Trick or M3-treat? - Apple’s pre-Halloween “Scary Fast” virtual event

[WhitetailAni]

1 hour ago, saltycaramel said:

The whole machine is designed to have a display assembly with that particular

- weight

- thickness

- structural rigidity

Why not just redesign the top of the machine accordingly? If there's a slight difference in weight, just adjust the hinges accordingly - and those are removable.

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

What a coincidence these are also the years IT-destined OLEDs are also exploding for everyone, not just Apple (which will first use IT-destined OLEDs on the 13" and 11" M3 iPad Pros later this year), being one of the "pervasive applications" that are going to propel OLED revenue to the stratosphere.

Could you stop with your made up nonsense names for things. PC grade, IT-destined, whatever else, these are not real.

 

Apple is not using any different OLED technology to anyone else for laptops and iPads. 

 

OLEDs have been used in "IT" devices for years without issue. For goodness sake you are exasperating desperate to make things up.

 

You actually don't know what you are talking about. miniLED also hasn't been common and widely used on laptops either so I have no idea why you are trying to argue this when the same applies to both.

 

13 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

can't just be liquidated with "well they could just have ordered more IT-destined OLED motherglasses 5 years ago".

Yes they can and could. It's not even a 5 year ago thing, Samsung/LG etc would only need a year noticed at most of that. The actual reason why wide scale usage of OLED hasn't been done in laptops is because the manufacturers don't want to supply screens of that size because they get better cost per size on phones and on premium sized large TVs. If you want to sell volume amounts of laptops with OLEDs it's always been possible, show Samsung/LG etc the money. But then we'd be talking even more about how bad value MacBook Pros are wouldn't we?

 

May I ask at what point did I ever say Apple should have been using OLED? Or did I actually originally say that the OLED display on an Asus laptop is as equivalently good as the miniLED display on the MacBook?

 

The reason why larger motherglass helps is there are more larger laptop size offcuts which can either be cutdown again or not. TVs come first, absolutely always. Everything else has always been offcuts, even the millions upon millions of phones.

 

You seem to be completely lost as to what was being talked about and why. You don't need to prove any points to me, I already know the situation around OLED/QD-OLED, minLED and microLED. We're either discussing between actual displays on a device or display technology, one or the other. Practice some food safety, stop cross contaminating. 

[Forbidden Wafer]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

May I ask at what point did I ever say Apple should have been using OLED? Or did I actually originally say that the OLED display on an Asus laptop is as equivalently good as the miniLED display on the MacBook?

I know my asus laptop with an OLED screen looks absurdly beautiful to my eyes. And I bought a great computer for cheap, when a competitive macbook would cost 3-4x the price. Still hard to believe people pay these prices.

[Dracarris]

12 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

I know my asus laptop with an OLED screen looks absurdly beautiful to my eyes. And I bought a great computer for cheap, when a competitive macbook would cost 3-4x the price. Still hard to believe people pay these prices.

Because what you deem "competitive" (I can only guess raw perf numbers/capacities which you chose very high to arrive at the 3-4x factor unless your OLED Asus costs 500-600$) is not competitive for many others. Folks for good reason won't see your laptop competitive or as great compared to their Macbook simply because it has the same perf numbers on the box.

 

A simple example, pretty sure your Asus is not as energy efficient/cool/silent as the "competitive" Macbook or can stay away from the wall comparably long. So it's not competitive after all. For you, maybe yes, since it reaches the same peak perf when connected to an outlet or has the same amount of storage, for others, no.

[Forbidden Wafer]

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Because what you deem "competitive" (I can only guess raw perf numbers/capacities which you chose very high to arrive at the 3-4x factor unless your OLED Asus costs 500-600$) is not competitive for many others.

16GB of DDR5-5600, i7-13700H (20 thread), 2TB NVMe for 800 USD (with taxes). 6h working, 10h browsing, which is enough for me. I can guarantee you are not getting 3-4x the value from a Macbook vs my Asus. Also got a nice powerbank so don't know what you are talking about.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

16GB of DDR5-5600, i7-13700H (20 thread), 2TB NVMe for 800 USD (with taxes). 6h working, 10h browsing, which is enough for me. I can guarantee you are not getting 3-4x the value from a Macbook vs my Asus. Also got a nice powerbank so don't know what you are talking about.

