Future proofing your MacBook Pro?

[Scott Sherman]

So a couple of things to start. I already purchased my MBP and an external monitor so this is more an academic discussion, for me, perhaps not for others that are still in the process of deciding which options to click when ordering their new 2018 MBP. I just enjoy the banter. Second, I know that there is no such thing as "future proofing" because at least in the current tech curve, there will for the foreseeable future be faster, better, cooler tech to replace the best of the best available at this moment.

So here's my thoughts. For the non pro or prosumer customer, is it better to purchase a fully spec'ed out MBP with the most you can possibly afford or barely afford or just get exactly what you need (or want) at the time of purchase. I chose the first and upgraded to the top tier 15 inch i9, 32gig memory, 1 terabyte HD best graphic card available and a 5k(ish) usb-c thunderbolt monitor. I probably will rarely need these high powered accessories, but I enjoy the fact that I have them and should I want to play an occasional game or up my editing software and skills, it will be an option. I hope to get about 5 years and still have a set up with some resale value when I am done with it. I think the upgrade curve is slowing down since what is available today seems pretty good. I don't know how much faster or "better" it can get without some significant trade off.

Anyway, would love to hear your thoughts. If you did buy something already, do you have buyers remorse for overbuying or underbuying. If you are in the decision making process and waiting for all the reviews to come in, where do you fall?

Not really talking to those who use their computers to make a living. This is more for the non pro who can afford the best, whether they need it or not, which I suspect is a significant portion of the Apple customer base. Just for the record I am in the latter group. No haters please, just hoping to initiate some conversation here.

 

[GoldfishRT]

I think if say, you can buy what you need for $500 less than a max spec, you should always go for just what you need. My reasoning is this:

1. While it will cost $500 to upgrade you will not get that $500 back in resale value so purchasing a higher spec machine based on that is silly.

2. Especially true of processors and storage, buying more than you need will have zero day-to-day benefit on your work and experience of the device.

3. At the current rate of performance progress, especially as it relates to Intel, the likelihood of any reasonable CPU you buy being the bottleneck of your system performance in 4 years is extremely low.

4. While that $500 will buy you a modest increase in performance today, that $500 will buy far more performance in the future when it's actually time to replace the device.

I think future-proofing as a concept is a bit flawed when it comes to computers. I certainly think some people regret buying a low spec config now and then but that's likely because they didn't foresee their actual requirements correctly in the first place. As somebody who knows exactly how I use a computer and have used one, and don't see any fundamental changes in how I use one it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. For instance I have zero interest in making videos of any sort, so the ability to render videos a few minutes faster is worthless to me. Perhaps some people lament this fact but in a lot of ways the computing market has plateaued. 8GB of ram has been the standard for what feels like nearly a decade now and is still the most common configuration of memory. The vast majority of mobile CPUs have only just recently moved past modestly clocked dual cores and all of the CPUs have good hardware decoding of popular video formats and other features that the average person cares about. Basically, the average consumers needs have been met and exceeded by the capabilities of these machines for a long time and so the differentiating factor for longevity is largely battery life and build quality more-so than performance.

I wouldn't call it a Lamborghini but I have a 5... nearly 6 year old Surface Pro 2 that rocks a very basic ULV i5 and 4 gigs of ram and it's totally fine for what the resume-building-facebook-browsing-netflix-binging-snap-chatting-emailing-video-calling masses do.

With all of that said I think the only upgrade I'd do on any machine, provided it meets all the needs in the base spec, is upgrade the ram. It's one of those few things I've never regretted having more of 5 years down the line.

 

[unglued]

One thing for sure I don’t have patience for slow computers and that’s what gets me digging deeper in my wallet. Yesterday, I picked up a 1TB external SSD to prepare data transfer when my 2018 MBP arrives, the old Thunderbolt 2 Buffalo drive is slow (5400 rpm) and rubbish, never again.

On a scale of 1 to 10 and 10 being a fully loaded MBP, I usually purchase in the 7 range and it gets me 4-5 years use. It could last longer but I feel it’s a good time to sell it because it still holds good value.

 

[LogicalApex]

With all of that said I think the only upgrade I'd do on any machine, provided it meets all the needs in the base spec, is upgrade the ram. It's one of those few things I've never regretted having more of 5 years down the line.

Great write up. The only change I would make is to suggest a modest approach to RAM. As this too is no longer as cut and dry as it used to be.

