Really wish people gave Linux a fair shot instead of considering a $3,000 notebook from Apple. Maybe it’s mostly journalist that talk about it every time Microsoft fucks up.
So, as a software engineer who has also used Linux for decades, I get what you’re saying, but the simple fact is that Apple stuff tends to be way more rock-solid reliable for “normal users” (browsing, email, etc - basically, UI- and human-focused tasks) simply because they have vertically integrated everything.
That’s why their stuff “just works” pretty much always for simple activities - because when you control the chip architecture, instruction set, system hardware and integration, OS, the app code, and everything else I forgot to mention, you can do some really cool and hacky things to make the user experience incredible, but that cross some boundaries that a fully black-boxed architecture (that is: a design that strictly followed the hardware specs and didn’t rely on any nonstandard tricks or end-running of normal interfaces) likely wouldn’t.
I get why people do it. I just hate the proposition of throwing out a perfectly good computer that’s potentially upgradable and certainly more repairable compared to a Mac.
Ask anyone who had their Mac break and the answer is usually it can’t be fixed get a new one. Their hardware feels nice but reducing e-waste is a high priority in my book. MacBooks in particular don’t have a great track record for longevity when heavily used, most cheap laptops don’t.
An interprise computer designed to be repaired would always be a better option for professionals and individuals alike but even better is one that you already own.
Really wish people gave Linux a fair shot instead of considering a $3,000 notebook from Apple. Maybe it’s mostly journalist that talk about it every time Microsoft fucks up.
So, as a software engineer who has also used Linux for decades, I get what you’re saying, but the simple fact is that Apple stuff tends to be way more rock-solid reliable for “normal users” (browsing, email, etc - basically, UI- and human-focused tasks) simply because they have vertically integrated everything.
That’s why their stuff “just works” pretty much always for simple activities - because when you control the chip architecture, instruction set, system hardware and integration, OS, the app code, and everything else I forgot to mention, you can do some really cool and hacky things to make the user experience incredible, but that cross some boundaries that a fully black-boxed architecture (that is: a design that strictly followed the hardware specs and didn’t rely on any nonstandard tricks or end-running of normal interfaces) likely wouldn’t.
I get why people do it. I just hate the proposition of throwing out a perfectly good computer that’s potentially upgradable and certainly more repairable compared to a Mac.
Ask anyone who had their Mac break and the answer is usually it can’t be fixed get a new one. Their hardware feels nice but reducing e-waste is a high priority in my book. MacBooks in particular don’t have a great track record for longevity when heavily used, most cheap laptops don’t.
An interprise computer designed to be repaired would always be a better option for professionals and individuals alike but even better is one that you already own.