MacBook Air 13" M2, 16GB, 2TB $2100, 11-18 hours.

MacBook Air 13" M2, 8GB, 256GB $1100, 11-18 hours.

 

There aren't really a lot of ways to spin it to get the MacBook looking like equivalent value. Like I always say, buying a MacBook isn't about "the hardware" and it's not about price competitiveness (never has been). As long as you aren't status symbol buying, this happens everywhere, then there is a reason to be buying a Mac.

 

Hardware value for Macs never has and never will be a good argument and there are too many alternative options and huge different ranges of prices that can be thrown around.

 

Personally I think people have a habit of equating value to quality, most often in the context of critique. Value is not the only overruling factor in whether or not something is a good buy or should be brought. Also something being the best or only viable option doesn't negate if it is a bad value, it just is what it is sometimes and that is fine.

 

[Dracarris]

4 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

16GB of DDR5-5600, i7-13700H (20 thread), 2TB NVMe for 800 USD (with taxes). 6h working, 10h browsing, which is enough for me. I can guarantee you are not getting 3-4x the value from a Macbook vs my Asus. Also got a nice powerbank so don't know what you are talking about.

So confirmed: For you, value === naked specs/capacities (thread count really is as naked as it gets). This is NOT how value primarily works for a lot of folks, as I have elaborated in lengths a million times here and won't do again.

Your evaluation is personal,  not universal, as I guarantee you that there are several points where your Asus takes a hard trade-off against the Macbook (and a lot of Windows laptops prob as well at that price point), and spoiler alert, no, it's neither branding nor visual design of the machine. It's also not macOS.

4 hours ago, Forbidden Wafer said:

6h working, 10h browsing, which is enough for me. [..] Also got a nice powerbank so don't know what you are talking about.

Im exactly talking about this. You are calling a mobile computer value-equivalent for which you have to charge-manage and carry around a "nice" power bank to match the wall-away time of the Macbook. You gotta be kidding me.

 

I'm getting the 1100$ Macbook Air and attach a "nice 2TB external Thunderbolt SSD" to it and call it value-equivalent to your Asus. Checks out, right?

[leadeater]

45 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Im exactly talking about this. You are calling a mobile computer value-equivalent for which you have to charge-manage and carry around a "nice" power bank to match the wall-away time of the Macbook. You gotta be kidding me.

In practical terms the difference really is not that much, I know you and others like to talk it up lots but it just isn't when it's 6+ hours. It matters a lot if you forgot to charge the laptop or don't have access to charge but not being able to charge for more than 6 hours on average across an entire year is not common.

 

Everything is on a scale, if it were 3 hours vs 10+ hours then yea much bigger deal. I remember when nearly 2 hours was actually good for a Windows laptop and that insufferable even though it was "good". Living through that hell influenced my opinion on laptops quite a lot for a very long time which is even the laptop I do own is still only for remote accessing other systems because I refuse to spend that much on something I can't hardly actually use. The fact this is no longer the case for Windows and Mac is extremely good, entirely changes everything about laptops.

 

45 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

It's also not macOS.

Yea it is lol. For those that both love Mac OS or heavily utilize Mac applications specifically it's nearly the only factor that matters to them and that's a lot of Mac users. Mac OS is a huge deal for what it is and what you get out of it as a user. This applied before Apple silicon and applies just the same after.

 

45 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Your evaluation is personal,  not universal, as I guarantee you that there are several points where your Asus takes a hard trade-off against the Macbook

 

Self-awareness is a good thing. Absolutely everything you say about MacBook is your opinion. You can have objective reasoning behind it but it very quickly cross over to opinion and that is also totally fine, just know when it's opinion and when it's not.

Edited January 13 by leadeater

[Dracarris]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

In practical terms the difference really is not that much, I know you and others like to talk it up lots but it just isn't when it's 6+ hours. It matters a lot if you forgot to charge the laptop or don't have access to charge but not being able to charge for more than 6 hours on average across an entire year is not common.

Nice talking down of the additional hours on Macbooks. 20 vs 10 hours might get 10 vs 5 or 5 vs 2h depending on workload. It is relevant. Besides the battery lifetime, it's also about staying cool and silent, aka, not being annoying.

