Do Macs degrade slower than an average PC

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

So then you really have nothing to say. Apple support is, at best, average.

Hold on a minute here. this is not an *heh...* Apples to Apples comparison (unless you're buying first party Surface line hardware).

 

"Apple" Support includes all aspects of the ecosystem. That includes average life of the hardware itself. Future driver updates to new versions of the OS, etc.

 

Whereas "Windows" support is just software. Microsoft isn't going to support an Acer Aspire from 2008 - at least, not specifically. The OEM may or may not have new drivers for it.

 

It's also important to realize that because Apple has a much smaller lineup of hardware (compared to the thousands of variations of Windows based computers), that blanket statements like "Apple's Thermal Solutions are worse" is meaningless.

 

Because I can guarantee you that a piece of crap HP Pavilion laptop from 2010 had far worse thermals then a comparable Mac of the same era. Most consumer laptops have been trash when it comes to thermal management for years. This is only slowly starting to change, and even now you have to be careful.

 

Is it fair to compare a $400 piece of crap laptop against a $1200 laptop? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on the specific context.

 

Windows computers tend to get pretty shitty with age - this is typically the users fault, to some degree, since they don't keep it clean (physically for thermals, and digitally with bloatware), and they keep loading it with toolbars and system tray applications and other things that slowly just bog it down.

 

Part of that is certainly the users fault. A tech enthusiast or IT technician can keep a Windows computer running smoothly for a far longer period, since they know how to manage it properly, prevent it from slowing down in the first place, and know how to speed it up.

 

But part of that is also the fault of Windows itself, since it very easily lends itself to being bogged down... Not to mention how basically every OEM includes an ungodly amount of bloatware from the factory.

 

You could of course point to DIY custom builds, like most of us use here, which would include fresh installs of Windows w/ little or no bloatware... But of course, we're but the tiny sliver of a minority of PC users. The vast vast majority of PC users are using OEM computers, most of which come with bloatware.

 

And even in Windows 10, bloatware is still an issue w/ fresh non-OEM "blank" installs of Windows, where they include shit like Candy Crush links, etc.

 

That's part of the reason I started to use the Windows 10 Decrapifier powershell script on every fresh install we do at work.

 

So if we break it down to the basics:

1. Hardware: There's nothing inherently different or special about mac hardware. A well designed Mac will physically last the same length - on average - as a well designed PC. A shitty designed Mac will last shorter, just like a shitty designed PC. Some Mac's have issues with Thermals - see Louis Rossmann's YouTube channel for common variants that have these issues. But not all Mac's have inherent thermal issues. Definitely plenty will last 5+ years easily, and some will last 10+ years.

Hardware: Draw

 

2. Software - this is the main difference, and goes in both directions.

2.a. OS support - Apple loses some points here because each individual version of macOS X is only supported for around 3 years.

2.b. OS Updates - Apple gains here because all OS updates are free, assuming your hardware is physically capable of the update. This means that a lot more Mac's are running a newer version of macOS, compared to say, computers that shipped with Vista or Windows 8.

2.c. General software support - Apple gains here again, since they provide more consistent driver/software updates over the lifetime of the system. The vast majority of OEM's will provide driver updates for a year or two - maybe 3, and will generally stick to the version of Windows that the system was released with (Eg: It comes with Windows 7 drivers. These drivers might work well on Windows 8 or 10, but the system never got Windows 10 native drivers). Some of these you can manually find from the hardware partner itself (eg: Intel drivers) but not always, and often they are missing custom drivers made specifically for your computer.

2.d. Bloatware: Windows is far worse off when it comes to bloatware. PC's come with more of it. It's easier to install in general. Many tools/free software - even legit ones - try to trick or convince you into installing a useless bloatware program that they get a kickback for including.

2.e. Legacy support - here's where Microsoft shines. The fact that ultimately, Windows still uses a lot of the base code from as far back as Windows XP (and further) means that many drivers and software written for a much older operating system will still work well under Windows 10. This is of course not universal. Plenty of legacy software or drivers are buggy as fuck under Windows 10, or straight up don't even work. Some of these can be modified or hacked to work (eg: a simple OS version check that can be disabled), but never the less, the average user is never going to know how to do that. Point goes to Microsoft.

Software: Let's call it a draw as well

 

So as you can see, one is not inherently better than the other - although contextually, this will shift one way or the other under many circumstances.

 

In many ways, Windows PC's are better simply because there's more of them. Therefore there are more variations, some of which are objectively as good, or better, design-wise, compared to a Mac. Some OEM's will support some or specific models w/ driver updates for a longer period.

