Connect with us

Apple MacBook Pro M2 13-inch review

I’m writing this atop a tray table on my fifth flight in 3 weeks. It’s a lot of cross-country travel after 2 years of largely not leaving my one-bedroom…

Published

on

I’m writing this atop a tray table on my fifth flight in 3 weeks. It’s a lot of cross-country travel after 2 years of largely not leaving my one-bedroom apartment. When it rains, it pours, I guess. Up until this flight, the 14-inch MacBook Pro has been a constant travel companion, rarely leaving my sight, lest the Find My app send out panicked signals.

Given how stationary the pandemic has made most of us, portability likely hasn’t entered into too many of our gadget-buying decisions — certainly not the way it used to. The new 13-inch MacBook Pro sheds half a pound from its larger, older sibling, weighing in at 3 pounds on the nose. The change is immediately evident in my bag, and my back is thanking me for it.

The new model is as thick as the 14-inch (actually, it’s precisely 0.01 centimeters thicker), but the overall footprint is more compact, owing to the smaller screen. As someone who invariably finds himself working on flights, I can tell you that airplane seats are one of the places in the world where a centimeter here or there actually makes a good bit of difference (I’m not made of Comfort+ upgrade money, folks).

Image Credits: Brian Heater

There are standard trade-offs, of course. If you’ve ever shopped for a laptop, you know the mental math — screen size and portability are inversely proportional. For my part, the conversation looked very different in March 2020 than it does today. Hop on a half-dozen flights and suddenly you’re reminded why you were so concerned about such things in the first place.

Thing is, much of what I’ve just written is going to be rendered largely moot a few weeks from now. Apple’s new chip is the real selling point of this new Pro, of course, but the laptop’s exclusivity with the M2 is going to be up in a manner of weeks, when the new Air arrives. As far as moments of glory go, this one is pretty short-lived — and honestly, it’s no wonder the company didn’t linger on this model for very long during the WWDC keynote. Above all, the new Pro feels like a stopgap — and not a particularly long one, at that.

Cast your mind all the way back to November 2020, when Apple launched a trio of Macs: a MacBook Pro, an Air and a Mini. At the time, the prospect of brand-new silicon was enough to super-charge sales. The company has had several great quarters of PC revenue since. What the devices lacked, however, was any manner of meaningful redesign to external hardware.

Image Credits: Brian Heater

The prospect of “holding out a bit longer” for the next update is a tricky one, especially with a notoriously tight-lipped company like Apple. When you’re not 100% sure what’s around the corner, sometimes you bite the bullet and buy the new device that you really need right now. But in the case of the 13-inch Pro — which, like the late-2020 models, features new silicon in an old chassis — we can say with 100% certainty that we know exactly what’s around the bend. Not only that, but we also have a pretty good notion that it’s going to be better in the most important ways.

What we have in this case is a strange artifact. In evolutionary science, it’s known as a “transitional form” — a link between two species. In this case, it’s taken a step up the evolutionary ladder in the brain department, while its body has yet to follow. It’s a form that arrives with some vestigial organs. For the time being, at least, reports of the Touch Bar’s death were moderately exaggerated. If you’ve fallen in love with that input device over the last few years (I’ve learned through my stories in recent weeks that such people do, in fact, exist), buy now or forever hold your peace. You will, however, be trading many of the new MacBooks’ best features for the peripheral.

Image Credits: Apple

Before we go any further, let’s break down the relatively similar models. This is the Pro’s review, so it gets to go first.

  • Touch Bar
  • Better audio capture — specifically the same three-mic array you’ll find on the 14-inch
  • A built-in fan-based cooling system for those occasions you really push the M2 to its limit (which, Apple will happily tell you, are few and far between for most users)
  • You’re Devin and you just, like, really hate notches, man
  • Longer battery (stated 20 hours vs. 18), courtesy of a 58.2-watt-hour battery (the Air’s is 52.6)
  • You can buy it now.