 

And for the regular 18-20h, it's simply darn convenient that I basically can always leave the house without ever thinking about carrying a charger. It's a machine that truly does not require any external components to fully serve my use case.

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea it is lol. For those that both love Mac OS or heavily utilize Mac applications specifically it's nearly the only factor that matters to them and that's a lot of Mac users. Mac OS is a huge deal for what it is and what you get out of it as a user.

No it is not lol. Neither do I love macOS particulalry nor do I use any Mac applications. That's why on desktop I am on Windows and Linux, and on mobile on a Macbook. Almost solely for the HW properties. If Windows could make equivalent good use of the HW, I'd be on Windows on my Macbook.

I might be an exception, but again, that's my personal, not universal, evaluation.

 

And: Even when macOS is a big factor, the HW properties/features I am referring to can still very much be deciding factors.

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Self-awareness is a good thing.

I know you want to be funny here, but you really aren't. He simply mentioned all the aspects where the Macbook, at least on paper, takes the L, while ignoring all the others where it's the other way round, since apparently, he does not care about those. Others do, so both evaluations are personal.

 

Again, really nothing funny here.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Nice talking down of the additional hours on Macbooks. 20 vs 10 hours might get 10 vs 5 or 5 vs 2h depending on workload. It is relevant. Besides the battery lifetime, it's also about staying cool and silent.

Ah the workload were already specified, I didn't even bother to use the commonly reviewed times of that MacBook Air which is 10-12 hours rather than 11-18 hours typically claimed. I was being generous to the MacBook Air.

 

Honestly I don't think you've used a lot of modern Windows laptops, cool and quite is a common trait for sooo many. Not every laptop has or need a dGPU and a good portion of laptops can put dGPUs in to complete idle if they use display mux or go through the iGPU. But once we start introducing dGPUs then both on battery run time and performance goes quite well out the Windows for sure.

 

That's why I said comparing laptops is futile because of the infinite number of options and hardware combinations that can be compared to. The simplest thing to do is just have confidence in your own choices.

 

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

No it is not lol. Neither do I love macOS particulalry nor do I use any Mac applications

ok, personal opinion, noted.

 

15 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

know you want to be funny here, but you really aren't. He simply mentioned all the aspects where the Macbook, at least on paper, takes the L, while ignoring all the others where it's the other way round, since apparently, he does not care about those. Others so, so both evaluations are personal.

You're the only one here trying to portray the given laptop as if it were trying to be presented as equivalent like this. Bolded, literally exactly. From the get go the implication of that reply to you was the laptop was not "the same as" and there was a direct admission that the "extras" that you pay for don't give it that increased value for that price.

 

And yes it's actually very amusing to watch you do this like every time. Why so defense over MacBooks/Apple? You don't need to answer as it strictly doesn't matter, certainly not to me anyway. You will never not encounter criticism and critique of Apple or anything else.

 

What you cannot seem to ever accept is the possibility that MacBooks just aren't as good as you think they are. I know a lot of people rate them more than I do but I don't go out of my way to disagree unless they start degraded other laptops or other peoples choice. If you are going to stick your nose in to it don't complain when it gets flicked 

[Dracarris]

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Ah the workload were already specified, I didn't even bother to use the commonly reviewed times of that MacBook Air which is 10-12 hours rather than 11-18 hours typically claimed. I was being generous to the MacBook Air.

Then take the Pro which gets 20+ hours depending on use case.

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Honestly I don't think you've used a lot of modern Windows laptops, cool and quite is a common trait for sooo many.

Haha, sure. I haven't seen one that features a low enough TDP (or actual power consumption at a given load) at comparable performance of current Mx Macbooks that this would be possible. Quiet, maybe yes, with a chonky enough cooler and chassis, but the TDP aka heat has to go somewhere. The machine itself might stay cool, it's surroundings certainly not.

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You're the only one here trying to portray the given laptop as if it were trying to be present as equivalent like this.

oh boy (maybe I also simply don't understand that sentence, "to be present as equivalent like this"???)

On 1/11/2024 at 10:11 PM, Forbidden Wafer said:

when a competitive macbook would cost 3-4x the price.