 

But that's also the flaw of Windows. For every good well designed Laptop, there are 7 shitty ones that thermal throttle and are so hot that they hurt your lap if you use it as an actual laptop.

 

Apple is at least more consistent, since they control the entire system. That has both benefits and cons.

[wasab]

16 hours ago, Drak3 said:

 

 

Hell, LTS updates to Linux are typically supported for 4+ years. Canonical started 5 year support with the LTS distros with 12.04LTS. And most maintainers support all hardware that meets the minimum requirements of the OS.

 

Rolling releases are supported forever as long as your hardware are capable. Oh, don't forget Linux is free and you can install any of them on it unlike Windows or Macs that if your hawardee isn't supported anymore or you don't pay an upgrade license, there is no more updates 

[wasab]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

 

Microsft is dependent on people buying licenses, the two companies have such different corporate strategies that it’s almost impossible to compare them together. The only reason you can is Apple happens to make a desktop operating system. 

False false false. Microshaft sells winblows pro tablets and a few years ago, winblows phones. They can easily be in the hardware markets, although that will mean competing against their own customers like Dell who purchase Windows license from them. 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Rolling releases are supported forever as long as your hardware are capable. Oh, don't forget Linux is free and you can install any of them on it unlike Windows or Macs that if your hawardee isn't supported anymore or you don't pay an upgrade license, there is no more updates 

Rolling releases are a new version of the OS, so using a rolling release is exactly like going from Windows Vista, to 7, to 8, to 8.1, to 10.

[wasab]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Rolling releases are a new version of the OS, so using a rolling release is exactly like going from Windows Vista, to 7, to 8, to 8.1, to 10.

I use Arch, that is rolling release. Please tell me where I can find Arch 1.0 or 2.0?

 

You are misinform. 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, wasab said:

False false false. Microshaft sells winblows pro tablets and a few years ago, winblows phones. They can easily be in the hardware markets, although that will mean competing against their own customers like Dell who purchase Windows license from them. 

Microsoft selling a few specific lines of hardware as a "Hey OEM's, this is what you should be trying to make" is not at all comparable to Apple always having been a Hardware company.

 

Also, let's cut out the fanboy childish terms like "Microshaft" and "winblows" - I know we're not all adults here (quite literally a lot of our users are kids), but we're all mature.

 

Microsoft makes more money when they can sell 100 licenses to Dell, instead of selling 10 Surface Pro tablets.

[wasab]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Microsoft selling a few specific lines of hardware as a "Hey OEM's, this is what you should be trying to make" is not at all comparable to Apple always having been a Hardware company.

 

Also, let's cut out the fanboy childish terms like "Microshaft" and "winblows" - I know we're not all adults here (quite literally a lot of our users are kids), but we're all mature.

 

Microsoft makes more money when they can sell 100 licenses to Dell, instead of selling 10 Surface Pro tablets.

You know how much Windows license costs to oems???? You know how much pro tablets costs???? You sure your math is correct? 

[Jtalk4456]

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company like Microsoft is. Their bread and butter is hardware sales, and I think almost a decade of support for any high end computer is pretty reasonable. 

Funny I always considered them a software company. They definitely have hardware, but given everything they make runs off the back of their software and in many cases ONLY their software, I thought of them as more about the software. Especially when you take into account just how vast the ecosystem they built is

[DrMacintosh]

6 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Funny I always considered them a software company. They definitely have hardware, but given everything they make runs off the back of their software and in many cases ONLY their software, I thought of them as more about the software. Especially when you take into account just how vast the ecosystem they built is

Their software follows their hardware. It really is a balance but the hardware comes first. 

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, wasab said:

Please tell me where I can find Arch 1.0 or 2.0?

 

You are misinform. 

Find an archive of Arch ISOs.

 

The only differences between Microsoft shipping a major version update of Windows, Apple of OSX, and Aaron Griffin of Arch, are the schedule and nomenclature.

[wasab]

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Find an archive of Arch ISOs.

 

The only differences between Microsoft shipping a major version update of Windows, Apple of OSX, and Aaron Griffin of Arch, are the schedule and nomenclature.

that means as much as finding an older iso for windows 10 compare to newer ones. 

 

Arch does not have versions. There is no such thing as arch 1.0, 2.0, x.xxx. Ubuntu has it e.eg 16.04, 18.04, linux mint has it, e.g. linux mint 18, linux mint 19. For these, once they hit the end of their support period, you either have to download and install the next version or you no longer get OS updates and security patches.

 

Arch linux has no such things. It is rolling release. No version numbers. Updates are always there. 