All right, it’s the Air’s turn. Let’s see:

  • Bigger screen (13.6 inch vs. 13.3), with newer display technology (Liquid Retina vs. Retina)
  • New design and colors
  • MagSafe (I would trade the Touch Bar for the new MagSafe in a second, but that’s just me)
  • 0.3 pounds lighter
  • 0.17 inches thinner
  • Upgraded camera (1080 to the Pro’s 780)
  • Function keys

Oh, and with a starting price of $1,119, it’s also $100 cheaper (though it bears noting here that both are still pricier than the 2020 Air’s $999 starting price). Beyond the above, the products are largely identical, in terms of specs. Both feature an 8-core M2, coupled with a GPU configurable to up to 10 cores (as is the one I’m currently using to write this story). Memory is configurable to up 24GB and storage 2TB.

Of course, I have to caveat all of this by saying that I’ve not touched the M2 Air beyond some cursory impressions and photos at WWDC a few weeks back. It will be interesting to see how factors like the cooling system impact the new chip’s performance in a head-to-head. For now, however, I can confidently say — barring any major laptop-related emergencies — I would wait a couple of weeks for the Air to arrive if you’re on the fence between the two. Ultimately, I suspect I’ll be recommending the Air for frequent travelers and the 14-inch Pro for those with more resource-intensive work demands.

Image Credits: Brian Heater

None of this is to say the 13-inch MacBook is a bad device. It decidedly is not. It’s effectively the last 13-inch MacBook wrapped around a better processor. It’s hard to get mad about that. It’s just that, in a line that contains the 14-inch MacBook Pro and the forthcoming 13-inch Air, it feels entirely unnecessary. That’s not a complaint you can levy that often against a company like Apple, which has traditionally gone to great pains to pare down its product lines. And while more choice is generally a good thing, for most consumers in most situations, it’s frankly not a tough decision.

Image Credits: Apple

Things can also be a bit confusing on the chip side, as well, at first glance. The short version is effectively this: The M2 is a nice upgrade from the M1, but the M1 Max and Pro are still going to outperform it by most meaningful metrics. This also likely means the company has set the basic release pattern here — the main M line chip first, followed by the Max and Pro variants. The cadence of the release remains a question, though it seems unlikely the company will be able to keep up with the mobile side.

13" M2 MacBook Pro (2022). Single core: 1939; Multicore: 8955.

Image Credits: TechCrunch

The M2 gives the MacBook a nice performance boost over the M1. The system scored 1939 and 8955 on the single and multicore test, respectively. That’s a nice, healthy bump over the 2020 M1 MacBook’s 1711 and 7549 — that works out to approximately 13% and 19% boosts, respectively. It also edged out the MacBook Pro’s M1 Max’s 1781 single core test, though that device still utterly smokes the 8-core M2 on the multicore test at 1267.

GeekBench Intel (Rosetta). 13" M2 MacBook Pro (2022). Single core: 1485; Multi core: 6992

Image Credits: TechCrunch

The system performed similarly well on the Intel test, running through Rosetta 2, at 1485 on single core and 6992 on multi. Compare that to the 2020 Pro’s 1265 and 5704 and the 2021’s 1348 and 9949, and you’ve got a pretty good idea where it lands. The system really impresses on single core and does quite well on multicore tasks, though it (predictably) can’t touch the Max on the latter. For day-to-day tasks, however, you’re looking at a nice upgrade here over the M1. Apple’s progress in first-party silicon has been impressive to watch.

GFXBench Metal (offscreen). 13" M2 MacBook Pro (2022): 296

Image Credits: TechCrunch

The GPU gains are quite impressive here. Apple’s vision of becoming a more serious gaming powerhouse feels significantly closer than it did a mere 3 years back. Of course, there’s still a fair bit to be done on that front.

BlackMagic Disk Speed. 13" M2 MacBook Pro (2022). Write: 3013; Read: 2792.

Image Credits: TechCrunch

In a battery rundown (streaming video on Apple TV+), the laptop outperformed last year’s MacBook Air test, adding 30 minutes to its 16 hours. Incidentally, I just got back to the hotel, and the battery is at about 80%, after writing, listening to music and generally multitasking on the plane.