 

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And yes ut's actually very amusing to watch you do this like every time. Why so defense over MacBooks/Apple? You don't need to answer as it strictly doesn't matter, certainly not to me anyway. You will never not encounter criticism and critique of Apple or anything else.

 

What you cannot seem to ever accept is the possibility that MacBooks just aren't as good as you think they are. I know a lot of people rate them more than I do but I don't go out of my way to disagree unless they start degraded other laptops or other peoples choice. If you are going to stick your nose in to it don't complain when it gets flicked 

You gave the answer to yourself. I "defend" Macbooks when people start talking them down without any factual base, or judging the full machine solely based on naked specs, which basically happens: every time. The fact that you label Macbooks as "good" or "not so good as I think" shows how little you still understand of why I think Macbooks, specifically for mobile work, are a great choice. I went to great lengths at explaining how they are still offering a unique package or combination of properties that simply cannot be found in the Windows-universe combined in a specific, single model (with Apple Silicon now more than ever), again, while disregarding the OS.

 

Maybe you just don't care about those properties as much as I do, and that's fine. Then you don't think Macbooks are as good as I think they are. That's fine. It's however not fine to state that they universally

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

just aren't as good as you think they are

Maybe they are not as good in your eyes, but in the eyes of many other people?

[igormp]

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Then take the Pro which gets 20+ hours depending on use case.

As a MBP owner, I wish I could see this battery life that you mention lol

Most I managed was ~15h while doing almost nothing. Doing actual work drops it to 6~8h (which is still hella awesome for a laptop). 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Maybe they are not as good in your eyes, but in the eyes of many other people?

 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

 I know a lot of people rate them more than I do but I don't go out of my way to disagree unless they start degraded other laptops or other peoples choice

Is it worth typing something if it's not going to be read?  

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Then take the Pro which gets 20+ hours depending on use case.

Sure but then all you are doing is increase the price and making the value look worse all for a battery run time that is almost always not that relevant because the ability to charge is not lacking most of the time.

 

This whole thing about mobile work and super long battery life is just complete and utter fud made up to make out the product is better than it is. It doesn't matter as much as you want it to be. As a mobile worker who travels with a laptop and works regularly on battery only for many ours I am never caught short on my HP 840 laptop and I can think of few times where if it was getting too low I wouldn't have an easy accessible option to charge not far away.

 

Heck every fleet vehicle my company has can charge my laptop, ranging between slowly on USB to actual 150W AC output on the Ford Rangers.

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Haha, sure. I haven't seen one that features a low enough TDP (or actual power consumption at a given load) at comparable performance of current Mx Macbooks that this would be possible. Quiet, maybe yes, with a chonky enough cooler and chassis, but the TDP aka heat has to go somewhere. The machine itself might stay cool, it's surroundings certainly not.

Then you aren't looking at any U series from Intel or AMD recently and that still doesn't change that TDP isn't what makes something cool and quite alone, that's the cooling solution and you can achieve both of these even on a higher TDP part on a not chonky laptop. Also Mx Pro TDP's aren't that low so there isn't that vast of a difference between a lot of commonly used Intel/AMD CPUs.

 

But now you are just getting desperate to prove a point which just isn't logical nor scientifically accurate. A 28w TDP with 50W-80W short term peak isn't going to "heat up your surroundings". Are you using your laptop in a suitcase? Maybe take it out.

 

Can we stay in the realms of reality?

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I "defend" Macbooks when people start talking them down without any factual base

Saying MacBooks don't have a great value simply is not talking them down and doesn't warrant insensate whining and defending, everrrrr. Not being a "great value" really is not a bad thing. Take a leaf from 4090 owners etc, those are bad value too, want to see how many give a damn by such a statement?

 

And if you are complaining about factual basis look no further than yourself.

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

The fact that you label Macbooks as "good" or "not so good as I think" shows how little you still understand of why I think Macbooks, specifically for mobile work, are a great choice. I went to great lengths at explaining how they are still offering a unique package or combination of properties that simply cannot be found in the Windows-universe combined in a specific, single model (with Apple Silicon now more than ever), again, while disregarding the OS.

I understand perfectly well and also understand that such Windows laptops also exist and you'll go to any lengths to ignore or dismiss them or completely overblow what actually is not a significant difference.

