You're missing out on the fact that Apple didn't release a 12980hk or 5980hx competitor. These are 30 watt chips that trounce the competition's 65 watt (e.g. the 12980hk and 5980hx) and beyond chips.
Hell, this Geekbench is faster than a desktop 125 watt 11900k. It's faster than a desktop 105 watt 5800x.
Apple intentionally played to the competition here. They know AMD/Intel reach some performance level X and released CPUs that perform no greater than X * 1.2. They know they are in the lead since they are paying TSMC for first dibs on 5nm, but they didn't blow their load on their first generation products.
Intel will release Alder Lake and catch up, AMD will reach Zen4 and catch up and Apple will just reach into their pocket and pull out a "oh here's a 45 watt 4nm CPU with two years of microarch upgrades" and the 2022 MBP 16 will have Geekbench scores of ~2200 and ~17000.
There's a de facto industry leader in process technology today -- TSMC. Apple is the only one willing to pay the premium. They also have a much newer microarch design (circa 2006ish) vs AMD and Intel's early 90s designs. That's a 10-20% advantage (very rough ballpark estimate). The also are on arm which is another 10-20% advantage for the frontend.
The big deal here is that this isn't going to change until Intel's process technology catches up. And, hell, I bet at that point Apple will be willing to pay enough to take first dibs there as well.
AMD will never catch up since we know they don't care to compete against Apple laptops and thus won't pay the premium for TSMC's latest art. Intel might not even care enough and let Apple have mobile/laptop market first dibs on their latest node if Apple is willing not to touch the server market. Whether or not they'd agree on the workstation MacPro vs 2 slot Xeon workstation market would be interesting.
It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop.
> It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop.
...if you only care about the things that Apple laptops are good at. Almost nobody needs a top-of-the-line laptop to do their tasks. Most things that people want to do with computers can be done on a machine that is five to ten years old without any trouble at all. For example I use a ThinkPad T460p, and while the geekbench scores for its processor are maybe half of what Apple achieves here (even worse for multicore!), it does everything I need faster than I need it.
Battery life, screen quality, and ergonomics are the only thing most consumers need to care about. And while Macs are certainly doing well in those categories, there are much cheaper options available that are also good enough.
This is a really useless comparison. A 10 year old laptop will be extremely slow compared to any modern laptop and the battery will have degraded.
The T460 has knock off battery replacements floating around but that’s not exactly reassuring.
Granted: it works for you (and me, actually, I’m one of those people who likes to use an old thinkpad; x201s in my case though I mostly use a dell precision these days) but people will buy new laptops- that’s a thing. The ergonomics of a Mac are pretty decent and the support side of it is excellent.
If you don’t need all that power: that’s what the MacBook Air is for, which is basically uncontested at its performance/battery life/weight.
If you need the grunt, most of the m1 pro and max offer is GPU.
You’re going to think it’s Apple shills downvoting you: it’s not likely to be that. The argument against good low wattage cpus is just an inane and boring one.
Not everyone needs 15+ hours of battery life. I'd argue that most people don't. Laptops were extremely popular when the battery life was two hours. Now even older laptops get 5h+.
This is weird. I feel like I’m talking to someone who has a fixed opinion against something. It’s good for _everyone_ that these chips are as fast as the best chips on the market, have crazy low power consumption and the cost for new is comparable.
Intel have been overcharging for more than a decade when innovation stagnated.
Honestly, I’m not so hot on Apple (FD I am sending this from an iPhone), I prefer to run Linux on my machines but I would not advocate everyone to do that. Just like I wouldn’t advise people to buy old shoes because it’s cheaper. These machines are compelling even for me, a person who relishes the flexibility of a more open platform — I can not imagine myself not recommending them to someone who just uses office suites or communication software. The M1 is basically the best thing you can buy right now for the consumer; and the cost is equivalent for other business machines such as HPs elitebooks or dells latitude or xps lineup.
And for power users: the only good argument you can make is that your tools don’t work for it or you don’t like macos.
If you’re arguing a system to be worse: you’ve lost.
The tradeoff I'm making is money vs capability. My argument is that most people don't need the capabilities offered by brand new, top of the line models. A used laptop that is a couple of years old is, I think, the best choice for most people.
A new M1 laptop is likely to last 4-5 years as a good specification of machine.
A second hand laptop has much less advantage to doing that.
I think this is a false economy.
“The poor man pays twice”
But regardless: the cost isn’t outrageous when compared to the Dell XPS/latitude or HP Elitebook lines (which are the only laptops I know of designed to last a 5y support cycle).
If you’re buying a new laptop, I don’t think I could recommend anything other than an M1 unless you don’t like Apple or MacOS. Which is fair.