L-R: MacBook Pro 13 (2022), MacBook Pro 14 (2021) Image Credits: Brian Heater

It’s great that Apple upgraded the on-board microphones here. It’s a nice touch for people who frequently use their laptops for teleconferencing. But the new mic array ultimately draws attention to the old 720p camera system. After 2 years of a remote work revolution, there’s simply no excuse not to have a good camera on your $1,300 laptop. As we noted with the M1’s release, new ISP can aways go toward improving an image through computational photography — but for the time being, sensors still matter.

Image Credits: Apple

Continuity Camera is a clever — and interesting — work-around here, but Apple really needs to upgrade the on-board camera in every way. That will likely have to wait until the system gets a full hardware overall à la the 14-inch Pro and new Air.

Image Credits: Brian Heater

All right, we’ve been putting this off for long enough. Let’s talk Touch Bar. After using the 14-inch MacBook for the last several months, I can’t see myself going back to the Touch Bar. In fact, at several points on the flight, I found myself missing the simplicity of the function keys.

Expanding the bar to find the music playback keys while writing in Word isn’t nearly as intuitive as having a row of buttons there at all times. And besides, Touch ID, the best part of the Touch Bar experience, has been freed from the peripheral and is now available solo on the 14-inch and Air. Best of both worlds, if you ask me.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why Apple was reluctant to avoid ditching the Touch Bar. A lot of R&D went into what seemed to be a promising feature. The visual execution is certainly there. It is, effectively, a super long and skinny hi-res touch screen. The colors pop and the scrolling effect is cool. Ultimately, however, it was a solution in search of a problem it never quite found. Asking people to fundamentally rethink how they interact with their content is a big ask — one the Touch Bar was never fully up to.

So, RIP (probably).

Image Credits: Brian Heater

The port situation is identical to the Air’s — which is to say, sparse. You’ve got two USB-C/Thunderbolt 4 ports on one side and a standard 3.5mm headphone jack on the other. I’m glad Apple’s keeping the latter alive on its laptops. I like to plug in for things like editing audio. An additional USB-C port on the side of the headphone jack would be great — and some additional ports, in general, could help differentiate the device from the Air, but again, we’re effectively dealing with the same enclosure as the last 13-inch model. The 14-inch also tosses an HDMI and SD card slot into the mix.

I’ve been keenly aware throughout this writing that the tone of this review would be quite different if Apple hadn’t announced the laptop immediately after the Air (or, for that matter, several months after the 14-inch Pro). It’s a fine laptop, and the M2 brings some impressive gains over the standard M1, but a review requires that additional context.

Image Credits: Brian Heater

The 13-inch MacBook Pro has the new Air beat in a few departments, including battery life, microphones and the inclusion of a cooling system for resource-intensive tasks. On the whole, however, the Air is shaping up to be the clear head-to-head winner of these two systems. And that alone makes this system hard to recommend.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

on

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People who recovered from COVID-19 and received a COVID-19 shot were more likely to suffer adverse reactions, researchers in Europe are reporting.

A medical worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a patient at a vaccination center in Ancenis-Saint-Gereon, France, on Nov. 17, 2021. (Stephane Mahe//Reuters)

Participants in the study were more likely to experience an adverse reaction after vaccination regardless of the type of shot, with one exception, the researchers found.

Across all vaccine brands, people with prior COVID-19 were 2.6 times as likely after dose one to suffer an adverse reaction, according to the new study. Such people are commonly known as having a type of protection known as natural immunity after recovery.

People with previous COVID-19 were also 1.25 times as likely after dose 2 to experience an adverse reaction.

The findings held true across all vaccine types following dose one.

Of the female participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, for instance, 82 percent who had COVID-19 previously experienced an adverse reaction after their first dose, compared to 59 percent of females who did not have prior COVID-19.

The only exception to the trend was among males who received a second AstraZeneca dose. The percentage of males who suffered an adverse reaction was higher, 33 percent to 24 percent, among those without a COVID-19 history.

Participants who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed with a positive test) experienced at least one adverse reaction more often after the 1st dose compared to participants who did not have prior COVID-19. This pattern was observed in both men and women and across vaccine brands,” Florence van Hunsel, an epidemiologist with the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, and her co-authors wrote.