NVMe SSDs as included in the new MBP and other laptops is orders of magnitudes faster than regular spinning HDDs that were standard just 5 years ago. Most importantly they have insane random I/O performance. Exactly the improvement needed to make paying very hard to notice for the majority of use cases.

If a user is hard pressed to overspec RAM I strongly advise against exceeding 16GB without a valid use case. 8 GB is still plenty for the majority.

 

[Appledoesnotlisten]

Let me ask a sort of future proofing question in this thread:

I need to buy another 15" MBP for 7-10 months. The performance of the 2017 is enough for my needs. I might go for 512, but 256/16 should be Ok.

Which will hold the most value - 2017 or 2018?

 

[Macbookprodude]

Let me ask a sort of future proofing question in this thread:

I need to buy another 15" MBP for 7-10 months. The performance of the 2017 is enough for my needs. I might go for 512, but 256/16 should be Ok.

Which will hold the most value - 2017 or 2018?

Hi, just remember you won't be able to upgrade the memory or processor, at best the only thing you can do to "future-proof" this would be a faster SSD drive, since after 2012 the MacBook Pro's upgrades are very limited.

 

[Appledoesnotlisten]

Hi, just remember you won't be able to upgrade the memory or processor, at best the only thing you can do to "future-proof" this would be a faster SSD drive, since after 2012 the MacBook Pro's upgrades are very limited.

I am choosing between 15" 2017 and 15" 2018...

 

[Macbookprodude]

I am choosing between 15" 2017 and 15" 2018...

Certainly it also depends on what you plan to use the computer for. 2018 and 2017 both have a max of 16GB which is soldered to the board, however I read that there were keyboard issues with the 2017, but if the price is cheaper with a 2017, then go for it.. just be sure its got 16gb of memory as this is the max.

 

[Ploki]

Buy cheap, upgrade more often >> best future proof.

Technology changes yearly, in 2 years, base model 15" will destroy the i9/vega20.

I think the upgrade curve is slowing down since what is available today seems pretty good. I don't know how much faster or "better" it can get without some significant trade off.

Same could be said from 2017 to 2018, yet here we are, two more cores on both 15" and 13" first time after 7 years.

I bought the i9/32gb/2tb/560x before vega was out, and had buyer's remorse, because the storage is not worth it, the i9 is not worth it for multicore performance, and 560X is old tech.
Fortunately, it was faulty (yay) so i got my money back.

I should've learned something from "future proofing" (maxing out) my 2012 rMBP. The CPU bump to 2.7GHz meant nothing in the terms of future proofing, next years base model outperformed it, it was wasted 300$, and it isnt worth it in resale.

Imagine this, you "future proofed" your 2017 15" quadcore, and it's outperformed by the 2018 13" i5 model. If you specifically go for the 15" screen ofc, but else, the new 13" is cheaper and has better performance.


Anyway, bought two computers with what i got back for the i9. Mac Mini i7/8gb/512gb (will upgrade ram myself) and 13" i5/16gb/512gb.
Had enough money left over for peripherals.

Reasoning for Mini: I need the CPU power. Why i picked the i9 in the first place.
Reasoning for 13": i7 vs i5 is not much of a spec bump and resale value is not going to be any better because of it.
Reasoning for 512gb internal: 1TB thunderbolt3/nVME drive with same speed as the internal drive for less money than upgrading one of the two machiens would cost... which can be utilised as long as thunderbolt3 is a thing, so, probably will outlast both the mini and most certainly the 13".

 

[Sterkenburg]

Agree with the general sentiment here. These days, buying the minimum you can comfortably get away with and upgrading relatively often is the best option for most people. The fact that laptops, and particularly Macs, are increasingly designed as non-upgradeable, non-serviceable machines, only compounds this situation.

Base models (with the appropriate amount of storage) give the best bang for the buck because they suffice for almost every daily task and have the most stable resale value. Of course, performance upgrades are worth it for specific use cases (the golden rule being that "if you really need it, you already know, if you have to ask you likely don't"), but keeping in mind that: (1) the practical gains are often less significant than you'd think (2) your "best of the best" machine is likely to be outperformed by the next base model in ~1 year.

Personal example: I bought the i9/32GB/1TB/560X at launch, but in retrospect I openly admit that the processor bump was difficult to justify and that I mainly wanted to scratch the itch of having an i9 in a MBP.