I'm still using an X-series Thinkpad I bought used in 2011. I had another laptop in-between but it was one of these fancy modern machines with no replaceable parts and it turned out 4 GB RAM is not enough for basic tasks.
Also the M1 runs near silent or in case of the Air actually silent. I would pay an extra 1000 just for that alone. Turned out the Air was barely more than that in total. Which other laptop does that?
The trade in value for my 6 year old MacBook Air is 150 dollars. Old computers depreciate so fast, that you can afford to buy ten of them for the price of one new computer.
Looks like they’re selling for more than twice that on ebay.co.uk though. And considering MacBook airs are $1000~ devices that’s really high.
6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine.
If I look at 3 year old MacBook airs they’re selling for £600 on eBay, which is, what, half of the full cost. Not great for an already old machine with only a few good years left.
I guess you might save a bit of money using extremely old hardware and keeping it for a while. But this is a really poor argument against an objectively good evolutionarily improved cpu in my opinion.
> 6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine.
That was the case for many decades. I think it’s no longer nearly the case. I’ve got a USB/DP KVM switch on my desk and regularly switch between my work laptop (2019 i9 MBPro) and my personal computer (2014 Dell i7-4790, added SSD and 32GB).
Same 4K screens, peripherals, everything else. I find the Dell every bit as usable and expect to be using it 3 years from now. I wouldn’t be surprised if I retire the MacBook before the Dell.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i9-9980HK-vs-Inte... shows the Mac to have only a slight edge and that’s a 2 year old literal top of line Mac laptop vs a mid-range commodity office desktop from 6 years ago bought with < $200 in added parts. (Much of what users do is waiting on the network or the human; when waiting on the CPU, you’re often waiting on something single-threaded. Mac is < 20% faster single-threaded.)
Honestly, I'm not sure what we're discussing anymore. If you don't need (or want) an all round better experience then that's on you.
But don't go saying that these things are too expensive or that the performance isn't there. Because it is.
If Apple had released something mediocre I'd understand this thread, but this is a legitimately large improvement in laptop performance, from GPU, to memory, to storage, to IO, to single threaded CPU performance.
Everyone kept bashing AMD for not beating Intel in single thread.
Everone bashed Apple for using previous Gen low TDP intel chips.
Now Apple has beaten both AMD and Intel in a very good form factor, and people still have a bone to pick.
Please understand that your preference is yours, these are legitimately good machines, every complaint that anyone had about macbooks has been addressed. Some people will just never be happy.
I was commenting only on whether “6 years is beyond the service life of any machine”, which I tried to make clear with my quoting and reply.
I’ve got no bone to pick with Apple and am not making any broad anti-Apple or anti-M1 case. (I decided to [have work] buy the very first MBPro after they un-broke the keyboard and am happy with it.)
Of the five to eight topics you raise after your first two sentences, I said exactly zero of them.
As the parent, I'd like to say... my entire argument isn't that top-of-the-line laptops are too expensive for what they do but rather that
(1) older macbooks are identical to mediocre new laptops in performance & price
(2) medicore laptops are very cheap for what they do
(3) desktops are far more economical when you need power.
If you spec out a laptop to be both powerful, light weight, and as beautiful as a MBP then you're going to pay a real premium. Paying for premium things is not the default.
> 6 years is also beyond the service life of a(ny) machine.
I'm still on 2013 MBP which doesn't show any signs of deterioration (except battery life). It's got retina, fast SSD, ok-ish GPU (it can play Civ V just fine).
I'd gladly pay for a guarantee that the machine will not break for the next 10 years - I think it will still be a prefectly usable laptop in 10 years from now.
> I guess you might save a bit of money using extremely old hardware and keeping it for a while.
If you get the best, and keep it for a while then even though it won't be bleeding edge anymore it'll still be in the middle of mediocre.
When it comes to computers, mediocre is actually pretty usable. A $600 computer can do pretty much everything, including handling normal scale non-enterprise software development. I didn't really realize it until I went back to school for science, but many projects are bound by the capacity of your mind and not the speed of your CPU.
6 years? I afraid that's just not the case. I have a cheap 2013 dell laptop that is all i need for office 2017 and a few other things that just work better in windows than linux (zoom/webex/office/teams). I gave about $150 for that thing and another $50 to double the ram. It's fine for what I need and use it with very little lag. I'll admit I cheated a little bit and put in an 256GB SSD drive that I have laying around.
Trade-in value on electronics is way lower than resale value. I’ve sold a couple 2014/2015 MacBook Pros this year for $700+ and probably could’ve gotten more had I held out.
