> I still don’t like macOS and would prefer to run Linux on this laptop. But Asahi Linux still needs some work before it’s usable for me (I need external display output, and M4 support). This doesn’t bother me too much, though, as I don’t use this computer for serious work.
“I don’t use this computer for serious work.” Dropped $3K on MBP to play around with. Definitely should have gotten MBA
If you are going to start making a list of expensive hobbies, $3K for a computer isn't going to be anywhere near the top of the list.
I think it actually would be quite near the top, in terms of ranking. Most hobbies are a lot cheaper.
Of course, not near the top in terms of money because there are a few hobbies that cost vastly more.
[deleted]
> Most hobbies are a lot cheaper.
Sure, but I did specify expensive hobbies.
Try general aviation as a hobby. It will be eye opening
Thinking it’s a hobby is an american thing. I’ve never met anyone who do it, but for Kobe Bryant, Harrisson Ford, Tom Cruise it seems normal.
Most people save $400 per month tops, that they spend on holidays.
Just off the top of my head in hobbies that I've been in/around that this $3k would be a nothing burger: photography, wood working, grease monkey, cycling, gun collecting, antiquing, recreational substances...
You can absolutely be a hobbyist photographer for a fraction of $3k. A hobbyist lens collector is a different story.
Well, there’s hobbies and there’s a buying addiction that comes with a hobby.
In many areas there’s a tendency to overdo it with tools, gadgets and also to compensate for lack of skill with more gadgets. I do woodworking for example and my total spend for industrial vacuum, different types of power and hand tools, work bench, clamps, etc probably comes to around a few thousand EUR. Mine is a really good set-up for a hobby, but I still don’t have any stationary machines or fancy separate work area or room.
I bought everything over the years and I only buy brand-name. My point is, this is actually a lot of money especially if spent as lump sum and not at all a “nothing-burger”.
[deleted]
> photography, wood working, grease monkey, cycling, gun collecting, antiquing, recreational substances
Yacht owner says ‘hold my beer’.
I actually can’t think of one hobby that costs less than $3k
What do you mean "in terms of ranking" vs "in terms of money"?
It's not the absolute expense, it's the delta over what else would have worked just as well.
The type of person shelling out 3k for a computer is not running it until the wheels come off.
I don't think you can say that -- I paid about that for my 2021 M1 Max with 64GB and I'm still using it four years later as my main machine. There's an argument to be made to buy an expensive computer every 5 years or so rather than a cheaper one that you need to replace every 2 years because it's become unbearably slow.
What does the purchase price have to do with it? Seems like it would entirely depend on circumstances and constraints, rather than cost, how long someone would run something
I have the M1 Max. It’s still going hard. Not planning to replace it anytime soon.
Bullshit. I shelled $3k for my MBP M1 back in 2021 and I intend to use it until I can’t anymore.
It depends on the person and the use case. Different personalities etc
I have an M2 Ultra. I don't see myself getting rid of it for another 5 years at least.
> $3K for a computer isn't going to be anywhere near the top of the list.
That says a lot about the community you live in.
That they've worked hard to be able to afford nice things? What do you think it says, exactly? This is a pretty irritating comment.
The "mac community" is even worse. I recently spend $4k on linux laptop, and I get endless criticism, that it is "too expensive" for a "windows pc". I need spec for my work, and comparable mac is 4x more expensive!
This whole discussion is weird. For the majority of the world's population, dropping $3K on a computer is a non-starter, if even possible. Over six hundred million people cannot even afford proper food and shelter. But there are also sixty-two million millionaires in the world. So there are a large number of people who can buy a MBP without even blinking. We've just discovered income disparity. What the heck does that obvious truth have to add to a review of a MBP?
just skip going out to lunch once and eat a turkey sandwich instead /s
Just wait until they see the price of of a 300/2.8 lens or quantum-tuned rocks to isolate power cables from the floor.
He lives in Switzerland. $3K barely pays for a lunch and an espresso.
Computers are actually cheap as far as Swiss taxes go (I bought my first MacBook Pro when intel came out at EPFL). I’m sure they got their computer for about the same price as you could get it in Hong Kong. But ya, food, rent, and services are pricey in Switzerland, even if you are just grabbing a croissant at coop.
There's a reason the Zurich airport has a vending machine that sells slips of gold, platinum, and palladium
I'm not sure what the actual reason is, but my first instinct is "tax evasion".
