | 0.45-0.66" | | Width | 13.75" | 14.06" | | Depth | 9.48" | 9.27" | | Weight | 4.02 lbs/1.83 kg | 4.50 lbs (2.04 kg) | +-----------+------------------+--------------------+ And the battery life is 7 hours for the 84Whr model. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10116/the-dell-xps-15-9550-review/7 http://www.anandtech.com/show/10116/the-dell-xps-15-9550-rev... In another review it was 8 hours for playing video. Less than MBP at 10 hrs.
    - kbutler 10y ago
      You forgot the "choose 15 inch" on the apple site: MBP13: 3.02 pounds (1.37 kg) MBP15: 4.02 pounds (1.83 kg) XPS15: 4.4 pounds (or 3.9 pounds with smaller battery) MBP15: 15.5mm 349.3mm 240.7mm XPS15: 17mm 357mm 235mm But I agree - if you're wanting maximum portability, go with the smaller 13" device, which is 33% lighter. But then you may want to compare the XPS13, which is smaller, lighter, newer CPU, has a larger battery (dell mentions 18h, reviewers tested 10h+, but actual battery life comparisons TBD), and is also limited to 16gb. Yes, different compromises.
throwaway1X2 10y ago
> 2. States that only laptops with 32GB is as heavy as 17 pounds and bulky. But Dell XPS 15 comes with 32 GB and weighs only 4.5 pounds. That point blew my mind, too. I have 32 GB RAM in a 6 pound laptop (a third of that 8 kg beast presented by the author)... and it's from 2011! If somebody rewrite some BIOS parts, it would even take 64 GB (4x16 GB modules). Yes, not many laptops have four slots, and certainly not the ultrathin ones, but even with two slots, 32 GB is easily possible as 2x16 GB (available both in DDR3 and DDR4) and no 17 pound gaming monster is needed at all. The battery capacity also seems moot. More memory modules draw more power, that is sure, but in terms of laptops with 74 Wh batteries, it is a negligible decrease of battery life, especially if people who need and would order 32 GB RAM would easily sacrifice some battery life (at load) if they can get more of their work done significantly faster without swapping. Also, does the new MacBook Pro actually use only a single module? Because you get the power consumption increases when you add modules. If it internally uses two modules of 8 GB to get 16 GB, then using two 16 GB modules instead would use the same power, unless I'm missing something (the memory is soldered on, so the entire thing may work differently than typical SO-DIMMs).

erebrus 10y ago

1. I believe you got the first point wrong. The claim is that they needed more than 100W to go to 32GB, and not going for 16GB, they didn't need the extra 26W. 2. You are partially right. Yes, 4.5 pounds is very different from 18kg, but if you care about portability, it is still a big different from 3 pounds. 3. The argument he presents is that you need dongles for now, but in the long term, you will need less dongles. So a bit different from what you are arguing.

jbmorgado 10y ago
Doubling the RAM, increases the energy consumption of the equipment, but it obviously doesn't double the energy consumption of the equipment.
- erebrus 10y ago
  Sure. I'm not in position to say whether the claim that the RAM increase would require more than 26W. I'm just arguing that the previous comment was missing the point of what the article was claiming.
  - boundlessdreamz 10y ago
    I'm not missing the point. The author is purely speculating and has no data to backup his claims. Also RAM does not use much power. See here - http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-compon... This is very old data. Newer RAM will use even less
kbutler 10y ago
4.4 _pounds_ for xps 15 vs the macbook's 4.02 pounds (15" version). (and if you want a smaller battery for portability on the xps 15, you can get one at 3.9 pounds) Looks like the article author was either blinded by fandom or intentionally misleading. https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ (choose 15") http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-15-9550-laptop http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/xps-15-9550-la...
- erebrus 10y ago
  I will be suspicious of any opinion in a website with the word mac or apple in it's url. First, the mbp is 3 pounds (from your own link). Second, I looked up the xps 15 also. Not only it is 50% heavier, but it is also much thicker and in bigger in general. Finally, battery life seems to be 5h vs 10h of the mbp. These are different compromises that will please different people and not be acceptable for others.
  - detaro 10y ago
    The 13" is 3 pounds. The 15" is 4, kbutler even reminded you to look at the right one.
  - boundlessdreamz 10y ago
    Check the link. The MBP 15" is 4.02 pounds. 13" is 3.02 pounds. Also the dimensions are roughly the same +-----------+------------------+--------------------+ | Dimension | MBP 15" | XPS 15" | +-----------+------------------+--------------------+ | Height | 0.61" | 0.45-0.66" | | Width | 13.75" | 14.06" | | Depth | 9.48" | 9.27" | | Weight | 4.02 lbs/1.83 kg | 4.50 lbs (2.04 kg) | +-----------+------------------+--------------------+ And the battery life is 7 hours for the 84Whr model. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10116/the-dell-xps-15-9550-review/7 http://www.anandtech.com/show/10116/the-dell-xps-15-9550-rev... In another review it was 8 hours for playing video. Less than MBP at 10 hrs.
  - kbutler 10y ago
    You forgot the "choose 15 inch" on the apple site: MBP13: 3.02 pounds (1.37 kg) MBP15: 4.02 pounds (1.83 kg) XPS15: 4.4 pounds (or 3.9 pounds with smaller battery) MBP15: 15.5mm 349.3mm 240.7mm XPS15: 17mm 357mm 235mm But I agree - if you're wanting maximum portability, go with the smaller 13" device, which is 33% lighter. But then you may want to compare the XPS13, which is smaller, lighter, newer CPU, has a larger battery (dell mentions 18h, reviewers tested 10h+, but actual battery life comparisons TBD), and is also limited to 16gb. Yes, different compromises.

throwaway1X2 10y ago

> 2. States that only laptops with 32GB is as heavy as 17 pounds and bulky. But Dell XPS 15 comes with 32 GB and weighs only 4.5 pounds. That point blew my mind, too. I have 32 GB RAM in a 6 pound laptop (a third of that 8 kg beast presented by the author)... and it's from 2011! If somebody rewrite some BIOS parts, it would even take 64 GB (4x16 GB modules). Yes, not many laptops have four slots, and certainly not the ultrathin ones, but even with two slots, 32 GB is easily possible as 2x16 GB (available both in DDR3 and DDR4) and no 17 pound gaming monster is needed at all. The battery capacity also seems moot. More memory modules draw more power, that is sure, but in terms of laptops with 74 Wh batteries, it is a negligible decrease of battery life, especially if people who need and would order 32 GB RAM would easily sacrifice some battery life (at load) if they can get more of their work done significantly faster without swapping. Also, does the new MacBook Pro actually use only a single module? Because you get the power consumption increases when you add modules. If it internally uses two modules of 8 GB to get 16 GB, then using two 16 GB modules instead would use the same power, unless I'm missing something (the memory is soldered on, so the entire thing may work differently than typical SO-DIMMs).