Live data from Hacker News

Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

theverge.com

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#31
post #26

“Apple’s insistence that reaching up to touch a laptop screen is too burdensome is just getting silly, especially when that is not a problem on the iPad and across the universe of Windows laptops, and most especially when these laptops can run iPhone and iPad apps natively.“ In a way Nilay is right - ultimately it makes no sense not to allow touch interaction. However Apple is also right in a different way. If apps a…

I’ve used windows laptops with touchscreens a lot and never really used the touchscreen. There doesn’t seem to be a point.

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#32
post #31
post #26

“Apple’s insistence that reaching up to touch a laptop screen is too burdensome is just getting silly, especially when that is not a problem on the iPad and across the universe of Windows laptops, and most especially when these laptops can run iPhone and iPad apps natively.“ In a way Nilay is right - ultimately it makes no sense not to allow touch interaction. However Apple is also right in a different way. If apps a…

I’ve used windows laptops with touchscreens a lot and never really used the touchscreen. There doesn’t seem to be a point.

The most annoying thing that can happen to a laptop short of breaking is smudges on the screen. I really don't want to ever have to be required to physically touch the screen in order to complete any operation.

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#33
post #17
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we'll see a Mac Pro for a long time, this will be the most difficult (and interesting) one to see move over to ARM.

I predict it will disappear from the market within 2 years with no replacement leaving people to limp along on an iMac. Not like it hasn't happened before.

I'm pretty sure I heard an Apple talking head saying that an Apple Silicon Mac Pro "in a smaller form factor" will be making its way here in the next couple years.

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#34
post #26

“Apple’s insistence that reaching up to touch a laptop screen is too burdensome is just getting silly, especially when that is not a problem on the iPad and across the universe of Windows laptops, and most especially when these laptops can run iPhone and iPad apps natively.“ In a way Nilay is right - ultimately it makes no sense not to allow touch interaction. However Apple is also right in a different way. If apps a…

Most users are not asking for touchscreens on their Mac laptops just like no one wants a touchscreen TV.

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#37
post #26

“Apple’s insistence that reaching up to touch a laptop screen is too burdensome is just getting silly, especially when that is not a problem on the iPad and across the universe of Windows laptops, and most especially when these laptops can run iPhone and iPad apps natively.“ In a way Nilay is right - ultimately it makes no sense not to allow touch interaction. However Apple is also right in a different way. If apps a…

Not only is most desktop software not well suited to touch interactions, touchscreens on laptops are also an ergonomic nightmare.

Try reaching your hand up to touch your monitor and hold it there for a minute. Now try pretending you’ll do this for an 8 hour workday.

It’s a useless feature in search of a use-case.

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#38
Super interesting part for me was - on this legacy apps would run just as fast as they would on Intel Macs.

But the real nut of it is that it has managed to make a chip so powerful that it can take the approximate 26% hit (see the following charts) in raw power to translate apps and still make them run just as fast if not faster than MacBooks with Intel processors.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro...

We run a standard Adobe Premiere export test, and the MacBook Air beats the latest Intel laptops with integrated graphics and holds its own with some laptops with proper discrete GPUs... the thing to pay attention to is that Adobe Premiere haven’t been optimized for this chip yet. They’re running through Apple’s Rosetta 2 translation layer.

https://www.theverge.com/21569603/apple-macbook-air-m1-revie...

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#39
post #31
post #26

“Apple’s insistence that reaching up to touch a laptop screen is too burdensome is just getting silly, especially when that is not a problem on the iPad and across the universe of Windows laptops, and most especially when these laptops can run iPhone and iPad apps natively.“ In a way Nilay is right - ultimately it makes no sense not to allow touch interaction. However Apple is also right in a different way. If apps a…

I’ve used windows laptops with touchscreens a lot and never really used the touchscreen. There doesn’t seem to be a point.

I've found it has uses with pairing.

Otherwise yea I agree.

Re: Apple MacBook Pro with M1 Review

#40

> We found one strange Rosetta bug in this test: we set Premiere to export at a 40mb/s bitrate, but in Rosetta across three M1 Macs, it would deliver… 20. When we set it to 80mb/s, it delivered 40. Sure. We told Adobe, and the company gently reminded us that running Creative Cloud apps in Rosetta 2 is unsupported. So... be careful out there. Rosetta 2 might be a bumpy ride, but nice to see that Creative Cloud tools e…

I saw something yesterday where Rosetta 2 ran apps faster than real Intel chips on the M1. Crazy

It was noted years ago (https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/1999/HPL-1999-78.html) that dynamic runtime optimization could speed up native programs (aka x86 on x86, or in the above case pa-risc on pa-risc).

But in the end, the reason we don't have similar systems everywhere today is that the vast majority of the benifit has been consumed by modern OoO machines and Profile guided optimization. If your seeing significant x86 speedups in rosetta its likely one of two things are happening.

So you could be running very poorly optimized x86 code, or its a system call/graphics/etc heavy benchmark which is spending the majority of its time in the OS. The latter was a big conversation during the early PPC years when apple was claiming their machines were faster than x86's running x86 code because of this one x86 benchmark that ran better on a PPC mac (can't remember the name). But it turned out it was mostly an OS benchmark, and 99% of the time it was just measuring native PPC macos performance vs windows95.

The former (poorly optimized x86) can happen for a number of reasons, one of the most common is people targeting the base x86-64 instruction set and ignoring avx/etc, or just simply unoptimized builds.

Post reply on HN