Jokes aside, electronics is way cheaper here (also thanks to a relatively low VAT) than in most countries - although Apple keeps their prices pretty much the same across the world.
This is funny because MBA could mean two things.
My work got me a $6500 laptop (128 gb unified memory m4 max) and I had to get a replacement for my self, paid $4000 for 48gb unified RAM and feel completely ripped off
Sad
Lmao plus MBA works great for relatively serious work. I was hesitant to switch from MBP but the M1 air almost never lets me down.
> I don’t notice going back to 60 Hz displays on computers. However, on phones, where a lot more animations are a key part of the user experience, I think 120 Hz displays are more interesting.
I'm always so jealous of these people, 60hz is just so bad for me now and even make me a bit motion sick.
I can see it in everything, moving the window, scrolling, the cursor.
It's interesting how different people pick up different details. I can't really see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz for example, but I'm unusually sensitive to bad kerning. The nano texture screen also screams smearing and low resolution to me.
Same. I currently have a 160hz and a 240hz monitor. And I can tell the difference between them when scrolling pages with tons of text.
There's less ghosting in 240hz.
And scrolling on 60hz to me looks blurry.
I'd like to think that those who don't notice the difference have improved brain GPUs that can compensate for ghosting.
> I'd like to think that those who don't notice the difference have improved brain GPUs that can compensate for ghosting.
Wow. My perspective was those that did notice the difference were more perceptive. Thank you - now I realize there is a completely different take. (I'm not sure that it's helpful mind you... but it gives me something to chew on).
How can you know it is not bias? For what its worth you might have never noticed any difference if you didn't knew they weren't refreshing at the same frequency.
Oh for me it's very clear.
Specially between 60hz and 120+.
Scrolling looks blurry/ghosted in 60hz.
I guess I could vibe code an app to set monitor Hz randomly in either 60 or 280 and test.
But it would be a waste of time from how clearly I can tell the difference.
For those of us who can see it, they are very noticeable. And could be told in blind testing 100% of times. After all 240Hz is still 4.1ms per frame, Again I have to point to this Microsoft Research Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
Wait until you try an OLED computer monitor, that screws with the "higher refresh rate => less ghosting" thought process completely.
Oh yeah I have an Oled LG C4 TV with 120hz refresh rate.
Can't go back to non-oleds.
I've made a test for myself. Screen split into two parts, two small squares moving and bouncing. First square moves every frame, second square skips every second frame, but moves 2x. So basically one half of the screen is full FPS, another half of the screen is half FPS. And I implemented it as a "blind test", so I could make a guess and then check it.
For screen with 60 FPS, the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS was pretty obvious and I could guess it 100% of the time.
For screen with 144FPS, the difference between 72FPS and 144FPS was not obvious at all and I couldn't reliably guess it at all. I also checked it with a few other persons, and they all failed this simple test.
So now I'm holding firm opinion, that these high-FPS displays are marketing gimmick.
https://pastebin.com/raw/hwR62Yhi here's HTML, save it and open. left click reveals which half is "fast" (full FPS) or "slow" (half FPS), scroll changes speed, F5 generates new test.
How old are you? I'm convinced this is an important detail.
I hosted a LAN party when I was in my early twenties when higher hz monitors were getting more popular in specifically the gaming scene. My buddy and I were playing a match of Counter Strike together side by side, me at 60Hz and him at 120Hz. I used to think like you, but it blew my mind how smooth it was in comparison, so much so I ordered a new monitor that weekend. I don't think it improved my ability to play in any significant way but it definitely felt nicer and smoother. Conversely, at the time you had to specifically set the option in Windows to account for higher Hz and if I forgot to on a reinstall or for whatever reason, I could tell something was off and would question my FPS and turn my counter on to see if I was getting lower FPS. You may not believe it, but I would noticably play worse. I thought it was psychosomatic myself until it happened a handful of times.
Now, I'm not a pro CS player by any means, but I guarantee you it matters, makes a difference, and is noticeable. I'm getting older now and care less as time goes on, but I still swear by and game on a high Hz monitor. When I look over my wife's shoulder on her low Hz monitor, the mouse movements are like a flipbook and when gaming on a Nintendo Switch 2 at 60 FPS, it is laughably noticeable.
Thanks for sharing the test. I'm surprised you aren't able to tell the difference -- I can pretty consistently (90%+) get the right answer to both sides at 120 fps "fast," speeds as low as ~500. At higher speeds it's much easier.
You can’t write it off as a marketing gimmick just because you and a few others personally can’t see the difference, many people demonstrably can.