This is fine and people who have budget limits have options both new and used. It seems like this has been the case for quite a while although things like the pandemic probably impacted the used market (I haven't researched that.)
The thing you are denying is that people have both needs and wants. Wants are not objective, no matter how much you try to protest their existence. There is no rational consumer here.
There are inputs beyond budget which sometimes even override budget (and specific needs!) Apple has created desirable products that even include some slightly cheaper options. The result is that people will keep buying things that they don't really need, but they'll likely still get some satisfaction. I don't suggest that this is great for society, the environment, or many other factors - but, it's the reality we live in.
That's why most people buy the bottom of the line models. The base Macbook Air is the most common purchase, and the best choice for most people.
People buy it brand new because its small, lightweight, attractive, reliable, long-lasting hardware with very low depreciation, great support, and part of Apple's ecosystem. Cost is not the same as value and the value of your dollar is much greater with these.
> My argument is that most people don't need the capabilities offered by brand new, top of the line models. A used laptop that is a couple of years old is, I think, the best choice for most people.
I think you're correct. But also the majority of people will buy brand new ones either way. And a lot of them will spend much more than they should too.
> Not everyone needs mobile internet. I'd argue that most people don't. Mobile phones were extremely popular when they didn't have any internet connectivity.
I am not mocking you, but here the case is that people do not know what true mobility for laptops is, that they literally can leave power brick behind, not to think about whether the battery lasts or not and use it freely during the day everywhere. This has been impossible until now, there has always been the constraint of do I really need to open my laptop, what if it dies, where is the power plug. As soon as masses realize that this is now no worry, everyone wants and needs 15+ hours battery life.
Unless those usecases are already covered by other devices that they have. A couple of years ago I might have wanted to use my laptop all day so that I can check the internet, listen to music etc. But today I can just use my phone for that.
Here's a different take to that:
If I refuse to use Windows as my OS on my Dell Inspiron 7559 I have to live with like 2 hours of battery life and a hot lap because power management doesn't work properly. So much as watching a YouTube video under Linux makes it loud and hot.
Same laptop could do 9+ consistently for me in Windows and remained quiet unless I was actually putting load on it.
The reading I've done on the Framework laptops makes it sound like this situation has not improved, or at least not anywhere near enough to compete with Windows.. this has effectively ruled them out of the running on a replacement laptop for me.
An M1 based Macbook sure is looking appealing these days. I can live with macOS.
Not everyone needs decent battery life, but some of us do.
> The argument against good low wattage cpus is just an inane and boring one.
> Not everyone needs 15+ hours of battery life.
Low wattage is not only about battery life. It is mostly about requiring less power for the same work. However you look at it, it is good for everyone. Now that Apple has shown that this can be done, everyone else will do the same.
Define "extremely". You get maybe a factor 2 or so, not 10 or 100. Is that nicer? Yes, sure. Is it necessary? No, older stuff is perfectly sufficient for most people.
Also, it is "if you need that power and need it with laptop formfactor". Again, impressive, but desktops/servers work just as well for most people.
Saying a 10 year old laptop is 2x or 4x slower than a new laptop is just a tiny part of the big picture.
I would say that for a light laptop user, the main reasons to upgrade are:
- displays: make a big difference for watching youtube, reading, etc. You can't really compare a 120 Hz XDR retina display with a 10 year old display.
- webcam: makes a big difference when video conferencing with family, etc.
- battery life: makes a big difference if you are on the go a lot. My 10 year old laptop had new something like 4 hours battery life. Any new laptop has more than 15h, some over 20h.
- fanless: silent laptops that don't overheat are nice, nicer to have on your lap, etc.
- accelerators: some zoom and teams backgrounds use AI a lot, and perform very poorly on old laptops without AI accelerators. Same for webcams.
If you talk about perf, that's obviously workload dependent, but having 4x more cores, that are 2-4x faster each, can make a big difference. I/O, encryption, etc. has improved quite a bit, which can make a difference if you deal with big files.
Still, you can get most of this new stuff for 1000$ in a macbook air with M1. Seems like a no brainer for light users that _need_ or _want_ to upgrade. If you don't want to upgrade, that's ok, but saying that you are only missing 2x better performance is misleading. You are missing a lot more stuff.
I’ve got a T470 with a brand new 400nits 100% sRGB and like 80% AdobeRGB screen. You can even get 4K screens with awesome quality for the T4xx laptops with 40-pin eDP.
With 17h battery life even on performance mode.
With a new, 1080p webcam.
With 32GB of DDR4-2400 RAM
With 2TB NVMe Storage.