 

[pendragon1984]

One advantage to buying high end is that it will last longer. Do you want to bother with selling and rebuying every 2 years or every 4? Honestly, I'd much rather not repeat the process all that often.

I few hundred Mhz doesn't matter. But 4 cores over 2, or 6 over 4 is a big difference.

Likewise Vega 20 is a good amount faster than the 560X.

I guess be smart about what you pay for, but a dual core machine won't have the longevity of a 6 core.

 

[LogicalApex]

One advantage to buying high end is that it will last longer. Do you want to bother with selling and rebuying every 2 years or every 4? Honestly, I'd much rather not repeat the process all that often.

I few hundred Mhz doesn't matter. But 4 cores over 2, or 6 over 4 is a big difference.

Likewise Vega 20 is a good amount faster than the 560X.

I guess be smart about what you pay for, but a dual core machine won't have the longevity of a 6 core.

Buying what you need today and upgrading when you need more is the best financial sense in computing. For instance, you could max out all you want today and then Apple adds FaceID and brings ARM to Mac in 2 years or Intel finally gets to 7nm and battery life improves 50% alongside Apple improving MacBook Pro thermals and you're now plotting an upgrade due to the new architectural changes having real value for you. These are things you can't "future proof" for.

Tech doesn't last 50 years or longer so you shouldn't buy it like it does.

 

[Sterkenburg]

I few hundred Mhz doesn't matter. But 4 cores over 2, or 6 over 4 is a big difference.

That's exactly the point, though. The 4 cores over 2 and 6 over 4 came with a model refresh (with the increase in core number applying to high-end and base models alike), while the pricey upgrades are only going to yield the few hundred MHz.

Getting Vega20 over base dGPU, or 32GB RAM over 16, has a positive impact for specific workflows, but the general user will not notice any difference, and by the time these factors become bottlenecks the machine will be obsolete anyway. If your usage requires any of these upgrades, you usually know it.

 

[Ploki]

One advantage to buying high end is that it will last longer. Do you want to bother with selling and rebuying every 2 years or every 4? Honestly, I'd much rather not repeat the process all that often.

I few hundred Mhz doesn't matter. But 4 cores over 2, or 6 over 4 is a big difference.

Likewise Vega 20 is a good amount faster than the 560X.

I guess be smart about what you pay for, but a dual core machine won't have the longevity of a 6 core.

exactly. 4 cores over two is not a matter of "few hundred bucks", its a matter of a new laptop generation - so if you update more often and spend less, you're more likely to get a new 4-core over 2-cores when it comes out. If i spent 5k$ on a 2017 15" i couldn't buy a 15" 6-core this year.
So 4-core/6-core is not about buying "high-end" this time around, its just a matter of buying *anything* this time around.

 

[Fishrrman]

"For the non pro or prosumer customer, is it better to purchase a fully spec'ed out MBP with the most you can possibly afford or barely afford or just get exactly what you need (or want) at the time of purchase."

In my experience, reading the posts here for the past 9 years, the folks who seem to have the most hardware problems with their Macs (MacBook Pros or otherwise) are those who bought "spec'd out" models, particularly MBP's with discrete GPU's.

The MacBook Pros (and other Macs) that often "last the longest with the least trouble" are those that are "base model" and "mid-spec" models.

That's my unscientific observation.

I generally buy my Macs "base model".
The only time I deviated from this was with my 2012 Mini, which I got with the 2.6 i7 CPU (but "base" otherwise). It's been fine for 6 years now, but has not been "pushed" on a day-to-day basis.

When I replace it next year, I'll probably get the "mid-level" i5 CPU.

Another observation:
I can't see paying Apple's ridiculously high prices for 1tb and 2tb SSDs.
I'll get either 256gb or perhaps 512gb, and "go external" for additional storage needs.

 

[Ploki]

"For the non pro or prosumer customer, is it better to purchase a fully spec'ed out MBP with the most you can possibly afford or barely afford or just get exactly what you need (or want) at the time of purchase."

In my experience, reading the posts here for the past 9 years, the folks who seem to have the most hardware problems with their Macs (MacBook Pros or otherwise) are those who bought "spec'd out" models, particularly MBP's with discrete GPU's.

The MacBook Pros (and other Macs) that often "last the longest with the least trouble" are those that are "base model" and "mid-spec" models.

That's my unscientific observation.