Also people said the same thing about moving up from 24th cinema…
> So now I'm holding firm opinion, that these high-FPS displays are marketing gimmick.
While I agree the jump from 60 -> 140 hz/fps is not as noticeable as 30 -> 60, calling everything above 60 a ”marketing gimmick” is silly. When my screen or TV falls back to 60hz for whatever reason I can notice it immediately, you don’t have to do anything else than move your mouse or scroll down a webpage.
If I hook up an LED to a microcontroller and blink it at increasing frequencies until I stop being able to see it (for me about 85Hz), then if brain hardware is optimized, I shouldn't notice a difference at twice that frequency ala Nyquist sampling theorem?
For me it's the motion clarity that I notice the most. Higher FPS is just one way to get more clarity though, with other methods like black frame insertion then even 60 fps feels like 240.
Pretty cool test, but I wonder how fast you ran them at? I was able to distinguish between full and half after increasing the speed to around ~2000 units.
Crazy. I switch between my work’s M4 MacBook Pro and my personal M3 MacBook Air all the time and I forget that the displays are even different.
The curse of high standards. I wish I dont notice a lot of things. I wish I can stop thinking about why something that is clearly better hasn't been done.
I would live a much happier life.
I don’t think on this case it’s high standards, my eyes are just unable to really notice the difference.
Agree completely with this.
When I use a desktop display, my pattern is: load page, read content for 10-30 seconds, scroll, repeat.
When I use a phone, the read-time-before-scroll is more like 1-5 seconds due to the much smaller display.
I notice the scrolling blur in both places on 60 Hz displays, but it bothers me way more on a phone because I'm scrolling so much more.
I'm right there with you, 60hz feels like a flip book to me now.
I regularly switch between Android 120hz and iPhone 60 hz. It's bad for maybe 2 or 3 minutes then the brain get used once again to it.
There is nothing groundbreaking about 120hz.
I can tell the difference between 120 and 60 just fine and of course prefer better, but it doesn’t bother me.
It’s unfortunate if it bothers you. I have the same reaction to 30Hz.
How do you watch movies or TV without throwing up?
Major difference is one you're watching something without interacting with it and the other is responding to your action; one you have your gaze relatively still, taking in the entire frame, the other your eyes are tracking an object as you interact with it via some sort of input device.
In tracking motion your eyes/brain can see improved motion resolution (how clear the details are in an object moving across the screen) up to 1000Hz.
Your body & nervous system processing has input lags on the order of 100ms and variance on the order of 10’s of ms though.
Distance to screen matters.
Personally I've had concussions and bad screens do make me sick. Even 60hz TVs if I'm sitting somewhat close, particularly for certain content. All the chaos of Dr. Strange / Multiverse was too much for me to watch.
Motion blur mitigates the issue to some extent, why 24fps films are watchable.
Same, thankfully its now completely gone in phones. But i like the MBA 13 for its form factor but the screen feels broken to me.
This is such a weird experience for me. On my phone, I instantly notice going back to 60 from 90 hz. But on my computers and handheld consoles, I don't mind, or even notice, at all.
> My ideal MacBook would probably be a MacBook Air, but with the nano-texture display! :)
I agree on the nano-texture display having used one in person for a little bit. It's sort of like an ultra fine matte texture that isn't noticable while using it, but is noticable compared to other devices in the same room. I hope it becomes a more standard option on future devices.
That said, I've used Thinkpads with matte displays and while not as fine, they mostly have the same benefit.
I think my ideal would be a MacBook Air with both the nano-texture and higher 120hz refresh rate the Pro has. With that, I'll trade an extra second of compile time for my rust projects for the smaller form factor.
are rust devs the new vegans?
It's the first matte screen on a MacBook since 2011.
I ran that thing for like 6 years til the replacement for the failed GPU failed again.
More matte screens please!
Dang I was gonna get one with nano texture but the opinion was 50/50 everywhere so I went with the Devil I know
To be it looked very much like the matte coating on Dell monitors, where bunched up same-color pixels have this "feels like there's a rainbow here but if I focus on it I don't see it anymore" effect. Definitely better than ThinkPad matte, though.
I’d love an air with a high density display.
My mom has an M1 air, and its resolution is not great. Everything looks a bit blurry compared with my 4K Dell XPS my wife’s MacBook Pro m4 display. I guess the air’s native resolution means it has to do fractional scaling.
The Air has about 218dppi screen, but your wife might have a non-integer resolution selected.