With 95Wh replaceable batteries, of which I can still get brand new original parts and which I can replace while using the laptop.
for a total below 500$.
If I'd upgrade the top-of-the-line T480 accordingly, I'd still be below 800$ and performance that's not that far off anymore.
2011 desktop CPUs will perform about half as well as a modern laptop one.
I don’t even think Sandybridge (Intel 2011) CPUs support h264 decode- a pretty common requirement these days for zoom, slack, teams and video streaming sites such as YouTube.
>2011 desktop CPUs will perform about half as well as a modern laptop one.
Maybe, but the fat client-thin client pendulum has swung back in favor of thin clients to the point that CPU performance is generally irrelevant (it kind of has to be, since most people browse the Web with their phones). As for games, provided you throw enough GPU at the problem acceptable performance is still absolutely achievable, but that's not new either.
>a pretty common requirement these days for zoom, slack, teams and video streaming sites such as YouTube
It really isn't: from experience the hard line for acceptable performance is "anything first-gen Core iX (Nehalem) or later"- Core 2 systems are legitimately too old for things like 4K video playback, however. The limiting factor on older machines like that is ultimately RAM (because Electron), but provided you've maxed out a system with 16GB+ and an SSD there's no real performance difference between a first-gen Core system and an 11th-gen Core system for all thin client (read: web) applications.
That said, it's also worth noting that the average laptop really took a dive in speed with Haswell and didn't start getting the 10% year-over-year improvements again until Skylake because ultra-low-voltage processors became the norm after that time and set the average laptop about 4 years back in speed compared to their standard-voltage counterparts: those laptops genuinely might not be fast enough now, but the standard-voltage ones absolutely are.
Yes… only half as well as modern laptop. Back on the era of Moore’s law, a new machine would be 32x as fast as a ten year old model.
That was a real difference.
But in 2021, people still buy laptops 1/2 as slow as other models to do the same work. Heck people go out of their way to buy iPad pros which are half as slow as comparable laptops.
Considering that, I think a ten year old machine is pretty competitive as an existing choice.
IPad Pro 2021: 1118 on geekbench[1] priced at @ 2,199.00 fully specced at the 12.9 inch model with keyboard.
Macbook Air 2020: 1733 on geekbench[2]. Priced @ about 1,849.00 fully speced for 13-inch model.
That's what I mean by comparable tablets are more expensive than laptops. You have to pay a lot more because it has a dual form factor (like the Microsoft Surfacebooks).
Sandy Bridges actually do have hardware decoding, but this isn't really a CPU feature, since it's a separate accelerator more akin to an integrated GPU. FWIW sites like Youtube seem to prefer the most bandwidth-efficient codec regardless of whether hardware decoding is available.
Exactly, no 100x, no 10x, just half. That is very noticeable but "extreme" sounds like much more.
> I don’t even think Sandybridge (Intel 2011) CPUs support h264 decode-
Correct, but unrelated to CPU speed and instead an additional hardware component. That is a fair argument, just like missing suitable HDMI standards, usb c, etc.. However, again that is not about speed but features.
I'm still using my 12 (!) year old 17" MacBook Pro as daily work machine. Yes, it's not the fastest computer but for my usage it works. Granted, starting IntelliJ needs some time, but coding still works well (and compiling big codebases isn't done locally).
The one thing that really isn't usable anymore is Aperture/Lightroom. And missing docker because my CPU is too old (but docker it still works in VMs ...) is a pain.
I'm still using my 2014 16" MacBook Pro too - the SSD has made such a dramatic difference to the performance of machines that I think in general they age much better than previously.
I'm not a heavy user but that machine can easily handle xcode Objc/c++ programming quite handily.
The keyboard of the ThinkPad is and was always great and the TrackPoint is a bonus on top of it for some of us. The other part of Input/Output is a good screen. Only after I/O the performance is of matter.
What I don't like about Apples devices is the keyboard, they don't provide a equally good trigger point (resistance and feedback) and the keycaps aren't concave (not leading fingers). The quality problems and the questionable Touchbar are problem, too. Lenovo did that before Apple and immediately stopped it, they accept mistake far quicker. I still suspect both - Apple and Lenvo - tried to save money with a cheap touchbar instead of more expensive keys.
But there is the performance? First, Apple only claims to be fast. What matter are comparisons of portable applications and not synthetic benchmarks. Benchmarks never mattered. Secondly, Apple uses a lot of money (from the customers) to get the best chip quality in industry from TMSC.
What we have are the choice between all-purpose computers from vendors like Lenovo, Dell or System67 or computing appliances from Apple. I say computing appliance and not all-purpose computer, because I'm not aware of official porting documentation for BSD, Linux or Windows. More importantly MacOS hinders free application shipment not as worse as iOS but it is already a pain for developers, you need to use Homebrew for serious computing tasks.