I generally buy my Macs "base model".
The only time I deviated from this was with my 2012 Mini, which I got with the 2.6 i7 CPU (but "base" otherwise). It's been fine for 6 years now, but has not been "pushed" on a day-to-day basis.

When I replace it next year, I'll probably get the "mid-level" i5 CPU.

Another observation:
I can't see paying Apple's ridiculously high prices for 1tb and 2tb SSDs.
I'll get either 256gb or perhaps 512gb, and "go external" for additional storage needs.

Agreed with everything. Except the mini, i7 is really a better cpu than the i5 since it has hyperthreading. I can see these holding value as much as the 2012 i7 quads did.

As far as SSDs go, i concur. my refunded i9 had 2TB of space and I was wondering what's gotten into me to order such a large one for more than 1000€. For that money i could get 4TB nVME RAID0 blazing 4gb/s + internal 1TB. Insane.
I just ordered 512GB this time around.

 

[boast]

Since I enjoy having the latest technologies more than having something last (when it comes to electronics), I prefer to buy cheap and replace often.

 

[AVBeatMan]

I've just ordered a 2020 16" MacBook Pro 1TB. I bought for some kind of "future" proofing. I know it's overkill as I just use mainly for web browsing and email. I had a 12" MAcBook but just want something "top of the line" for the next 5 years or so...

 

[cambookpro]

I've just ordered a 2020 16" MacBook Pro 1TB. I bought for some kind of "future" proofing. I know it's overkill as I just use mainly for web browsing and email. I had a 12" MAcBook but just want something "top of the line" for the next 5 years or so...

I’m not one to tell others how to spend their money, but talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut

Edit: I’ve just realised this is an old thread but the notion of future proofing in general is that it is great for Apple’s bottom line and usually not a lot else. Even in 5 years time, the difference in a base vs top spec CPU in a Mac will probably pale in comparison to changes in software, form factor, I/O, screen changes etc which you can’t ’future proof’ against. I always try and buy the cheapest config I can get away with (within reason) and upgrade more often. That’s usually every 4-5 years for my Mac.

 

[Moonjumper]

I’m not one to tell others how to spend their money, but talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut

Edit: I’ve just realised this is an old thread but the notion of future proofing in general is that it is great for Apple’s bottom line and usually not a lot else. Even in 5 years time, the difference in a base vs top spec CPU in a Mac will probably pale in comparison to changes in software, form factor, I/O, screen changes etc which you can’t ’future proof’ against. I always try and buy the cheapest config I can get away with (within reason) and upgrade more often. That’s usually every 4-5 years for my Mac.

I totally agree. One extra point:

I consider the upgrade as the cost as the price minus the cost of selling the old computer. Second-hand buyers are price-sensitive and will usually go for the cheapest option, so base models sell much easier. High spec doesn’t add much to the sale price (unless it is something that changes the proposition substantially such as SSD v HDD). Last time I ran the figures, I estimated I could update twice as often for less overall cost if I went with lower spec machines. Because of this, I would end up with a better average spec over the long term as I would get newer tech more often, including such things as the latest I/O.

But with the slow progress over the last few years, the low spec is lasting much longer anyway, just as long as the machine can comfortably meet needs when new. OS updates don’t leave you behind if there are not much faster computers to design for.

 

[DieBeachballDie]

I have no laptop experience, but i have plenty of Mac experience. When i bought my second computer, a 21" (2008ish?) iMac, i specal-ordered it maxed it out. I was a noob, and i had money then. I thought i was being clever. Spent two grand on a $1200 computer. It lasted a good 4 years before it started annoying me with age issues (i should mention it's still on my desktop, working fine after 12 years, but missing 1/3 of its screen. I use it for my music). I said i'd never do that again. Next iMac i bought was the (2013ish) refurbed iMac 27". I got the base model, and only paid more for the bigger display (i can never have enough screen space). It lasted me 4 good years before it 'got old' too. Hell, it was still doing the job when an accident took it out 5 months ago. So... i'll never 'future-proof' again. No point.

I'm a car guy. My advice there is always just buy the right car from the start. Wanting a Corvette and then buying a Camaro thinking you can modify it to be as good as a Vette is foolish. Save... and buy the damn Corvette... if thats what you want/need.

Buy the right machine from the start, and enjoy. There is zero point in worrying about what Mac is going to release next year. There will ALWAYS be a 'next year'... or spec bump. Especially in the hi-tech game.

