Apple's Powerful M1 MacBooks are Lowering The Resale Value of Older MacBooks (zdnet.com) 181
"The impressive performance and battery life gains of the new M1 MacBooks have created a historic discontinuity in the normally placid resale market," reports ZDNet:
Should you spend $800 for a one year old MacBook Air when for $200 more you could get a MacBook Air with several times the performance and 50 percent better battery life? That's a question savvy buyers are asking themselves. Not surprisingly, the most common answer seems to be "Nope...!"
Unless buyers check out a site like Everymac they won't know what they're missing. The bottom-of-the-line M1 MacBook Air has a Geekbench 5 multiprocessor score that is almost 2.5x that of the early 2020, top-of-the-line quad-core I7. For 80 percent of the price. And most users won't need to spend the extra cash for the 16GB version since the memory management and page swapping is so efficient. The contrast is even more striking when comparing MacBook Pros. Not only is the 13" MacBook Pro faster on the Geekbench 5 single and multiprocessor benchmarks than the top-of-the-line 16" MacBook Pro Intel I9, it's less than half the price. And it isn't just a single benchmark. Search on "M1 MacBook Pro vs 16 MacBook Pro" on YouTube to see multiple videos testing real world workloads on both machines.
The article also makes a prediction: "The best deals on Intel 'Books are yet to come, assuming Apple offers retailers price protection.
"There seems to be a large inventory of Intel based MacBooks, and they have to clear them out before the end of 2021."
Unless buyers check out a site like Everymac they won't know what they're missing. The bottom-of-the-line M1 MacBook Air has a Geekbench 5 multiprocessor score that is almost 2.5x that of the early 2020, top-of-the-line quad-core I7. For 80 percent of the price. And most users won't need to spend the extra cash for the 16GB version since the memory management and page swapping is so efficient. The contrast is even more striking when comparing MacBook Pros. Not only is the 13" MacBook Pro faster on the Geekbench 5 single and multiprocessor benchmarks than the top-of-the-line 16" MacBook Pro Intel I9, it's less than half the price. And it isn't just a single benchmark. Search on "M1 MacBook Pro vs 16 MacBook Pro" on YouTube to see multiple videos testing real world workloads on both machines.
The article also makes a prediction: "The best deals on Intel 'Books are yet to come, assuming Apple offers retailers price protection.
"There seems to be a large inventory of Intel based MacBooks, and they have to clear them out before the end of 2021."
Unbelievable?! (Score:5, Funny)
A company releases a new product and their older products start selling for less!?!?!
Im glad i was sitting down for this juicy tidbit
Re: (Score:2)
even the local old bear in the woods stopped himself from ... oh wait never mind he just cut loose.
Efficient page swapping (Score:5, Funny)
It’s so efficient, you won’t even notice how much your SSD is getting thrashed!
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s so efficient, you wonâ(TM)t even notice how much your SSD is getting thrashed!
Most likely explanation is that someone ran a benchmark to test SSD performance and forgot to turn it off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not clear that the amount of data written is a) accurate and b) a problem. The numbers are being shown in isolation, and nobody has any data from previous macs with SSDs to show that the wear is similar or not.
To be clear: I'm not saying it's not a problem. It might be terrible and getting worse, the issue is that we don't really know. We don't know that the software is accurate, that the manufacturers respond to the disk queries in the same way, etc., etc. One person posting in that discussion suggest
Re: Efficient page swapping (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice revisionist history, fanboy. Suddeny it always was FUD, and we always fought Oceanian. Nevermind the amount of I/O is still completely crazy and in no way justified, and nevermind the battery wasting too. And most of all nevermind it has only a pathetic 8GB of RAM, in freaking 2020, that is also *soldered in*... on a machine costing a multiple of any other machine, which is the core origin of all those problems.
Apple *serioulsy* is a religion at this point.
Because the defining feature of religious peop
Re: (Score:2)
Theres no reason why an ARM machine should read and write twice as much as an equivalent x86. Its the same o/s for fucks sake.
Hating apple is a religion too... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's fanboys and anti-fanboys, who are fans of "anything but apple".
I use MacOs, I also use windows and I also use Linux. Wh00t for me.
But I happen to like Apple hardware. I like the operating system.
I got myself a mac mini m1 to replace an ageing macPro 5.1 and I love the damn thing.
I don't give a monkeys about 'the shiny' - heck, the box is stored under my desk out of sight.
It does exactly what I want it to do - my music & graphics production box.
Since November, when I purchased it, it hasn't let me down once. It just *works*.
I don't have to dick about with drivers or mess about trying to get hardware working.
Everything I throw at it, works and works well.
For $700 I get a powerful highly efficient computer with an operating system that just keeps out of the way.
I see that as a win.
Another win, the 11 year old Mac Pro 5.1 paid for it via an eBay sale.
An 11 year old computer that can *still* be sold, rather than being dumped, like the vast majority of PC's are of that age.
But haters gotta hate - and this is Slashdot after all - anything Apple is expensive garbage and anyone buying Apple hardware is an idiot.
The concept of Apple computers being insanely priced vs. building up a PC was put to bed ages ago.
Yes, they are a little more expensive, but you are paying for a seamless experience, for a computer you can just *use*, rather than having to constantly fiddle about with just to get it working with XYZ hardware or to battle system failures.
Re: (Score:2)
"anti-fanboys", literally by definition, are "anti" "fanboy", not "anti" "Apple". Both-sides-ism at it's most basic, a "fanboy" trait.
"Another win, the 11 year old Mac Pro 5.1 paid for it via an eBay sale.
An 11 year old computer that can *still* be sold, rather than being dumped, like the vast majority of PC's are of that age.
But haters gotta hate - and this is Slashdot after all - anything Apple is expensive garbage and anyone buying Apple hardware is an idiot."
If it's not obvious already, gotta show your
Re: (Score:3)
> If it's not obvious already, gotta show your fanboy card, right?
What, because I see the value in something? Because I like what it offers?
There's a LOT wrong with Apple, there's a LOT wrong with the hardware - I'm not massively keen on the fact the damn RAM and SSD is soldered on.
I'm not over the moon with memory management.
But overall, it is the best experience I have had to date with an operating system / hardware combination.
I used windows from 3.1.1 right through to windows 7.
I used Linux on the de
Re: (Score:2)
just one question
can i set my own system-wide fontface, font style, font size and disable any sort of font "smoothing" ?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, dang, no!
Shit, I knew it was too good to be true, that's it, I'm giving up macOS.
Hey, if changing your system fonts floats your boat, then macOS isn't for you.
I view the OS as a tool, not something I need to consider myself with in terms of messing about with the fonts in the interface.
I trust Apple OS designers in the same way I trust the design of hardware I like, guitars, cars - you name it. It works for me.
I use my computer to get shit done, not to dick around with how the operating system looks. I
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Can you change the default font in your car?
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I buy Apple, and plan on buying an M1, but in no way is Apple a religion to me.
Because I'm like most other technically proficient people understand that first gen hardware products are *always* a wait and see prospect since they almost always have issues to be worked out. But unlike some other companies, Apple actually resolves these issues rather quickly once they are acknowledged and either fixes the issues in existing units via firmware or software updates, or issue some manner of financial compen
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>> The cheaping out isn't apple's fault
Ha ha ha. Yeah you're not reframing you're way out of this one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I see. So what is the rationale for Apple charging an extra $200 for another 8GB of RAM? Why exactly do Apple solder the RAM into the machine?
It is not Apple's fault that some users tried to cheap-out with minimal RAM.
Perhaps some users don't like getting ripped off.
Re: Efficient page swapping (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps some users don't like getting ripped off.
Then why are they getting Macs?
Re: (Score:2)
Then why are they getting Macs?
Mac: pay upfront
Windows: pay later, in time, aggravation and loss of privacy
Linux: pay later, in time and aggravation
Re: (Score:3)
Linux: pay *upfront*, in time and aggravation.
But once you have paid and that your setup is finally working, everything becomes very smooth.
Re: (Score:2)
That used to be true, but it is less and less true anymore. Most media production suites (Adobe, FC, Da Vinci...) work very well both on PC and on Macs, and PCs are generally speaking more powerful, cheaper, and more durable than what Apple produces those days. I know plenty of artists who use a PC (source: I work as a professional media artist since 2012 and observe the people around me). Most people stay on Mac due to habit, and also because Apple invests heavily to place their hardware in universities an
Re: Efficient page swapping (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think its been true for 20 years or more. I can't speak for graphic design, but 25 years ago I worked in 3d animation and visual effects and it was all PCs - mostly Windows and some BSD. I do see creatives using Macs, but equally I see them using PCs and getting on just fine. The only exception is where Apple own the product (Logic Pro), and therefore the lack of choice is not technical.
I'm actually amazed there are still people pretending that Macs have any advantage in media production.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
getting windows to do any sort of low latency audio-related work is testing my patience.
one would think that a 16 core, 4.7GHz device could handle a 192 kHz signal with grace
but nope.
Re: Efficient page swapping (Score:4, Informative)
You can probably record video AND do 192 kHz audio at the same time without any issues. Audio stopped being an issue sometime around year 2000.
Re: (Score:2)
That is funny. I do lots of audio work in Windows with out any issues. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are using crappy software, or just don't know what you are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
cool
now do a 3h recording with sample-accurate timing from an external clock source and maintaining less than 10 samples delay from input to monitor
Re: (Score:2)
This might not be true much longer. A friend from college reached out to me a few weeks about some job leads. Rumor has it Adobe is going to drop the entire Mac M1 line. Revenue isn't matching up with predictions and the top brass doesn't see the where supporting such a small platform will be worth the cost over a long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple will buy Adobe with the change they have in their couch cushions. I'm honestly surprised that they haven't already done it.
I could see them trying, but Adobe is a pretty big fish. I doubt even apple could pony up that kind of change and not wind up in some financial issues. With 98% of Adobes money coming from Windows, just buying Adobe to shut down the Windows side would probably trigger a share holders revolt. That would tank apples stock making the whole company a target for a hostile take over.
The question is, "who would buy apple?" Apple hasn't innovated anything in almost two decades so most of the patents they hav
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm going to call Bullshit here. Business lives to keep cost down and if Macs where more cost effective then they would be every where, and not less than 5% of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I see. So what is the rationale for Apple charging an extra $200 for another 8GB of RAM? Why exactly do Apple solder the RAM into the machine?
For the lulz.
Though in the case of the M1, it's POP RAM, specifically HBM, so it's not so much soldered into the machine as soldered directly to the CPU. It has higher bandwidth and lower power draw than DDRwhatever, but, well, it's soldered directly on to the package, so you're limited in how much you can cram on.
Re: (Score:2)
Why exactly do Apple solder the RAM into the machine?
In this case it's because they have to. The M1 benefits greatly from memory bandwidth. By coupling the RAM on the same substrate as the CPU, along with a massive L1 cache they managed to get performance around a mid-range Ryzen mobile chip.
The only reason it looks good against older Macbooks is because they were using hot Intel chips and performance was thermally limited. They can't offer RAM sockets because socketed RAM would cripple the performance of the M1.
Re: (Score:2)
The RAM is not soldered into the machine.
The RAM is on the SoC.
So what is the rationale for Apple charging an extra $200 for another 8GB of RAM?
The fact that the bigger a SoC is, the more of them have a defect. So the factory has less yield.
Perhaps you want at least grasp the simplest principles of chip production before continuing to make a fool of your self.
Re: Efficient page swapping (Score:2)
The RAM is not soldered into the machine.
The RAM is on the SoC.
So what is the rationale for Apple charging an extra $200 for another 8GB of RAM?
The fact that the bigger a SoC is, the more of them have a defect. So the factory has less yield.
Perhaps you want at least grasp the simplest principles of chip production before continuing to make a fool of your self.
You are the fool.
Apple wisely did not design the M1 on-die RAM.
The M1 is actually a Hybrid Module, with a separate PCB-like area right on the M1 package where a separate RAM package is soldered, probably not until mobo assembly.
So no, no need for separate SoCs, per se. They handle it at the Contract Manufacturing level.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems quite clear that you know nothing, despite all the years you've had.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is still smarting from their Apple /// problems :)
Re: (Score:2)
The are only two memory options, a max memory config which actually "minimal RAM", and a half memory option so unpopular that Apple has had to put on sale since its introduction to clear inventory. It absolutely is Apple's fault, and the "cheap out" is Apple's fault as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of memory is not a software issue, and. ...
"And most of all nevermind it has only a pathetic 8GB of RAM" ... you would know this because it was specifically addressed, but because you're a shameless zealot you ignore the issue so you can claim it will "thus be fixed in a matter of a month", a claim that has utterly no basis.
Came here to see more of your bullshit on display.
Re: (Score:2)
Several articles have pointed out (Score:3)
We can see evidence of people allegedly having written 150TB to 256GB SSDs in as little as 4 months. A decent SSD will provide 1 full overwrite per day (1DWPD) for 5 years which on a drive of that capacity would be 468TB at best.
Now, let us assume Apple are magical and use SSDs rated for 10 y
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt it is the "final nail in the coffin for the Mac as a professional-grade device".
If it is a real issue, it is likely a bug in software which can and likely will eventually be fixed. I doubt there is anything fundamental about what Mac OS (or iOS) is doing that requires the reported quantity of writes.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that its probably a bug in the software but the question is "how is apple going to address it?" I'm having issues believing the 150 TB numbers people are talking about but it is possible. With that being said 150 TB written is a huge chunk out of the life span of any SSD. Is apple going to replace the SSD's in these Macs, or are they just going to say "tuff shit?" I'm expecting the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Find the bug. Fix the Bug, release the fix. Now, that was hard, wasn't it?
Completely missed the point didn't we? Find bug, fix bug, is probably all they are going to do. What are they going to do about the decreased life span of the SSD's THEIR shitty design caused? Apple going to pony up and pay for repairs? Based on Apples past performance, No they will not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a bit concerning that they didn't find this in QA, but there are many corner-cases in all software and you can't find what a million people will find. It may be that a very specific set of software/configuration/pattern of usage is needed to trigger this and it isn't a general problem (even if it is widespread, it probably is still a minority). If it is a widespread problem, it will probably get fixed. If nothing else, all that disk writing will reduce battery life and Apple does care about that.
Re: (Score:3)
And five percent a month? Is that okay for you?
https://twitter.com/takkyun/st... [twitter.com]
That's less than two years of lifespan on storage that's soldiered to the motherboard.
Imagine the wastage from all this.
Re: (Score:2)
"this is the currently known worst case by lifetime fraction" straight from the original thread. So yes, if you cherry pick the absolute WORST case discovered, things look dire. This is an outlier, not the norm. Look at all of the other stats. There were so many people in the 0-2% range that the person asked people to stop flooding the replies. The overwhelming vast majority of users are not having an issue. There are some outliers out there that are most likely having issues due to their unusual workloads
Re: (Score:2)
A sample of one is really scientific isnt it ?
Inventory to clear out (Score:4, Informative)
For some use cases, the M1 macbooks are no good - users who need to run a lot of x86 virtual machines, or want to dual boot windows etc.
Re:Inventory to clear out (Score:4, Informative)
You listed the literal only two use cases that don't work. And on that note, ARM VMs are working now. Plus with Graviton (AWS ARM) being cheaper than their x86 equivalent systems, this is the direction engineering is headed in general. Oh, and Windows ARM boots inside of a VM too on the M1 now.
Re: (Score:2)
You listed the literal only two use cases that don't work.
Or those who work with substantial amounts of data. 16G isn't all that much: this laptop has 16G and it's a decade old! It' still a perfectly usable amount to be sure, but I don't wok this laptop that hard any more.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Or those who work with substantial amounts of data. 16G isn't all that much: this laptop has 16G and it's a decade old! It' still a perfectly usable amount to be sure, but I don't wok this laptop that hard any more.
All the M1 models are _low end_ Macs. What's confusing is that they are low end Macs with incredible performance for a low end machine, actually beating or coming very close in performance to much more expensive Macs. But they are low end Macs.
Would be better to say "some use cases can now be handled perfectly fine by low end Macs with M1 processor, that previously needed a much more expensive computer. Basically anything that was limited just by processor performance and nothing else. "
Re: (Score:2)
You're a total amateur at making bullshit sound like a solution.
"For some use cases, the M1 macbooks are no good" is a simple fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course i listed the use cases that don't work, that's the whole point.
Yes windows and linux versions for arm will boot inside of a vm, but sometimes you need the x86 version for compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this. It will take a while before M1 Macs can do local x86 VMs and dual boot. Maybe in a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Hopefully my next Mac will be a M1 but right now the current one isn't for me. Intel still wins for now.
Re: (Score:2)
The M1 Macs run x86 MacOS apps at 80% speed largely because of extra instructions Apple added to their CPU to flip memory ordering to the x86 model.
You are just confusing people who read "memory ordering" and understand "byte ordering".
Re: (Score:2)
ARM has always supported both big and little endian. Any ARM system I've ever seen ran in little endian mode. Does macOS run in big endian mode?
Re: (Score:2)
x86_64, not simply x86.
big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been the case where I've noted. I had a friend who wanted to show off his $5K Mac Pro. He was very proud of it. Then he had to do some "real work." This required him to boot up an Windows VM.
it was very amusing over the years to listen to him pout about games I was playing on my Windows machine, that I paid half of what he he paid for his Mac. Games that where not available on the mac and never would be.
I imagine with the release of the M1 Macs, games will completely vanish. Well maybe
ZDNet? (Score:2)
"memory management and page swapping is so efficient"
Wow, it's magical.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's true that swapping to a SSD is much faster than swapping to an HDD... Specially if it is a low-end SMR one.
I would also think that Mac OS is better at handling heavy loads than Windows. But I don't know how it compares to Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux is a terrible memory hog now that everyone is using docker/snap (or statically linked binaries, or a full copy of the nodejs runtime in every node app), which replicates every single fucking runtime over and over again.
But that isn't what the article is saying. It is saying the M1 has magically better memory management than other MacOS machines.
It's the instruction set, not perf/battery, silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Though the M1 is impressive, ARM Macs aren't crashing the prices of used Intel Macs because of how much better they are. They're crashing the prices because people don't want to be stuck on an architectural dead end.
Everyone with an Intel Mac can now look forward to a near future when OS upgrades, application updates, and application availability will all fade away. The last version of MacOS to support PowerPC was released just 3 years after the Intel transition.
Re: (Score:2)
theoretically developers use a high-level language for the vast majority of their work and kicking off two compilers with a single button press in your IDE is not a significant technical hurdle.
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, all Mac software could be fat binaries for PPC, i386 and x86-64.
Realistically, Mac software built for PPC faded away a long time ago.
Maybe things will go differently this time? Somehow, I'm skeptical hardly any software publishers are going to ship Mac x86-64 support 5 years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I think it's an easy problem to solve, yet Apple is not going to make Xcode support it. Or worse, they'll support fat binaries for a brief period then drop it, like they have in the past.
I suspect x86-64 support will end at one of their macOS releases. And that Xcode support will later stop supporting that last release. And Apple will pivot entirely to ARM, dragging the world's developers with them. It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to predict this, as this is how they handled the PPC support.
P
Sounds like a good year to buy an Apple-made Linux (Score:2)
I used to buy macs 15 years ago, but the hassle of jumping through all kinds of loops just to make an alternative OS boot put me off one day. (Is it still that difficult?)
My understanding is that, taken at face value, Macs still have outstanding displays and keyboards, and are usually on-par with best-in-class regarding batterry life. The biggest weak points are the crappy OS, and mediocre performance and limited peripherals for the price, but if price plummeted, that'd probably offset those.
So you'd get an
Re: Sounds like a good year to buy an Apple-made L (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VMs aren't perfect for everbody or everything. Gaming for one takes a hit.
Re: (Score:3)
You were ever in the market for a Mac anyway if you wanted a machine for gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
[x] Smart ass attitude
[ ] Understood what my post is about
[ ] Really thought this through
*sigh* here we go.
VMs are 2nd class citizens for a variety of reasons. Performance for starters, tough depending on the underlying VM tech, that can be mitigated a long way. (One of the best VM techs performance wise on the market today is, BTW, Linux's KVM... not VMware, not Parallels).
Then, for a VM to work, you have to have a host OS in the first place - MacOS. When support for that ceases, your VM is a thing of th
My experience with VMs is not like yours (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a 2010 Mac Pro. 12/24 core, 64 GB RAM, several TB class HDs, One large 4k and several smaller 2k-ish displays. Apple's OS upgrade support for the machine (unfortunately, and let me just pause to say, "fuck you in the heart, Apple") stopped at OSX 10.12.6; the VMs (several versions of Windows, one of OSX, and two of Linux) continue to work perfectly well. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Would you elaborate, please?
Actually, that's where one would expect it to work best, presuming the VM is of an Intel OS (common Windows, Linux versions...) Certainly I haven't had any trouble with them. I haven't heard anything yet about anyone's adventures trying to run an Intel OS VM on the new Apple hardware, though I've been anticipating something about it with interest. Seems like it'd be... a significant technical challenge.
Huh. VMWare here. I own Parallels, but the VMWare stuff consistently works better for me. [shrugs] YMMV.
Um... no. No reason to lose a VM unless you change something else. No imperative to change something else unless something is broken, either. Though again, it'd be nice if Apple supported their hardware longer than just a few years. Win10 installed on my very early laptop without a single complaint and works fine. Microsoft shows Apple up pretty harshly in that regard. I could install the latest OSX if I cared to work around Apple's artificial "your machine is too old" fuckery... many others have done so. I have yet to see a real need, but I suppose someday I might get around to it.
Most things build and run fine under OSX, sometimes given the usual hoop jumping (IOW, the same hoop jumping one often has to do to build under Linux. Dependency hell, etc.) Some of my daily driver software is Bash, Midnight Commander, various command line stuff, Python, all native under OSX, but I've got quite a few libraries and so on that I've built native. Then there are the various compatibility efforts; Macports, Homebrew, etc. I don't use them, but they're out there and plenty of people do use them with considerable success.
But failing that, presuming OSX presents some kind of unsurmountable or highly inconvenient barrier, or if you just want a straight-up Linux environment, yeah, you can just build in a VM for most things.
Also, I develop large, popular desktop applications ([1 [fyngyrz.com]],[2 [fyngyrz.com]]) for Windows in a Windows VM on my Mac. No problems whatsoever. I also build the same apps in an old version of OSX in a VM so as to have the largest range of OS compatibility. This has also proven to be a solid development paradigm, and completely avoids Apple's OS bitrot that locks out older OSX versions.
Nope. Definitely nope. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck running a bunch of VMs in 8G of RAM
Re: It's the instruction set, not perf/battery, si (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My three 2012 Macbooks are all still working nicely; thanks for asking
For how much longer though? They're no longer supported by the latest OS and the 2011 ones, several versions back from that, are now past EOL (apparently---apple seem to think they're too cool to actually part with such information and leave to up to third parties to deduce it), so how long left on those 2012 era ones?
I'm writing from a Thinkpad W510, released 2010. Ubuntu 18.04 will go EOL sometime in 2023, at which time I'll probably up
Quibble (Score:3)
Quite often, it's because they artificially prevent new versions of the OS from installing on perfectly capable and compatible hardware. It's pretty common to spoof a later OSX installer into installing on a machine Apple calls out as "not compatible."
They're pushing new hardware and as part of that drive, they impose artificial obsolescence on older machines well before there is any actua
The support policy is public info though (Score:2)
Now this might seem stingy at first, given we know that Microsoft has given at least 10 years worth of OS security u
Re:It's the instruction set, not perf/battery, sil (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you in theory, but there's a subgroup which also needs to be considered.
The Intel machines before M1 can run Mac OS Mojave (10.14).This is the last OS which will run 32 bit programs. If a user does buy a M1 machine they may need to upgrade many of their older programs.
Which could be an issue for some if they don't want to deal with subscription models like the ones Photoshop offers. In 1990 Version CS6 was released and was the last version you could buy outright. Adobe stopped selling this version in 2017. Is it worth buying a new Mac knowing you also may have to spend at least $20/month extra? How many other programs could suddenly go the subscription route?
This is the position I'm currently in. I'm right now typing this on a 2012 Mac Mini which is still working fine. But I worry about how much extra expense would go into updating my software. (Side note: Currently looking at Krita, an open source Photoshop alternative.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Affinity Photo can do a lot of what Photoshop does, and it's M1 native.
I resisted Catalina, and only upgraded to Big Sur when my imac died. I lost a lot of compatibility with my existing software library, though, to be fair, most of those were games. Still, replacing x86-64 software that was bought and paid for with ARM software that is subscription based rankles.
I have a license to CorelCAD that HumbleBundle sold me for $30. It doesn't quite work on my M1. The latest version is $699. What's more, Apple's i
Re: (Score:3)
Look at Affinity Photo (https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/).
It is a single-purchase improvement over Adobe Photoshop. Simpler work-flow. Opens Photoshop files. Has live adjustment layers and lots of other useful features.
It's easy to switch to Affinity Photo from Photoshop, too. Affinity has both a video tutorial series (free) and a workbook (~$45) that each goes through all of the features in detail. You'll pick up enough to get started in a few minutes, and can probably make the switch for good in a
Re: (Score:2)
Their implementation of a double arch binary (PPC+Intel x86) was actually pretty good, as far as I can remember, and helped smooting the transition to the new architecture.
But things went down the drain when they decided to x86 support in favor of x64 in the OS, thus preventing the use of a lot of legacy software. Now, by switching to ARM, it does not seem that they are implementing a double-arch binary like they did before. Instead they will rely on a VM that will have a performance impact on older softwar
Re: (Score:2)
This was relatively OK for phones, as you're not really going to create anything of significance on a little touchscreen. But we still need general purpose computers that we as individual owners have full control over.
As a Mac user for 20 years ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know all too well that once OSX/macOS drops support for your hardware, the resale value plummets. This is in part because it gets harder to support old OS releases on the newer version of Xcode. Apple really wants you to move forward and not lock your apps to some old deprecated APIs. Sadly this means it's a real hassle if your company wants to support software development on a broader range of OS versions than Apple recommends.
As a PC user I know no matter what I do, the resale value of a used PC is a tiny fraction of the purchase price, even if is less than a year old.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Bitcoin, if you weren't part of the ICO then you're not going to be one of the big winners. You should have stocked up on Intel MacBooks years ago.
Bitcoin (Score:2)
M1 Macs are fantastic (Score:2)
At running Geekbench. For those of you who spend all day running Geekbench I could not recommend them more highly. Your efficiency at running Geekbench will more than double.
Meanwhile most reviews of actual workloads boil down to: "The M1 is amazing. Sure it's the same speed but on the Intel machine I heard a fan running!"
Re: (Score:2)
Getting thousands of users to run benchmarks (in order to garner statistically useful results) is difficult when the benchmarks take hours to run.
Most users spend a lot of time in the Browser, and geekbench tests many of the same workloads.
My most computationally intensive workload involved OCR-- but those sorts of benchmarks are nonexistent. (It seems that tesseract is much faster, but Abbyy Finereader is broken under Big Sur.)
This is a ploy to force trade in.... (Score:2)
Whenever you buy a new Apple product they Apple will glady give you money for your old device.
The purpose of trade-in is to get old devices off the street to limit the used market.
This is just a ploy to get people to take the trade-in so the old device can be destroyed (I mean recycled).
Re: (Score:3)
I just checked and Apple will pay $270 for a good condition 2013 Mac Book Pro.
Apple wants the old devices off the street and into the landfill.
The biggest competition for a new Apple device is an old Apple device.
Love'em or hate'em, (Score:3, Insightful)
This is impressive engineering on Apple's part. Looking at Geekbench, the M1 Air, Pro and Mini are within error bars of each other on multi-core performance. The amazing thing is that there are only three Macs that beat it - a maxed-out iMac, the iMac Pro Xeon and the Mac Pro Xeon.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Shouldn't this make you question the power of Geekbench? Geekbench has always made questionable decisions. Recently-ish they've pulled out sustained CPU throughput tests. Many of their tests calculate tiny amounts in short bursts, so that a machine with a huge heatsink and phone doesn't have an advantage over like a phone. But in the real world, it's much better to have that huge heatsink.
I could be mistaken on some of this, but this has been my impression, and this discussion thread is pretty good:
http [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, except if you go on to YouTube, real-world comparisons are a dime a dozen, and the M1s really are better than any of the current Intel counterparts, particularly for non-parallel tasks. The one place where iMac Pros and Mac Pros beat out the M1s are when you're running extremely high loads and then try to multitask; they're just not built for that. But for compiling webkit or exporting video or whatever, the M1s perform extremely well without chewing up the whole battery. They just draw less power for
Bring back 32-bit app support and I'll buy one (Score:2)
I still have legacy 32-bit software I need to run so I bought a loaded 2018 MBP. It'll be a while before I pull the trigger on an Apple silicon machine.
Re:Bring back 32-bit app support (Score:2)
Yeah.... the problem with this is, the developers of Mac software are generally working on such slim profit margins at this point? A lot of programs just won't ever get a rewrite for 64-bit support. (Big list of OS X game titles I've got over here that are in that category.)
IMO, Apple is on borrowed time as far as keeping much of a market for its laptops and desktops. Most of the Mac faithful cling to it because of past experience where the Mac was just a better user experience and had superior software a
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Why would anyone want to use Mac OS for LONGER?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all know you don't do "any actual programming / video / photo work", SuperKendall. If you do any at all, you've already proclaimed that the iPad is the platform of choice for content creation and who needs MacOS to run emacs, the choice for connoisseurs such as yourself when you are being the salvation for IT infrastructure staffs everywhere. Doesn't every iOS developer use emacs?
Besides, why not answer the question, "what relationship does this have with normal computing tasks?" Sure looks like you a
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is whether you should buy at all or instead wait until Macs that aren't crippled with low memory become available, perhaps with significant other advantages over the M1. If your computing needs are modest enough that an M1 would suffice, then the answer is NO unless you literally do not have a machine. Otherwise, the answer is NO because current M1s are inadequate regardless of benchmarks selected to make them look good. With the answer almost always NO, why would anyone buy M1 Macs, pa
Indeed... (Score:2)
Turns out the M1 is not even winning on modern single core benchmarks [wccftech.com] relative to current CPUs when tested correctly. What we weren't told originally by the tech press was that the single-core benchmarks were only utilising a single thread and not making full use of an individual CPU core when running. The same flaws have been found with early multi-core tests, using 1 thread per core ra