 

There have always been such laptops in Windows land and if you want the premium experience for absolutely every possible thing you can and you pay for it too, however they can also come at a lower cost to a MacBook but I'm not saying a lot less. If someone doesn't need X i.e. certified colour accurate screen then the price differences increase more. You can tailor your purchase choices to what you need or want more which you can do less of with MacBooks.

 

And the bold part is utterly not true. I'd give you an example but I just know you'll use your opinion to say it's not when it objectively is which again is why I said such comparisons are futile, even more so with someone in your mindset. I cannot honestly see any way where you will ever be able to admit there has now or in the past been a laptop or multiple that are of the same caliber, I just cannot ever see that happening.

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

It's however not fine to state that they universally

MacBook Pros are in general not a great value. This is not a bad thing, many great things are not a good value. Literally what of it? Go on and explain why and how this is a bad thing. Objectively you are paying a lot of what you get and you justify it subjectively on needs or wants, or just don't try and justify it which is another option.

 

tl;dr This is a lot like listening to someone defend their SUV or UTE/Pickup purchase and how it can do all of these things that they almost never or actually never do with it.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

oh boy (maybe I also simply don't understand that sentence, "to be present as equivalent like this"???)

We both know the statement wasn't trying to say that it had as good chassis or battery run time, or keyboard, or speakers etc etc. All the things you want to introduce to excuse that for a lot of people, almost everyone buying a higher end Windows laptop, care first about is the specifications listed and everything you care about comes after that and you pay more for the ones you want, or none if you care about none of them.

 

This was even clarified to you, by them. So you hammer on again about the things you care oh so much about while not able to consider they actually don't matter that much or aren't that vastly different to other market options.

 

You know just as well as I do the point was "you can get all this great hardware" without having to pay extra for a speaker solution never used, a better keyboard many are simply indifferent about having a better one, extra battery run time not required etc.

 

If you want a competitive MacBook to such a laptop you do end up paying twice as much, yes you get a lot of extra better things but you still paid twice as much. This is not a complicated point. All you are doing is trying to counter someone's subjective opinion without your own subjective opinion, where exactly do you think that is supposed to go or end up? You know they won't agree with your point of view and opinion already,

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

You know just as well as I do the point was "you can get all this great hardware" without having to pay extra for a speaker solution never used, a better keyboard many are simply indifferent about having a better one, extra battery run time not required etc.

I wont bother replying to your WOT and waste more time with someone that sees it as a perosnal goal to downtalk alsmost any benefit of Macbooks, and this paragraph alone suffices to show your utter igorance.

 

- You don‘t get to decide how important or relevant a specific feature in a laptop is, not in general, not for anyone specific

- To generally state that MBPs are a bad value, is, yeah, gross ignorance. Again, you don‘t get to decide how value is defined generally or for everyone. My 2200$ MBP will serve me well for 7-10years, and you don‘t get to decide that this is a bad value, nor in general, nor for me personally.

- It is almost offending to read that you actually think out of your personal experience you have the authority to deduct that 8h of battery lifetime

is enough for everyone.

And as I said before, when those 18-20h of standard condition lifetime scale down to 5-8h under actual loads instead of 2-4h, the additional hours are very, very relevant.

- Same goes for the importance of trackpad, keyboard, speakers and so on. The fact you claim those features are not that relevant or „rarely used“ really goes to show how unable you are to think outside your personal use case.

[HenrySalayne]

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

My 2200$ MBP will serve me well for 7-10years, and you don‘t get to decide that this is a bad value, nor in general, nor for me personally.

Or it will desolder itself after just 3.5 years because of design or manufacturing defects - just like my Macbook did...

Planning to use a device for 7 to 10 years is an extremely poor decision. You overpay massively at the time of purchase to buy enough performance to use it in the far future. It would be more sensible to upgrade every few years and stay in a lower performance class.

[Forbidden Wafer]

11 hours ago, Dracarris said:

So confirmed: For you, value === naked specs/capacities (thread count really is as naked as it gets). This is NOT how value primarily works for a lot of folks, as I have elaborated in lengths a million times here and won't do again.