I'm shopping for a base model 2.3GHz i9 1Tb MBP 16" now. I'd be happy with the 2.6Ghz i7 absolutely... but i need the 1Tb. I could upgrade the storage on a base 16" for less money, but then i'd have to wait for it (and who knows how long that will take in this global mess). AND... for an extra $250 i could upgrade everything. So... base i9 it is. At least i can find those on shelves. I could have one in the time it takes to deliver.

A PC friend of mine said to just buy a new $300 Chromebook every year. I have zero patience for PC issues, but i think his reasoning is sound. I've never had one, but how much can go wrong with a cheapass PC laptop in a year? I like nice things, and i'm a Mac guy, so i wont do this, but his reasoning is sound. Hell... if you bought a brand new $300 laptop every 6 months, that'd still be cheaper than a base MBP 16" after 5 years... Maybe a $300 PC laptop is useless? I have no idea...

 

[wegster]

I like Goldfish's response, although I don't agree fully with it.
His statement about $500 later will buy much more performance than $500 in upgrades now is certainly true.

It really depends on your upgrade cycle and planned usage.
Think carefully on what you really do, what you plan to get into, and plan accordingly from there.
It's not going to hurt much to go from 8GB to 16GB RAM, and may well help if you plan to keep your system 4+ years.
In general, I might pay $100 for a CPU upgrade, but it's rarely worth paying $400 to gain .1-.3GHz for most users. Depending on what you do, it may well be worth paying a few $ to go from a 4 core to 6 core, or 6 to 8 core, but not so much on the minor speed bumps.

If you don't know you need it, stay to no or moderate gfx upgrades, IMO, as the general rule.

On storage, this one's harder. I've needed 1TB for the past decade or so, upgrading my MBP (at not cheap $) originally myself along with RAM, then moving to 1TB Apple SSD in my 2015..but was banging up against 950GB usage, too close so went to 2TB in the 2019. Sure, I could have done some deeper disk cleaning, but it would have overflowed. I

File formats are changing and growing in size (think video files from a few years back vs 4K/5K/8K nowadays). We're collectively storing a lot more photos and videos, which can add up relatively quickly. We're creating larger and larger data sets for analysis purposes. Teenagers are creating twitch streams, etc...
So yeah, storage needs in general have or are increasing.

MO, if you're at 60-75% usage on your current storage size - it's time to step it up, ideally but not always necessarily doubling it, as especially with today's Apple, you're not going to be upgrading it yourself any more. Of course, if you upgrade every 1-2 years - who cares and the rules change.

 

[profcutter]

It's funny, because due to Intel's slow updates of processors and apple's past 4 years, I've completely changed my approach to buying MacBook pros. I used to buy the latest and greatest every few years, there's no point now. When my 2013 died, I bought a 2015. I'd like to have some of the bells and whistles of the newer models, but it's just not a good value proposition. When I get my next machine, I'm thinking 2TB drive, but everything else seems less important. If my 2015 can handle most everything I throw at it, I can't imagine maxing out a machine would make much of a difference from the base model spec. Now, my fans spin up annoyingly when I'm doing something intense. I imagine the same thing would happen with a 16 inch model. My current machine can handle 4k video on an external monitor. So why spend so much on the top of the line? Future-proofing seems passé!

 

[Howard2k]

Unless you’re buying your first computer, there should be no rule. You should be looking at the performance constraints on your current system and starting there.

Activity Monitor is invaluable in that regard.

 

[PeterJP]

I also agree with the general sentiment of buying what fits now. But not for the same reason here. People here seem to go for bi-yearly updates. But in my experience, the machine that fits you now will just last way longer than you think it will. I'm fully into VMs for testing out multimedia networked setups in a broadcast context. I can run 3 VMs fine on my late 2013 13" MBP with 8GB RAM. Of course, those are rather small Win7 or Linux VMs with 1GB each but they get the work done. And the mac copes fine with just 5GB left doing office work, including the cpu smoking Microsoft Teams.

If it wasn't for the dGPU power consumption bug, I'd seriously consider only getting the top default sku 16" with 16GB at a €500 discount because it should be plenty for the next 5 years. Also, BTO is never discounted so an upgrade to e.g. 32GB RAM effectively costs €1000 wich is kinda crazy for 'future proofing'. Ideally, Apple launches a 13-14" with 16/512 standard config and I'll get that. I don't mind if it's June. i have time: my 'old' MBP' manages fine while running the tech of a broadcast company from home