There were only slightly higher odds of the naturally immune suffering an adverse reaction following receipt of a Pfizer or Moderna booster, the researchers also found.

The researchers performed what’s known as a cohort event monitoring study, following 29,387 participants as they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The participants live in a European country such as Belgium, France, or Slovakia.

Overall, three-quarters of the participants reported at least one adverse reaction, although some were minor such as injection site pain.

Adverse reactions described as serious were reported by 0.24 percent of people who received a first or second dose and 0.26 percent for people who received a booster. Different examples of serious reactions were not listed in the study.

Participants were only specifically asked to record a range of minor adverse reactions (ADRs). They could provide details of other reactions in free text form.

“The unsolicited events were manually assessed and coded, and the seriousness was classified based on international criteria,” researchers said.

The free text answers were not provided by researchers in the paper.

The authors note, ‘In this manuscript, the focus was not on serious ADRs and adverse events of special interest.’” Yet, in their highlights section they state, “The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination and booster.”

Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-chair of the group React19, which advocates for people who were injured by vaccines, told The Epoch Times: “It is intellectually dishonest to set out to study minor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination then make conclusions about the frequency of serious adverse events. They also fail to provide the free text data.” He added that the paper showed “yet another study that is in my opinion, deficient by design.”

Ms. Hunsel did not respond to a request for comment.

She and other researchers listed limitations in the paper, including how they did not provide data broken down by country.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccine on March 6.

The study was funded by the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch government.

No authors declared conflicts of interest.

Some previous papers have also found that people with prior COVID-19 infection had more adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including a 2021 paper from French researchers. A U.S. study identified prior COVID-19 as a predictor of the severity of side effects.

Some other studies have determined COVID-19 vaccines confer little or no benefit to people with a history of infection, including those who had received a primary series.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends people who recovered from COVID-19 receive a COVID-19 vaccine, although a number of other health authorities have stopped recommending the shot for people who have prior COVID-19.

Another New Study

In another new paper, South Korean researchers outlined how they found people were more likely to report certain adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination than after receipt of another vaccine.

The reporting of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, or pericarditis, a related condition, was nearly 20 times as high among children as the reporting odds following receipt of all other vaccines, the researchers found.

The reporting odds were also much higher for multisystem inflammatory syndrome or Kawasaki disease among adolescent COVID-19 recipients.

Researchers analyzed reports made to VigiBase, which is run by the World Health Organization.

Based on our results, close monitoring for these rare but serious inflammatory reactions after COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents until definitive causal relationship can be established,” the researchers wrote.

The study was published by the Journal of Korean Medical Science in its March edition.

Limitations include VigiBase receiving reports of problems, with some reports going unconfirmed.

Funding came from the South Korean government. One author reported receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 05:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Key shipping company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The Illinois-based general freight trucking company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize.

Published

on

The U.S. trucking industry has had a difficult beginning of the year for 2024 with several logistics companies filing for bankruptcy to seek either a Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 reorganization.

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a lot of supply chain issues for logistics companies and also created a shortage of truck drivers as many left the business for other occupations. Shipping companies, in the meantime, have had extreme difficulty recruiting new drivers for thousands of unfilled jobs.

Related: Tesla rival’s filing reveals Chapter 11 bankruptcy is possible

Freight forwarder company Boateng Logistics joined a growing list of shipping companies that permanently shuttered their businesses as the firm on Feb. 22 filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy with plans to liquidate.

The Carlsbad, Calif., logistics company filed its petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California listing assets up to $50,000 and and $1 million to $10 million in liabilities. Court papers said it owed millions of dollars in liabilities to trucking, logistics and factoring companies. The company filed bankruptcy before any creditors could take legal action.

Lawsuits force companies to liquidate in bankruptcy

Lawsuits, however, can force companies to file bankruptcy, which was the case for J.J. & Sons Logistics of Clint, Texas, which on Jan. 22 filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The company filed bankruptcy four days before the scheduled start of a trial for a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a former company truck driver who had died from drowning in 2016.

California-based logistics company Wise Choice Trans Corp. shut down operations and filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on Jan. 4 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, listing $1 million to $10 million in assets and liabilities.