Yeah the default doesn't do a 1:1 display to pixel ratio.
Just to be pedantic it is integer scaled (from 1440x900 to 2880x1800 but then resampled down to the native resolution of the MBA 2560x1600 via something better than bilinear).
The m1 air native resolution is 2560x1600 and the 'best for display' default is 1280x800, that's 2x integer scaling. But yeah if you have a different resolution set, it'll be fractional and probably a bit blurry in comparison.
What is going on with the Dells recently?
One thing that wasn't mentioned is the max sustained screen brightness for SDR, which is higher on the M4 Pro (1000 nits) compared to the M4 Air or M1 Pro (500 nits).
There’s an awesome app called Vivid which just opens the HDR max brightness. I use it all the time with my M3 Pro when working outside and I believe it also works on earlier models.
There are so many base features that are inexplicably relegated to 3rd party apps. Like a better finder experience. Or keeping screen on. Or NTFS writing.
NTFS writing isn't that inexplicable. NTFS is a proprietary filesystem that isn't at all simple to implement and the ntfs-3g driver got there by reverse engineering. Apple doesn't want to enable something by default that could potentially corrupt the filesystem because Microsoft could be doing something unexpected and undocumented.
Meanwhile if you need widespread compatibility nearly everything supports exFAT and if you need a real filesystem then the Mac and Windows drivers for open source filesystems are less likely to corrupt your data.
> There are so many base features that are inexplicably relegated to 3rd party apps.
> Like a better finder experience.
> Or keeping screen on.
Do you mind linking or naming which tools you use for those 2 purposes?
Asking out of pure curiosity, as for keeping the screen on, I just use `caffeinate -imdsu` in the terminal. Previously used Amphetamine, but I ended up having some minor issues with it, and I didn't need any of its advanced features (which could definitely be useful to some people, I admit, just not me). I just wanted to have a simple toggle for "keep the device and/or display from sleeping" mode, so I just switched to `caffeinate -imdsu` (which is built-in).
As for Finder, I didn't really feel the need for anything different, but I would gladly try out and potentially switch to something better, if you are willing to recommend your alternative.
Finder is the number one reason it boggles my mind that people claim macOS as head and shoulders above other OSes "for professionals". Finder is a badly designed child's toy that does nothing at all intuitively and, in fact, actively does things in the most backwards ways possible. It's like taking the worst of Explorer (from Windows XP), and smashing it into the worst of Dolphin or Nautilus; and, to top it off, then hiding any and all remaining useful functionality behind obscure hot keys.
> keeping screen on
`caffeinate -d` in the terminal - it’s built-in
What's crazy is that Vivid app...costs money!
I would personally be afraid of using that in case it causes damage long-term to the screen either due to temperature or power draw or something. Idk if there are significant hardware differences but in this case I would guess there’s a real hardware reason for it?
I've used vivid nearly every day since the week the first m1 MacBook Pro came out, no damage to my screen at all.
People have to pay money to change screen brightness on a Mac?!
I imagine what those custom brightness apps do is not magically increase the brightness, but change the various pixels' brightness in accordance to some method/algorithm such that you see what appears to be brighter whites when placed next to certain other colors.
It's not what is implied by the parent post - where the mac is limiting the brightness only to have the app unlock it.
...I'd have to say that seems like a radical reading of the text.
No; you can adjust screen brightness just fine with the built-in settings, including with the F1 and F2 keys (plus the Fn key if you've got them set that way).
This Vivid app is specifically for extra HDR levels of brightness. I've never had a problem with my M1 or M4 MBPs, either inside or outside, with the built-in brightness levels. (But, to be fair, I don't use it outside a lot.)
It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that glossy screens were the best option, and then to eventually roll out a matte screen as a "premium" feature with a bunch of marketing around it.
Historically, traditional matte screen finishes exhibited poor optical qualities by scattering ambient light, which tended to wash out colors. This scattering process also affected the light from individual pixels, causing it to refract into neighboring pixels.
This reduced overall image quality and caused pixel-fine details, such as small text, to appear smeary on high-density LCDs. In contrast, well-designed glossy displays provide a superior visual experience by minimizing internal refraction and reflecting ambient light at high angles, which reduces display pollution. Consequently, glossy screens often appear much brighter, blacks appear blacker without being washed out, colors show a higher dynamic range, and small details remain crisper. High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight, and reflections are manageable because they are full optical reflections with correct depth, allowing the user to focus on the screen content.