Your evaluation is personal,  not universal, as I guarantee you that there are several points where your Asus takes a hard trade-off against the Macbook (and a lot of Windows laptops prob as well at that price point), and spoiler alert, no, it's neither branding nor visual design of the machine. It's also not macOS.

I already had Macs and don't see that much difference in build quality.

Aluminum chassis: check
Solid chassis: check
Thin and reasonably light: check
Sound quality: better than the Mac I had, especially at low frequencies
Webcam: same stuff as the Mac (everything looks like trash compared to a webcam of a Dell laptop I use at work, don't know the exact specs)
Mic: dunno, don't listen to myself.
Heat: doesn't really warm up to use, fans spin when necessary. My mac used to get pretty hot, and I had to use MacsFanControl to make that crap kick up the fan.
Design: pretty beautiful, I would say. Comparable quality.
Screen: OLED 2880x1800, with touch screen
OS: Windows 11 (which is a turd, but is the turd most of us need use anyways for work because of tools).
Biometrics: Windows Hello with IR, which is really nice.
Keyboard: decent. I prefer mechanical, but would make the laptop thicker. But I bet it won't die due to a dust grain or have firmware glitches like the touchbar Macbooks.
Trackpad: works as I would expect. Asus has a gimmick with virtual numpad on the trackpad... Which is really stupid, but you can disable it.

[Paul Thexton]

7 hours ago, igormp said:

As a MBP owner, I wish I could see this battery life that you mention lol

Most I managed was ~15h while doing almost nothing. Doing actual work drops it to 6~8h (which is still hella awesome for a laptop). 

I’ve got a 16” M1Max for work. I’m a software engineer so do a lot of code compilation and testing stuff in VMs, when I do go in to the office instead of WFH it’s rare that I have to get the charger out of my bag. The biggest differential to battery life for my typical work day is screen brightness more than anything.

 

That’s just me though. I could well believe that others with the exact same machine may have to charge after only a few hours. 
 

Stating “battery life” as a single figure or ranged metric for any battery powered thing that isn’t single-feature (like a clock or something) is largely meaningless and just causes confusion and arguments.

 

What I do like about my Mac is that the performance characteristics don’t change based on being plugged in to the mains or not.

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Or it will desolder itself after just 3.5 years because of design or manufacturing defects - just like my Macbook did...

I am sure that‘s exactly what‘s going to happen, just like my SSD will die and all the other horror stories that people here predict will happen at large scale.

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Planning to use a device for 7 to 10 years is an extremely poor decision. You overpay massively at the time of purchase to buy enough performance to use it in the far future. It would be more sensible to upgrade every few years and stay in a lower performance class

I really can‘t comprehend how people like you label buying hardware that lasts a poor decision and then continue to suggest a horrible one:

- Bringing so many machines to the life cycle is very bad from an environmental aspect

- Unless you compromise build quality or overall quality every time, you‘ll end up paying more over the whole period or per year. And even if it would be cheaper to produce so many new devices, it would still be bad.

 

Now, 2.2k for a machine that I use daily for this expected life time.. I do not consider breaking the bank at all. And that buys me plenty performance today for tomorrow.

 

My first MBP I bought in 2010, again for just a bit over 2k$. It served me as a daily driver until 2018, it never felt „un-snappy“ or slow. I did upgrade RAM and exchanged the HDD for a SATA SSD halfway through - but  keep in mind that machine was released at a time where generational perf gaps were MUCH larger than they are today. So with a reasonable config today you‘ll be jolly fine.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Dracarris said:

You don‘t get to decide how important or relevant a specific feature in a laptop is, not in general, not for anyone specific

Neither do you, I however am saying MacBooks are a bad value because as a laptop they are objectively expensive for a laptop, which makes them a bad value. There is a massive difference in being able to justify why something costs what it does and value. Because there are many laptops of objectively functional capability for a vast majority of use cases we can objectively say that a higher priced laptop that can objectively do the same functions is of a worse value. This applies to all laptops, in fact it applies to everything.

 

You also absolutely do not get to decide any of that either if I'm "not allowed". You are not allowed to state that 20 hours of battery life is absolutely necessary or of any actual benefit to a mobile worker because you can only qualify that subjectively in your opinion. So if I cannot then you cannot, simple right?