[Drak3]

44 minutes ago, wasab said:

No version numbers

The current Arch release is 2018.11.01.

[wasab]

7 hours ago, Drak3 said:

The current Arch release is 2018.11.01.

Current Windows 10 release is Windows 10 October update. That means it is actually Windows 11! 

 

Arch is incrmenetal updates. Small changes every time. No such thing as one entire radiodal chnage in a couple years period and outdate of the previous. I can't repeat this enough, Arch has no versions. 

[Drak3]

46 minutes ago, wasab said:

Arch has no versions

Current version, as per Arch, is 2018.11.01.

 

 

[wasab]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Current version, as per Arch, is 2018.11.01.

 

 

That ain't version. It is just the date iso is created. You are still misinform. 

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, wasab said:

That ain't version. It is just the date iso is created.

Which would be the release version.

[TechyBen]

12 minutes ago, wasab said:

That ain't version. It is just the date iso is created. You are still misinform. 

Included Kernel: 4.18.16

 

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Which would be the release version.

No. It is a just date of iso creation corresponding to a rolling release update. Not an Windows 7 to Windows 10 style operating system upgrade because Arch has no such thing as OS version. Updates and patches are supported until kingdom comes. It is no more different than installing cumulative update on Windows 10

[Commodus]

In my experience, Macs take a long, long time before they bog down and you really want to consider an upgrade.  And even then, you may have other reasons to update first.

 

My parents, for example: they kept their 2007-era 20-inch iMac for a decade before they replaced it (with another iMac, not surprisingly).  Still ran reasonably well, it's just that app support and modern services were finally becoming issues.

 

My late 2013 MacBook Pro?  Still running fine, even for relatively intensive work tasks.

 

My 2015 5K iMac... well, it's not that old, but I have yet to see a point where it's bogging down for work or play, even when I'm running fairly demanding tasks like Photoshop.  It's doing well enough that I can't see replacing it until it dies or I have a good functional reason to update (say, I absolutely need USB-C).

 

Now, I don't think Windows PCs necessarily degrade all that quickly, but Macs?  So far so good here, and it seems like that's the case for many if not most others.

[dalekphalm]

20 hours ago, wasab said:

You know how much Windows license costs to oems???? You know how much pro tablets costs???? You sure your math is correct? 

Yeah - pretty sure.

 

Consider that if, say, Dell sells 100 computers, and Microsoft makes $50 per license, they just made $5000.

 

Now, if they sell 10 Surface Pro 6's (or whatever the current version is), at $1200 each, they made $12,000. Wait, you say, that's more than double what they made from Dell!

 

Okay but here's the difference: Making the hardware itself comes with very specific bottom costs. Let's assume they make 10% profit on each Surface Pro 6 sold.

$1200 * 10% = $120

$120 * qty 10 = $1200

 

$1200 is less than $5000.

 

Let's assume 10% profit is too low. Maybe they make 20% profit? Okay, so they made $2400 instead of $1200. That's still half as much as they made off of Dell.

 

It's about scales of economy. Surface Pro tablets and Surface Book laptops are not ever going to sell in the numbers that Dell or HP or Acer can push. If Microsoft could convince every single consumer to buy Surface products instead of Dells or other OEM's, then of course, damn right they would.

 

But that's not reality. Therefore, what makes them more money is having an OEM sell 10x (or realistically, many times higher than 10x) the number of units, instead of a fraction of higher profit in-house units.

 

Now Microsoft, being somewhat business savvy - does both. But Surface lineup is mostly a showcase of what Microsoft envisions as an ideal device. It's a show off piece, nothing more and nothing less. Might the Surface lineup of products turn into the Windows devices that everyone ends up using? Perhaps one day.

 

Until that day, calling Microsoft a "hardware" company is misleading at best. They do both, but we both know that Software is their bread and butter.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, wasab said:

It is a just date of iso creation corresponding to a rolling release update

Which is literally what a release version is. Windows and OSX work on the same exact concept. Any OS that recieves any form of updates does. The differences being that Arch release versions are just named by the date that they're created and there is no target schedule for their releases.

[wasab]

25 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Included Kernel: 4.18.16

 

Since when does kernel denote distro version? I can up or down grade kernel on Ubuntu 18.04, it is still Ubuntu 18.04

[wasab]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Which is literally what a release version is. Windows and OSX work on the same exact concept. Any OS that recieves any form of updates does. The differences being that Arch release versions are just named by the date that they're created and there is no target schedule for their releases.

No.  Can you update Windows XP? 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Can you update Windows XP? 

Yes.

[wasab]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes.

How? Show me

E.g. show me how to install directx 12 and Cortana on it.