Apple's "nano texture" matte screens were engineered to solve the specific optical problems of traditional matte finishes, the washed-out colors and smeary details. But they cost more to make. The glossy option is still available, and still good.
I used to have a 2006 macbook pro with the matte screen. It was glorious. None of these issues were present or really noticeable. Maybe you'd notice it in lab setting but not irl. Kind of like 120hz and 4k; just useless to most peoples eyes at the distances people actually use these devices. I've only owned matte external monitors as well and again, no issues there.
The glossy era macbooks otoh have been a disaster in comparison imo. Unless your room is pitch black it is so easy to get external reflections. Using it outside sucks, you often see yourself more clearly than the actual contents on the screen. Little piece of dust on the screen you flick off becomes a fingerprint smear. The actual opening of the lid on the new thin bezel models means the top edge is never free of fingerprints. I'm inside right now and this M3 pro is on max brightness setting just to make it you know, usable, inside. I'm not sure if my screen is actually defectively dim or this is just how it is. Outside it is just barely bright enough to make out the screen. Really not much better than my old 2012 non retina model in terms of outdoor viewing which is a bit of a disappointment because the marketing material lead me to believe these new macbooks are extremely bright. I guess for HDR content maybe that is true but not for 99% of use cases.
>I used to have a 2006 macbook pro with the matte screen. It was glorious. None of these issues were present or really noticeable.
They were absolutely noticable. Contrast was crap. I immediately went with glossy with my next MBP around that same period.
120Hz is absolutely a noticeable improvement over 60Hz. I have a 60Hz iPhone and a 120Hz iPhone and the 60Hz one is just annoying to use. Everything feels so choppy.
To each their own but I have a matte M4 Pro and I don't like it, and the screen is noticeably worse than my glossy M2 Pro.
There's a graininess to the screen that makes it feel a little worse at all times, meanwhile I never had a problem in daylight just cranking brightness into the XDR range using Lunar.
It's especially noticeable on light UIs, where empty space gets an RGB "sparkle" to it. I noticed the same thing when picking out my XDR years ago, so it seems like they never figured out how to solve it.
I have the last gen 27” 5k iMac with nano texture as my primary monitor these days and you can immediately tell the difference between image quality, compared to a glossy MacBook pro. Don’t get me wrong, it’s by far the best quality matte finish I’ve ever seen and I would buy it again, because it works great in a room with south-facing windows, but it definitely affects the overall image quality noticeably.
I still have my 2011 17" MacBook Pro, built to order with pretty much every available option available at the time, including the matte screen.
While it serves a useful purpose by diffusing unavoidable point light sources in uncontrolled environments, it's honestly not much of an improvement over its glossy contemporaries in sunlight and other brightly-lit environments, as diffusing already diffuse reflections has little effect.
We have different eyes and different purposes, I think.
The 2006 would probably have had 1080ish resolution. I think the GP's point is that at higher resolutions, matte has tended to have the issues they cited.
I am with you in preferring matte. For me, mostly because of reflections on glossy screens.
Your 2006 MacBook was pre-retina, a.k.a. High-resolution, displays though. Any kind of smearing effect probably improved the perception of the image because it masked the very visible pixels in the LCD
That's what Lunar is for. Just bump up the brightness to HDR levels. Helps a lot with the glare, but will take a bite out of the battery life.
I also was matte in 06, and had that machine for 9 years (until it was stolen :/). Only option was glossy for my replacement, I was devastated. A few machines later now, I can’t imagine going back.
For professional graphic designers, cinematographers, photographers, and illustrators these subtleties in the screen is a big deal.
The difference between matte and glossy displays in regards to their contrast and clarity is absolutely noticeable to the naked eye.
> Unless your room is pitch black it is so easy to get external reflections
This is nearly my preferred setup, only I have wall lights on the wall behind the monitors so it's not truly a dark room (which is horrible for your eyes). No over head lights allowed on while I'm at the keyboard.
There is a large visual difference between 60hz/120-144hz.
Both 4k and 120hz were very noticeable improvements imo.
> High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight…
Not my experience in lit environments. Looking at a mirror-like surface trying to distinguish content from reflections is exhausting.
Unless I blast my eyes at full brightness which is more exhausting.
To each their own. Matte screens always have a massive smudge in bright light and look terrible and grainy in the dark. I can’t stand them.
If all that is true, why do professional photography monitors pretty much exclusively have matte finishes. Same for monitor used by video, CAD or 3d professionals.