 

It is also perfectly within my right to challenge any claims given, like yours about how much benefit you actually get from such long battery run time simply because "you are a mobile worker" and also therefore all mobile works will benefit. Unless you can articulate why and how then it's just a claim and I am not in any way in the wrong for doubting that you are commonly not able to sufficiently serviced with less and that you aren't able to charge at any point during the day if needed at all. The essential part here however is actually diminishing returns, yes more is better but that's not the same as it actually being necessary.

 

All you are doing by stating that this long battery life is so useful to a mobile worker is opening a discussion line that can present to you ways in which it is not that beneficial or more critical to your point not the difference you are trying to claim. All Windows laptops are not limited to only 2 hours of run time when actually getting used which is, you guessed it, very relevant. The idea that Windows laptops are limited to 2 or even 4 hours is decades old mindset and simply ignorant to the current situation in the market. It is not difficult to find multiple Windows laptops with 6 hours or greater on battery run time while under real proper usage.

 

So how about you not make false statements, it's not doing you any good here.

 

6 hours ago, Dracarris said:

perosnal goal to downtalk alsmost any benefit of Macbooks

And your personal goal is what? To talk up the benefits of MacBooks beyond what they actually are or demand that everyone MUST consider the premium features of them as absolutely necessary?

 

See your problem right now is you are creating a discussion that necessitates pointing out how certain features of a laptop isn't actually that good comparative to other options or how we don't actually have to consider them and all of them always and deem them essential rather than just being beneficial or desired or nice to have or anything else under the umbrella of subjectivity.

 

I don't have a person goal here at all, but I am always willing to have a discussion about basically anything and if you are going to say things like you have been then I'm always going to be willing to offer up a counter point. Here's the thing though, the quality of the reply is only as good as the demonstrated intentions of the other person. If you don't actually read what has been said and try and think genuinely about it then you aren't going to be given much courtesy in reply effort.

 

6 hours ago, Dracarris said:

It is almost offending to read that you actually think out of your personal experience you have the authority to deduct that 8h of battery lifetime

is enough for everyone.

It is offending that you firstly state that 20 hours is actual reality in any situation all, that there actually is an 8 hour difference and that 20 hours is even needed,  even by yourself. It is offending that you are doing this all over just one example laptop which maybe not be the best battery run time possible for a Windows laptop because you want MacBooks to universally and always to have better battery run time and that it is always critically important to a huge degree.

 

Am I actually offended no. You seem to be that's very obvious. Once you understand that you shouldn't be all the better you'll be 

 

6 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Same goes for the importance of trackpad, keyboard, speakers and so on. The fact you claim those features are not that relevant or „rarely used“ really goes to show how unable you are to think outside your personal use case.

The fact that you cannot acknowledge that not every needs or wants to use laptop speakers speaks volumes of yourself. Again you sound exactly like a Pickup owner and I'd go so far as you say you are right now Diesel rolling coal over anyone who doesn't like your Pickup or Pickups in general as much as you do.

 

Yet again a product not being of good value is not a bad thing. Show me why it actually is a bad thing before getting so offended.

 

How about you stop up talking benefits of MacBooks that are 1) Not actually that great as you want them to be, 2) Not actually exclusive to MacBooks and I'll stop telling you how they aren't. It takes two to play tennis, well I guess you can sort of play against a wall but you can only lose to yourself in that situation.

 

6 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I wont bother replying to your WOT

Why, because what I said is actually accurate and showed your lack of awareness of current laptop CPU SKUs and laptops that use them as well as the scientific inaccuracy of heat dissipation in to a room, not even relative to the differential between two products of different power usages. Take a little extra time so you don't put your foot in to it so easily.

 

Anyway as I said just have confidence in the choice you made, I have never said you or anyone else made a bad choice. If you are happy with your MacBook great, along with me having no doubts at all that you are.

[HenrySalayne]

32 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I really can‘t comprehend how people like you label buying hardware that lasts a poor decision and then continue to suggest a horrible one:

- Bringing so many machines to the life cycle is very bad from an environmental aspect

- Unless you compromise build quality or overall quality every time, you‘ll end up paying more over the whole period or per year. And even if it would be cheaper to produce so many new devices, it would still be bad.

You simply don't understand why people even do upgrade their systems. My very first Pentium III still works like a charm, yet somehow I don't use it anymore. How could that be?