Finally the money?
Lenovo wants 1.000 - 1.700 Euro for a premium laptop like ThinkPad X13/T14 with replacement parts for five years, public maintenance manuals and official support for Linux and Windows.
Apple wants 2.400 - 3.400 for no maintenance manuals, no public available replacement parts and you must use MacOS. Okay, the claim it is faster. Likely it is.
You buy performance with an exorbitant amount of money but with multiple drawbacks? Currently I'm still using a eight year old ThinkPad X220 with Linux. The operating-system I want and need, excellent keyboard, comfortable trackpoint and a good IPS-Screen. I think the money was well spent - for me :)
You cannot win this argument because for some people Lynx in a terminal is an acceptable way of browsing the web.
Also, people argue in bad faith all the time and a lot of people for whom it isn’t an acceptable way of browsing the web would pretend it is anyway to win an argument.
> Battery life, screen quality, and ergonomics are the only thing most consumers need to care about.
You, Sir, are a very utilitarian consumer. Most consumers care about being in the "In" crowd, i.e., owning the brand that others think is cool. Ideally, it comes in a shiny color. That's it. The exact details are just camouflage.
Yea I agree. Implicit in my statement is `for the people in the market Apple is targeting`. You aren't going to buy a $4000 computer and you'll be happy with a clunker. I, and many people in my situation, don't feel there are options for $4000 laptops right now.
surprised by your experience with an older laptop. I have both a 4 years old dell (forget it's name right now, for biz uses) and a 2015 MBA (which makes it 6 years old now), and they are both getting SLOW. In a vacuum - they are fine, they pull through. but they are notably slow machines. (i prefer windows but can't stand the dell and find myself keep going back to the mba - although youtube sucks on that machine with chrome)
edit: oh the mba battery is still a miracle compared to the dell's, btw
I bought the T460p last year. It replaced a 2009 Macbook pro with spinning rust. That machine was fine too, but it stopped getting updates years ago so I had to replace it. I hope that Linux will support the T460p for longer.
A lot of people don't have a desktop so a very powerful laptop that just works (tm) well for software development and can be lugged around effortlessly is ideal. I haven't owned a desktop myself in years and many engineers I know have been letting their rigs collect dust as the laptop just does it all.
For the price, there isn't something comparable in all respects.
> It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop.
They already don't make sense as the M1 isn't a "general purpose" CPU like Intel or AMD that support multiple operating systems, and even the development of new ones. Instead, the M1 is a black-box that only fully supports macOS - that's a crippling limitation for many of us.
> It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop.
Some people need the ability to repair or upgrade, or the freedom to install any software they need. Not to mention that so far we have seen comparison of the M1 "professiona lline" to a gaming laptop; professionals deal with quadro cards since the RTXs are driver limited for workstation duties, and speaking of gaming on OSX makes no sense.
For me it might be a long time since I can even consider buying another Apple product.
If they can't innovate, all they can do is keep increasing the core count ... don't think that'll help them compete with future AMD / Intel / ARM or RISC cpus in the long term.
And your AMD laptop can run many OSes, while your wife will forever be stuck on macOS on the Apple M1 laptop whose hardware is designed to be hard to repair and upgrade ...
I tried to work with the apple laptop, it's very good in many aspects, but I needed a program and it can't be installed without Apple ID. I think there are many programs like that for the Mac, so I passed.
>It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop.
Can't tell if sarcastic but until you can run Linux on the M1 I don't see any reason to buy an Apple laptop.
It could be 10x faster than the competition but with OSX it would still feel like a net productivity loss, from having to deal with bugs and jank in the software.
> It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop.
A laptop that can do some light gaming is not a niche requirement, and ultimately Apple decided to completely turn it's back on that market with the ARM transition.
The architecture isn't to blame; it's the 32-bit stuff that breaks a fair amount of Steam games, and Vulkan/graphics engines lacking, both of which are...Apple being Apple
> there's really no reason to buy an apple laptop short of bragging
That seems like a simplistic view, and honestly, I'd figure you don't value much what the Mac delivers for me, mostly aesthetic and lack of tinkering. For instance, this Mac has a nice, large trackpad, and even high end laptops from other manufacturers tend to feel a bit clunky by comparison. I don't like fan noise, and the Air performs well for a fanless machine. With a Dell laptop, I still had problems with audio drivers and bluetooth devices--I just don't want to mess with that crap, at all, ever, and even from the manufacturer, I'm dealing with driver issues and bad configuration. I don't want the ability to de-crapify my PC with a fresh install of Windows, I want to open the box and not have an OS loaded with 3rd party crap, and that's not something you get with a PC.