The Hayward, Calif., third-party logistics company, founded in 2009, provided final mile, less-than-truckload and full truckload services, as well as warehouse and fulfillment services in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Chapter 7 filing also implemented an automatic stay against all legal proceedings, as the company listed its involvement in four legal actions that were ongoing or concluded. Court papers reportedly did not list amounts for damages.

In some cases, debtors don't have to take a drastic action, such as a liquidation, and can instead file a Chapter 11 reorganization.

Truck shipping products.

Shutterstock

Nationwide Cargo seeks to reorganize its business

Nationwide Cargo Inc., a general freight trucking company that also hauls fresh produce and meat, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois with plans to reorganize its business.

The East Dundee, Ill., shipping company listed $1 million to $10 million in assets and $10 million to $50 million in liabilities in its petition and said funds will not be available to pay unsecured creditors. The company operates with 183 trucks and 171 drivers, FreightWaves reported.

Nationwide Cargo's three largest secured creditors in the petition were Equify Financial LLC (owed about $3.5 million,) Commercial Credit Group (owed about $1.8 million) and Continental Bank NA (owed about $676,000.)

The shipping company reported gross revenue of about $34 million in 2022 and about $40 million in 2023.  From Jan. 1 until its petition date, the company generated $9.3 million in gross revenue.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Key shipping company files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The Illinois-based general freight trucking company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize.

Published

on

The U.S. trucking industry has had a difficult beginning of the year for 2024 with several logistics companies filing for bankruptcy to seek either a Chapter 7 liquidation or Chapter 11 reorganization.

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a lot of supply chain issues for logistics companies and also created a shortage of truck drivers as many left the business for other occupations. Shipping companies, in the meantime, have had extreme difficulty recruiting new drivers for thousands of unfilled jobs.

Related: Tesla rival’s filing reveals Chapter 11 bankruptcy is possible

Freight forwarder company Boateng Logistics joined a growing list of shipping companies that permanently shuttered their businesses as the firm on Feb. 22 filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy with plans to liquidate.

The Carlsbad, Calif., logistics company filed its petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California listing assets up to $50,000 and and $1 million to $10 million in liabilities. Court papers said it owed millions of dollars in liabilities to trucking, logistics and factoring companies. The company filed bankruptcy before any creditors could take legal action.

Lawsuits force companies to liquidate in bankruptcy

Lawsuits, however, can force companies to file bankruptcy, which was the case for J.J. & Sons Logistics of Clint, Texas, which on Jan. 22 filed for Chapter 7 liquidation in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The company filed bankruptcy four days before the scheduled start of a trial for a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of a former company truck driver who had died from drowning in 2016.

California-based logistics company Wise Choice Trans Corp. shut down operations and filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on Jan. 4 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, listing $1 million to $10 million in assets and liabilities.

The Hayward, Calif., third-party logistics company, founded in 2009, provided final mile, less-than-truckload and full truckload services, as well as warehouse and fulfillment services in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Chapter 7 filing also implemented an automatic stay against all legal proceedings, as the company listed its involvement in four legal actions that were ongoing or concluded. Court papers reportedly did not list amounts for damages.

In some cases, debtors don't have to take a drastic action, such as a liquidation, and can instead file a Chapter 11 reorganization.

Truck shipping products.

Shutterstock

Nationwide Cargo seeks to reorganize its business

Nationwide Cargo Inc., a general freight trucking company that also hauls fresh produce and meat, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois with plans to reorganize its business.

The East Dundee, Ill., shipping company listed $1 million to $10 million in assets and $10 million to $50 million in liabilities in its petition and said funds will not be available to pay unsecured creditors. The company operates with 183 trucks and 171 drivers, FreightWaves reported.

Nationwide Cargo's three largest secured creditors in the petition were Equify Financial LLC (owed about $3.5 million,) Commercial Credit Group (owed about $1.8 million) and Continental Bank NA (owed about $676,000.)

The shipping company reported gross revenue of about $34 million in 2022 and about $40 million in 2023.  From Jan. 1 until its petition date, the company generated $9.3 million in gross revenue.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending