Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing the next generation of Mac

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#711

Post by redwall_hp »

skohan wrote: post #610
aroman wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what would you run on it? What OS besides macOS has support for running on Apple Silicon?

What's the meaningful difference from other ARM chips which would make this impossible?

Apple's not going to ship drivers for Linux, and it's a SoC. So someone needs to somehow write an open source driver for Apple's proprietary black box of a GPU.

I suspect very little will work at all if someone can get Linux to boot on one, and it will be a very lengthy endeavor to get things up to being usable.

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#712

Post by sudosysgen »

kabacha wrote: post #683
justin66 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this pricing was brought about by the same head injury that caused someone in management to believe 8GB is an adequate base spec for RAM in 2020.

I really don't get it. How much difference could 8 to 16gb be in terms of price? Is Apple really doing this to save 20$ per machine? Even if you somehow could argue that 8 is all you need now, what about in few years? No one should ever buy this device.

They aren't doing it to save 20$ per machine, they are doing it to make the higher price of a 16GB machine seem more reasonable than if it was the base model.

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#713

Post by redwall_hp »

pkulak wrote: post #399
sneak wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the best news I’ve heard all day, thank you! I’m totally fine with a chromebook-style unsigned boot warning.

Why not just support a company that doesn't do this crap?

Why not legislate companies to not do this crap?

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#714

Post by fomine3 »

perfect_wave wrote: post #562
yoz-y wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only bad thing about the current 16" is the Touch Bar. There is a lot to like about the rest though.

I agree here. I really don't understand some of the bashing that happens every single time the Macbook Pros come up in HN comments. I was a longtime happy owner of a 2015 15" MBP until earlier this year when I decided it was time to upgrade to a refurbished 2019 16" MBP. I was a bit nervous at first but I have to say that I have no major complaints, other than the fact that I wish I had F keys instead of the touchbar…

It's fine for who love, but the problem is there's no alternative choice with macOS.

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#715

Post by Fogest »

sudosysgen wrote: post #712
kabacha wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get it. How much difference could 8 to 16gb be in terms of price? Is Apple really doing this to save 20$ per machine? Even if you somehow could argue that 8 is all you need now, what about in few years? No one should ever buy this device.

They aren't doing it to save 20$ per machine, they are doing it to make the higher price of a 16GB machine seem more reasonable than if it was the base model.

Yeah this screams classic Apple. Advertise the cost of the Mac as lower, but with a shitty option that most people will have to upgrade. Majority are not going to want to buy a 8gb laptop for that kind of money and not just bump it up to 16gb.

This reminds me of how movie theatres offer a small, medium and large but the large popcorn only costs slightly more than the medium, thus enticing you to go for the large.

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#716

Post by pierrefermat1 »

AdamN wrote: post #405
TechBro8615 wrote: post #354

Straw poll: I need a new development machine, price is not an object but it has to be a Mac. Should I buy this new M1 or go with the Intel 16 inch MBP? My gut says there’s going to be a year or two of cross-compilation nightmares. I do a lot of Docker-based development. Wondering what everyone else thinks?

Get the Apple Silicon. If it doesn't meet your expectations, return it and get the Intel one. Returns are trivial with Apple if within 2 weeks (might be longer now with covid).

This is terrible advice, with new launches like this there's always a ton of compatibilities issues and you don't want to spend ages getting the device setup to realise some specific software that you must use isn't supported or sit around waiting for updates to support the new system.

Why not just wait a few weeks post release to get a reviewers take on using the new device as a development machine?

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#717

Post by Wowfunhappy »

melling wrote: post #689
nojito wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>8GB is an adequate base spec for RAM in 2020. Why wouldn't it be? The iPad Pros max out at 6gb and yet they overperform the vast majority of laptops out there.

I bought a 16GB MacBook Pro in 2013. It’s still going strong. Today I wouldn’t buy less than 32GB. Performance is always better and the machine will last much longer

> and the machine will last much longer.

At the moment, that's debatable, since the only 32GB Macs you can buy are Intel ones...

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#718

Post by Wowfunhappy »

novok wrote: post #692
foldr wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video encoding is one example of a laptop use case where the iPad Pro has very competitive performance. Gaming is another.

Video encoding is usually special dedicated hardware, so it's more measuring the hardware encoder than the general speed of the device. Go head to head with AV1 encoding for example and you'll see it matches it's general benchmark.

Also, hardware encoders produce much less efficient results (in terms of the ratio of quality to file size) then the best software encoders like x264.

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#719

Post by Wowfunhappy »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #645
shakow wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely an adequate base spec. What would the random MacBook user fill 16GB of RAM with?

I have Firefox, Slack, MS Team, MS Word, MS Excel, and Onenote opened. The world's most boring office worker use case. I know it's a deceptive metric but Task Manager shows 12.5GB "In Use". 16.2 Committed. Each Firefox tab has between 250mb and 1g "Memory (Active Working Area)". HUUUUUGeeeee long tail of 100MB trailing down to 20MB services and things. Adobe has half a dozen at all times, etc etc etc. I'm game to use…

Yes, largely because two of those are (bad) Electron apps that eat way more memory than they have any right to.

Re: Introducing the next generation of Mac

#720

Post by Wowfunhappy »

wlesieutre wrote: post #566
rbanffy wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not looking at a typical Mac user here, are we?

Slack, Whatsapp, Discord, and Skype, pick any two and I don't think it's unusual.

I'm not saying your wrong, but this is such a catch-22.

When people complain about Electron apps, the response is always "modern computers have so much memory anyway, it's fine!"

But then when a manufacturer introduces a computer with slightly less memory (but still a perfectly reasonable amount) the big question is whether it can run all those Electron apps!

Is there a way to break the cycle? This isn't good!

Post reply on HN