I could probably go on for a while if I thought about it, but I don't even consider an Apple laptop anything to brag about. Generally, I'm tech savvy, but so far over it that I want an appliance machine. I find visible logos, products, and brand identities tacky, so bragging doesn't even enter into the equation. Visible Apple logo counts against the machine for me.
Windows, that is even in 2021 is still a clanky garbage.
Or Linux (any distro) that can't be installed on a newest hardware without any trouble at all (my relatively recent experience).
An even then you get an OS that you have to fix yourself for it to work and feel remotely nice. Yet without decent software in most cases outside of software development.
> Windows, that is even in 2021 is still a clanky garbage.
That's how I feel about macOS. It's for people who prioritize maximum animations over speed. For example, Finder is so slow compared to Windows Explorer. I love Windows. I love the customizability I love the speed, and even 15 years ago, there were 10X more software package for Windows than Mac.
I hear that macOS in recent years (after 2019?) even allows you to change the drab grey color of the menu bar? That's progress! Maybe by 2030, they will allow you to move the menu bar to a vertical orientation because that's how a lot of people prefer it; there's less vertical space than horizontal on most monitors. I honestly cannot understand how one can stand this stifling arrangement where you are told, "This is how it is, we know better".
>That's how I feel about macOS. It's for people who prioritize maximum animations over speed. For example, Finder is so slow compared to Windows Explorer. I love Windows. I love the customizability I love the speed, and even 15 years ago, there were 10X more software package for Windows than Mac.
Well, I don't have windows at hand, but Finder on my 2019 MPBr opens in much less than a second. Maybe Explorer opens 3 time faster but what's the point? Yes, I do prioritise speed over animations (linux is clearly a winner when it comes to animations by the way, macOS has just a few by default) when it really matters.
>there were 10X more software package for Windows than Mac.
Quality over quantity. I do agree that macOS lacks in a few departments but most of the time this is due to the closed-garden-like nature. Windows has things like Rufus and other tools because it has to play jack of all trades role. macOS is free of this. Like it or not.
>I love the customizability
This is understandable. I love this on linux too. Now I just don't have the time nor do I care rally. I'd prefer an OS that gives me 80% of what I need\want for 10% of my time rather than an OS that requires me to spend 50% of my time for all those tweaks.
This very discussion shows that two people can have differing opinions and thus, the choice should be left to the user. That is my main point.
Now, on a completely different note : a little bit more about the Vertical layout. Here are two articles with screenshots. It's awesome and now I can't go back to Horizontal taskbar ever.
Those articles are about the Windows Taskbar, not the menu I was talking about. This is what I was trying to clarify in my earlier question, when I asked "Do you mean the File/Edit/View menu bar, or the Dock?"
You insisted at the time that you meant the MENU bar, not the Dock, but now it appears that was incorrect.
This got a little long, but the tl;dr here is that you are confused on terms, and that the thing you say can't be moved on the Mac absolutely can be, and always could be.
--
One of the ways in which Win and MacOS are different is that, in MacOS, the File/Edit/View menu is always across the top of the screen, not bound to a specific window. I'm typing this in Firefox. I have several Firefox windows open, but NONE of them have a File menu. The menus for Firefox are across the top of my monitor.
In Windows, by contast, this menu is part of each window spawned by a given application. Most modern Windows programs use the Ribbon style menu, but some older or less-updated tools (e.g., SQL Server Management Studio) use the old-style. If I were doing this post on Firefox on Windows, each of my Firefox windows would have its own File/Edit/View menu.
In both Mac and Windows, this menu is always in this known position -- ie, on a Mac, it's across the top of the screen; on Windows, it's part of the top of each app window. It cannot be moved (to the best of my knowledge).
What YOU are talking about (and what those articles are talking about) is called the Taskbar in Windows. The analogous item in MacOS is the Dock. In both systems, the default location is the bottom of the screen, and in both systems it is possible to change this.
-> In Windows, the Taskbar can be placed on the bottom (default), either side, or across the top of the screen.
-> In MacOS, the Dock can be placed on either side or the bottom; you can't put it on the top of the screen because it would interfere with the aforementioned File/Edit/View menu.
--> In NEITHER OS is it possible to reposition the File/Edit/View menu.
You are right. I think the confusion arises because this Menu bar at the top mixes up the File/Edit/View menu to the left and the bluetooth and WiFi icons to the right. When you minimize all windows, what does this top bar show? How do you access the WiFi icon if all windows are minimized and this top bar is disappeared? Sorry, the last time I used a macOS was in 2017.