You guys need to stop reading apple advertisement material and take it for gospel just because it has some fancy scientific words in it.
Matte is always being the fancier option in Photography paper, glossy photograph just looks cheap.
Color distortion and/or glare not worth marginal gains that cheap displays rely on the gloss for.
> High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight,
I guess Apple cheaped out on their glossy displays, because I definitely didn't care for mine in full daylight
Glossy vs matte has started to matter less as the peak brightness goes up.
When your screen can do 1,600 nits, daylight isn't as much of a problem
Somebody drank its portion of cool aid for sure. There is that little detail that glossy screens needed absolutely perfect conditions in front of them to not reflect literally whole world, making resulting visuals often subpar to matte. I have never, ever been in work conditions in past 20 years that didn't manifest this in annoying and distracting way.
I haven't seen a single display that ever overcame that properly for long term work. Sure, phones use it but they increased luminosity to absurd level to be readable, not a solution I prefer for daily long work.
I admit there are corner cases of pro graphics where it made sense (with corresponding changes to environment) but I am not discussing this here.
All of what you say is kind of sort of true in the sense that, if you are in a room with lots of off-axis light hitting your screen and darkness behind you and you yourself are not brightly lit, then the glossy screen is better. And the glossy screen is certainly sharper.
But if there’s a window or something bright behind you, the specular reflection from the glossy and generally not anti reflective coated screen can be so bright and so full of high frequency details that it almost completely obscures the image.
And since I might be trying to work involving text in a cafe as opposed to doing detailed artistic work in a studio, I would much prefer the matte surface.
Do you prefer glossy paper work? glossy book pages? glossy construction documents? The preference for a non-reflective surface for the relaying of dense information has been established for decades.
You know what's glossy? Movie posters and postcards.
Paper, books, and construction documents all use reflected and not refracted light.
ooh, my feathers were a bit ruffled (for reasons unrelated) when I wrote the above.
I still say for comfortable all day viewing and productivity, there is no comparison. Glossy does have more pop on a phone or watching movies in the dark, but I'd go blind doing that all day every day..
non-reflective surfaces you cite have pigments on TOP. screens have depth causing parallax and light spreading. Your point would be valid if screens were paper-thin and image pixels came out the very surface
You make it sound like what they, according to you, tried to do was a success. One look at nano texture screen is enough for a resounding no.
Is there any write up on the tech behind nano texture? What makes them better than traditional matte screens?
I have a feeling that you've never actually seen a matte screen.
Please don't do this here. If a comment seems unfit for HN, please flag it and email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can have a look.
Hi! I don't think I have any way of convincing you, but I'm not an AI. Also, randomly accusing people of being an AI is fairly offensive, in case that's not obvious.
It is well written and that makes you think it was written by AI? AI doesn't write as well as that anyway.
> What exactly are they "engineering" here?
The coatings, which do matter quite a bit when you are optimising for some durability/optical quality tradeoff.
Glass covers make screens more durable, but imply internal and external reflections. Laminated screens on glass panes solves the internal reflections and improve transmission, but do not help with glare and external reflections. Those can be improved by texturing the glass, but at the cost of diffraction and smearing, leading to a decrease in effective resolution. Unless the texture becomes small enough, but then you need it to be durable enough to avoid being wiped or damaged by things that might come into contact with the screen.
It turns out that there is a lot more than the bottom layers that matter in a display. You can see all these problems being solved in succession when looking at the evolution of Apple’s displays over the years (and others’, but it is much easier to find information about the good and bad sides of any Apple product). It’s fascinating, actually.
[edit] add the issue of oils on the human skin and you have do deal with oleophobic coatings for touch screens, which is another very important factor to consider. In addition to how the touch sensors are integrated.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If anything, Apple was right back then.
Glossy has so many benefits for the places where you’d use a computer, it’s not even close. Having the option to pay premium for those few that work in environments where matte helps them makes sense. I’d pay money for my display to not be matte.
I wonder if they will (re)introduce premium keyboards with sculpted keys that self-center your fingers someday. magsafe coming back was nice, maybe more extra ports?
MagSafe + SD card reader + headphone jack + USB-C/TB4 only ports is fine by me. In 2025, I'm well past needing USB-C to USB-A dongles. We've had since what 2015/16 to start the conversion to C only.
My car from 2023 still came with USB-A port. No-so cheap USB camera that I recently bought came with USB-A port.