If you buy the performance you need 7 to 10 years from now today, you are - sorry for the harsh word - an idiot. That's the simple truth.

If you are trying to tell us, that you will use your Macbook for 3 - 5 years, then upgrade and still use it as a secondary device for lighter tasks - you are doing what everybody else is doing with their Windows machines as well. That's not special in any way.

 

32 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I am sure that‘s exactly what‘s going to happen, just like my SSD will die and all the other horror stories that people here predict will happen at large scale.

The picture you are trying to paint of the invincible Macbook from Apple, quality above everything, a device you can happily pay a premium for, a device surviving 7 to 10 years without any issues - it is just an illusion. Apple had a lot of quality and design issues over the years.

And the fact that you strongly believe you can use your Macbook for 7 to 10 years, shows a mentality completely oblivious to the fact that you might not get any spare parts or repairs from Apple 5 years after launch. Ask Apple if you can get a written guarantee that they will take care of your device in the future. They will give you a SINGLE YEAR of warranty instead.

You shouldn't put more trust in a product than the manufacturer does.

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

If you buy the performance you need 7 to 10 years from now today, you are - sorry for the harsh word - an idiot. That's the simple truth.

That‘s about the level of discussion you are capable of. Checks out. You simply cannot comprehend how a properly optimized OS-HW stack can deliver a enjoyable user experience for a main machine that is used daily past the 5year mark.

The same btw applies to smartphones and tablets. Maybe not 7-10yrs, but 5yrs should be absolutely possible with a single device.

 

I did it, with a machine from 2010 up until 2018. No issue, including not getting pathetically slow.

And as I said before, performance doesn‘t improve nearly as fast anymore as it did back then, nor does the performance demand of a typical laptop user like myself (knowledge worker) that doesn‘t encode video 24/7 on his laptop.

 

I‘ll ignore all your rambling about how horribly flawed Macbooks are. They have and had their issues just as any other brand, only when it‘s Apple they‘re totally blown out of proportion on the internet. You might also give me an example of some major laptop brands that give out warranties lasting longer than a year or two, free of any surcharge.

Apart from the keyboard issue on the Touchbars that Apple fixed free of charge, I personally didn‘t have any yet.

[HenrySalayne]

9 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

That‘s about the level of discussion you are capable of. Checks out. You simply cannot comprehend how a properly optimized OS-HW stack can deliver a enjoyable user experience for a main machine that is used daily past the 5year mark, and you have obviously never daily driven a Macbook or even seriously tried.

 

I did it, with a machine from 2010 up until 2018. No issue, including not getting pathetically slow.

So if in 2018 a 2010-performance notebook is enough for you, you could have bought the very same Macbook for 1/3 the price used in 2014 and another used machine for 1/3 the price in 2010. You would have saved 1/3 of the initial cost (even more with inflation in mind), not even mentioning the resale value you would have gotten for the additional Macbook.

 

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

I really can‘t comprehend how people like you label buying hardware that lasts a poor decision and then continue to suggest a horrible one:

- Bringing so many machines to the life cycle is very bad from an environmental aspect

You propagate a theory not following any economical nor environmentally considerations. You bought a new and expensive device, while a used one would have been sufficient. This wild theory in your head that you did something for the environment is particularly bad take.

 

[Dracarris]

17 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

So if in 2018 a 2010-performance notebook is enough for you, you could have bought the very same Macbook for 1/3 the price used in 2014 and another used machine for 1/3 the price in 2010. You would have saved 1/3 of the initial cost (even more with inflation in mind), not even mentioning the resale value you would have gotten for the additional Macbook.

 Back in 2010 not since the used ones were a lot different. From there on, yes and it would have been even better.  ut every now and then I treat myself to a new machine. Which is still a ton better from an env standpoint compared to buying 3 new machines like you do.

[Forbidden Wafer]

1 hour ago, Dracarris said:

I did it, with a machine from 2010 up until 2018. No issue, including not getting pathetically slow..

What on earth. I still have a MacMini I bought in 2010 and I completely disagree with you. It aged horribly. It was beautiful with snow leopard and got worse and worse with each release of MacOS. Lion was a turd, and Mavericks was another.