(Also, to the extreme left of this Menu bar is the Apple icon which can be used to access the "System Preferences". I guess this mixing of system-wide and program-specific menu options doesn't bother macOS folks.)
The key distinction here is that the MacOS menu bar isn't part of any Window, so it never disappears. Under MacOS, SOME application ALWAYS has focus, and whatever has focus shows its menu options there between the Apple menu and the right-hand icons (see below).
This is different from Windows. On a Mac, if you quit all your apps entirely, then the only remaining application is Finder, which has no real equivalent under Windows and cannot really be quit (you can restart it, tho, which is sometimes required).
Finder is how you navigate to files, but it's also the "shell" that controls how you interact with the computer -- it gives you the Dock, the menus, etc.
The area to the right, as you correctly surmise, is more analogous to the System Tray area on the right side of the Taskbar under Windows. That side doesn't change with app focus.
The Apple menu is always there, yes.
As for your final snide note, no, we're not bothered, because it's not something to be bothered by (besides, the same supposed "issue" exists in the System Tray on Windows, where background app and system level options often coexist).
Honestly, I think this thread probably MOSTLY shows that people who aren't terribly familiar with an OS should avoid making negative statements about it.
Well, I've been hacking on Linux for 8 years and been a maintainer for a few packages in AUR so what?
Even the way you present yourself here proves my point. This is not an OS for a comfortable life, it's a system for "hacking" (including the system itself).
If you still have passion and time for this - cool, most people don't want to spend their days on this.
> If you still have passion and time for this - cool, most people don't want to spend their days on this.
Just adding another counterpoint to "MacOs is awsome", anecdotal one, because we don't have any other.
My wife (she is not a hacker, just a computer science teacher) hates macos, she preferred Linux.
She used the system I setup for her, and I left it alone. She loved it.
MacOS is created for average Joe that just browses web and has no clue about anything else (like filesystem, directories). Example: Finder, that thingy can't show you full paths. If you try to get to your home directory to get some files you have to jump hoops.
I'm astonished that it is pushed as a developer OS, "because you have 'Linux' there". Sorry, that poor choice of basic utilities (some time ago bash there was ages old), that everyone has to use brew to get anything useful there.
Hardware is nice, but OS, is something that you just overwrite while installing Linux.
> Example: Finder, that thingy can't show you full paths
It can
> If you try to get to your home directory to get some files you have to jump hoops.
You don't
> Sorry, that poor choice of basic utilities (some time ago bash there was ages old), that everyone has to use brew to get anything useful there.
Ah yes, unlike the great linux where everyone is using apt-get/yum to install anything useful
Disclaimer: have used Macs as my primary developer machine since 2008 across 4 industries as both frontend and backend developer in half a dozen different programming languages.
I use a AMD Linux machine for work (softfware development).
Now I want to setup a second machine for audio production (Pro Tools and Ableton). For that I have the choice between Windows and Linux. Easy choice for me: M1 and MacOS, I certainly won't dabble with Windows.
You misunderstand - the MacOS software stack can only scale the UI to 1x,2x, 3x. So you can either use 4K display at 2X scaling, which gives you fullhd worth of realestate with Retina resolution. Or you can use it at 1x, ehich gives you tiny icons.
When you use 'looks like 2560/qHD', then the OS renders to a virtual surface, pretending it has a 5K screen attached. Then it downscales that image, and outputs it. The result is janky straign lines, blurry'er text, etc.
Modern Windows and Android render their UI natively in any resolution, and so you don't get issues. The caviat is that windows has 3 UI frameworks, and the oldest one is still found is some places, that's the one that doesn't scale.
People who can't afford Apple laptops (and gamers and certain other use cases) buy cheaper laptops. The brand appeal draws all the wealthy people towards Apple devices.
A lot of tech companies let their engineers choose between something like an X1 Carbon or a Macbook.
Lots of tech workers, in my experience, actually choose a Macbook for work because they really want to use a slick, luxury device and can't justify the cost for personal use... particularly given how many of them actually use their work laptops for personal tasks in off hours.
I think HN underestimates how many SWE's actually don't do much programming or use their personal computers for much at all. Particularly those with families.
> I think HN underestimates how many SWE's actually don't do much programming or use their personal computers for much at all. Particularly those with families.
This. I haven't owned personal computer for 10 years now, always use laptop I get from work.
> This. I haven't owned personal computer for 10 years now, always use laptop I get from work.