[deleted]
Apple was actually late to the glossy display party. HP and Dell moved to them a few years before Apple. I don't think Apple was "insisting" on them, but rather following an industry trend that they were late to.
They are really good at selling a small quantitative improvement that causes them to start using something, as a new type of thing going from impossible to possible. As if the tech didn’t just didn’t exist before Apple started using it.
It is probably a pretty good screen, though.
I don’t really like Apple overall. But, to some extent, it’s like… well, maybe that’s a good way of selling incremental engineering improvements.
As someone who buys and likes Apple stuff, I agree, it's a signature move from them.
i recently worked with a macbook pro and it caused uncomfortable feelings of eyestrain. i had some app that was supposed to disable the temporal dithering but i'm not sure if it helped. i'm curious if there's anyone else on here like me who has experienced eyestrain with macbooks where the nano texture display has helped.
It's certainly on brand for Apple to face widespread criticism in the past for having matte screens as the default (computer magazines of the day found that matte finishes made screens too dim) only to face renewed criticism for dropping the thing they were previously criticized for.
Brightness is a solved issue.
It's more on-brand for an Apple apologist to grope around the annals of history looking for some circuitous justification that makes other people look silly when no such example exists.
> It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that glossy screens were the best option
I don't recall Apple ever "insisting" anything about glossy vs. matte. They simply eliminated the matte option without comment, and finally brought it back many years later.
If you have a reference to a public statement from Apple defending the elimination of the matte option, I'd like to see it.
To be clear, I've been complaining about glossy Macs ever since matte was eliminated, and I too purchased an M4 MacBook Pro soon after it was available.
> “…featuring the Intel Core Duo processor and a gorgeous new 13-inch glossy widescreen display…”
> “…the MacBook provides incredibly crisp images with richer colors, deeper blacks and significantly greater contrast…”
This is positioning for glossy being superior.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/05/16Apple-Unveils-New-M...
It's indisputable that glossy displays have advantages over matte displays. It's also indisputable that matte displays have advantages over glossy displays, most importantly, fewer reflections of ambient light. The choice is a tradeoff.
A sentence in a PR that highlights an indisputable advantage of a glossy display does not position glossy as being superior overall but merely superior in the respects mentioned, which is not controversial.
Moreover, Apple continued to offer a matte display in the MacBook Pro for years after that PR, so why would they sell an "inferior" option?
In one quote they used glossy to describe it. How does that mean they said that glossiness made it better?
The other quote is just a list of ways in which the screen is better.
It is YOU that is conflating these and saying that this list of improvements is down to glossiness, not Apple.
The "matte" options also are totally different approaches, different quality levels. They're not the same product.
> They simply eliminated the matte option without comment, and finally brought it back many years later.
Wasn’t the matte option that disappeared just then removing the glass in front of the screen? I seem to remember that (my MBP from that time was glossy).
The nano textured coating they are using now is quite complex and I am not quite sure it was applicable at such scales cheaply enough back in 2015.
The PowerBook and the first MacBook Pro were only matte.
A glossy option was introduced in 2006, but the MacBook Pro was still matte by default.
In 2008, the MacBook Pro case was redesigned, and then the display situation changed significantly.
It’s classic Apple commenter not know about Apple. They offered matte display upgrades to the MacBook Pro almost 20 years ago. The current glossy black display only became a product line wide choice with the retina displays in 2012, likely because they didn’t prioritize getting an appropriate matte glass finish on the retina screens due to low demand.
I can make the same argument about you. Matte display was the standard prior to Unibody MacBook Pros in 2008.
Glossy was an available option, but not the product line wide choice.
The top of the line Late 2008 MacBook Pro (not Unibody) included:
> An antiglare CCFL-backlit 17" widescreen 1680x1050 active-matrix display (a glossy display was offered via build-to-order at no extra cost, and a higher resolution LED-backlit 1920x1200 display also was offered for an extra US$100).
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook...
I wasn’t making claims that Apple was marketing one as better or implying some contradiction between glossy and matte upgrades, so this information isn’t relevant to my point. Matte has been sold as an upgrade in the lineup for a long time which is contradictory to the point I was replying to.
Your citation is doubly irrelevant because the primary benefit of the glossy upgrade in the year or so it was an upgrade (glossy has been standard for 18 years) was a wider color gamut and higher resolution, not the glossiness of the screen itself.
Are you an Apple commenter?
No since I’m not making claims about the company and its marketing directly.
Downvoted for the unhelpful first sentence.