While a lot of folks do this, it’s such a terrible practice from your perspective (the company essentially owns your personal data) and the company’s (way higher risk). It’s not something I’d do, let alone brag about as if it’s a good thing, if I were you.
could it be that your corporate laptop is loaded with pile of monitoring, management and antivirus crapware? i have one, and it annoys the hell out of me.
Even if you don't look at refurbished, here in France, a MacBook Air is 1029€ brand new.
A comparable ThinkPad X1 Carbon is 2499€ minimum (that's the base model, with 256GB/8GB, but with a high-res screen).
A comparable Dell XPS 13 is 1699€ (same, cheapest one with a high-res screen you can buy; though you can't have the high-res screen without buying 512/16GB).
The ThinkPad T14 Gen 2 (successor to T490, supposed to be the cheap ThinkPad) starts at an astonishing 2156€ for 1080p. That's the very cheapest T14 you can buy, period. I could buy a T450 new for $700 when I was in the US! T14s starts at 2369€, again for 1080p. They keep selling old models so they can still hit lower price points.
The cheapest T14 you can buy with a high-res screen comes with 8GB ram, 128GB SSD (WTF?) and costs 3408€ (no, not a joke) or 3548€ if you want a graphics card.
HP starts at 1599€ for high-res HP Spectre.
Even if you forget the whole "premium laptop thing", I went on the Dell website and asked it to list all high-res 13" laptops: the cheapest is the 1699€ XPS. They don't made high-res Inspirons smaller than 15 inch. I believe the cheapest high-res laptop HP makes is that 1599€ Spectre, though their website is buggy. HP doesn't offer cheaper high-res devices except an 11" Chromebook.
These are all the official prices from the official manufacturer website.
Even on ok1.de, which has extremely cheap student prices, it's 1499€ for a high-res P14s, 2159€ for the cheapest high-res X1 Carbon, and 2,019€ for the cheapest high-res T14s. And then, we're comparing it to the 900€ student-price MacBook Air.
I've researched it for weeks, and there isn't a single premium Windows laptop that matches the MacBook Air on price.
Hm, the XPS 13 base model is a bit cheaper than the Air base model (in Austria), the screens are comparable (FHD+ is lower res than Retina, but then 4K is far more, so there is no direct comparison). I do have a 13" XPS and I can tell you, the basic screen (FHD in my case) is more than good enough.
But I was just blown away how expensive Lenovo has become. HP has always been expensive.
I'm also looking at the fresh Linux laptops, like the TUXEDO InfinityBook Pro 14, which are in the same price range and look very compelling, if you are OK with running Linux, that is (I am)...
Interesting, I just went back on the XPS website and the base, 1080p XPS 13 with 11th gen Intel is 1000€ for 512GB. I remember it being much more when I checked this morning. That does seem like a great price.
I think I found the issue: when you select the 13" from the products page, it shows 1000€, but if you select it, then switch the configurator to the 2-in-1 13", and then switch back the 11th gen 13", the base model with 256GB now costs 1400€. That website bug cost Dell a sale, since I would have definitely bought it instead of the M1 Air if I had seen the real price. What a shame!
Funnily enough also, when I configure it with 4K, then switch back to 1080p and switch every option back, it costs 1050€ instead of 1000€ for the exact same config.
Hell, this Geekbench is faster than a desktop 125 watt 11900k. It's faster than a desktop 105 watt 5800x.
Apple intentionally played to the competition here. They know AMD/Intel reach some performance level X and released CPUs that perform no greater than X * 1.2. They know they are in the lead since they are paying TSMC for first dibs on 5nm, but they didn't blow their load on their first generation products.
Intel will release Alder Lake and catch up, AMD will reach Zen4 and catch up and Apple will just reach into their pocket and pull out a "oh here's a 45 watt 4nm CPU with two years of microarch upgrades" and the 2022 MBP 16 will have Geekbench scores of ~2200 and ~17000.
There's a de facto industry leader in process technology today -- TSMC. Apple is the only one willing to pay the premium. They also have a much newer microarch design (circa 2006ish) vs AMD and Intel's early 90s designs. That's a 10-20% advantage (very rough ballpark estimate). The also are on arm which is another 10-20% advantage for the frontend.
The big deal here is that this isn't going to change until Intel's process technology catches up. And, hell, I bet at that point Apple will be willing to pay enough to take first dibs there as well.
AMD will never catch up since we know they don't care to compete against Apple laptops and thus won't pay the premium for TSMC's latest art. Intel might not even care enough and let Apple have mobile/laptop market first dibs on their latest node if Apple is willing not to touch the server market. Whether or not they'd agree on the workstation MacPro vs 2 slot Xeon workstation market would be interesting.
It might be a long time before it makes sense to buy a non-Apple laptop.