> The nano texture display is great at reducing reflections. I could immediately see the difference when placing two laptops side by side: The bright Apple Store lights showed up very prominently on the normal display, and were almost not visible at all on the nano texture display.
This is a quiet boon for those who enjoy working outdoors but find the sun/brightness a problem.
An frequently overlooked point is the display brightness. The pro models offer 1600 nits peak brightness, which makes these good units for looking at HDR content, especially if you like to take photos or edit videos. Meanwhile the Air maxes out at 500 nits, so the effect and contrast is drastically reduced for those models.
Not just that but you can use Brightentosh to force it on.
I live in a sunny place with big windows and basically use it all day every day. When it turns off my screen feels broken I so prefer the brightness.
Normal content is still limited to 500 nits, and these being mini-LED displays, contrast is already infinite.
Unless you’re making Instagram content, very few photographers use HDR. Everything else will look the same on both screens.
> and these being mini-LED displays, contrast is already infinite.
I think you may have mixed up mini-LED backlighting with OLED and microLED displays. mini-LED backlights merely allow for better local dimming of the backlight behind an LCD, but the number of independently variable backlight zones is still orders of magnitude smaller than the number of pixels. Over short distances, an LCD with local dimming is still susceptible to all of the contrast-limiting downsides of an LCD with a uniform static backlight (and local dimming brings new challenges of its own).
OLED is the mainstream display technology where individual pixels directly emit their own light, so you can truly have a completely black pixel next to a lit pixel. But there are still layers and coatings between the OLED and the user, so infinite contrast isn't actually achievable.
microLED is an unsuccessful technology to provide the benefits of OLED without as many of the downsides (primarily, the uneven aging). But nobody has managed to make large microLED displays economically yet, and it doesn't look like the tech will be going mainstream anytime soon.
> but the number of independently variable backlight zones is still orders of magnitude smaller than the number of pixels
The appearance of a lone mouse cursor on a black screen in the dark is mildly amusing for exactly this reason. You can watch as the ghostly halo of light follows it around the screen as you move the cursor.
I'll upgrade my machine when they put an OLED display in it.
Normal content is 1000 nits, peak is 1600 nits.
Contrast is significantly poorer on the Air display, and HDR is already in your own photos if you have a modern smartphone, so the idea that it’s niche or irrelevant is a naive take.
The perceptual difference between sdr and hdr isn’t a minor bump, it is conspicuous and driver of realism.
If one cares about the refresh rate of their screen, then they’d trivially notice the improvement that high nit displays provide.
20 years ago I bought a G3 iBook because the hardware was lovely and the system was supported perfectly by stock Debian woody. (Hands up if you remember having to bless your laptop with “holy penguin pee”, part of the output of the yaboot bootloader used in PowerPC systems!)
Times changed and the best hardware for me right now is a Dell XPS from the model lines a few years back that looked like an aluminum sandwich with a black plastic filling. These machines are fantastic but (1) no OLED, (2) now high speed refresh rate, and (3) the keyboard isn’t great.
Could this modern Apple hardware bring me back to Free OS on pretty hardware, or is there something else I should try?
Asahi (Linux) lags quite far behind the latest Apple hardware release. If you want the Linux experience on Apple hardware, I think the best move is full-screen VM. Performance of that is more than good enough, but it does mean you are running a full non-free software stack to get to your free software VM.
I bought one of those iBooks for Debian linux, but I found the resolution was a bit small for X. At the time, I had a thing for non-intel architectures. Prior to that, I had done a lot of work packaging up Debian for Sparc machines. I had access to a wide variety of Sun workstations at my job as a sysadmin at a university.
But are these llms worth their salt?
They're not unless you curve the grading because they're running locally.
Which some people do, but I don't think the average person asking this question does (and I don't)
With 128GB of memory they can have real world use cases. But they won’t be as good as SoTA hosted models.
If you bought a fully-featured computer that supports compute shaders and didn't run local LLMs, you should be protesting in the street.
Can't you run small LLMs on like... a Macbook air M1? Some models are under 1B weights, they will be almost useless but I imagine you could run them on anything from the last 10 years.
But yeah if you wanna run 600B+ weights models your gonna need an insane setup to run it locally.
I run qwen models on MBA M4 16 Gb and MBP M2 Max 32 Gb, MBA is able to handle models in accordance with its vram memory capacity (with external cooling), e.g. qwen3 embedding 8B (not 1B!) but inference is 4x-6x times slower than on mbp. I suspect weaker SoC
Anyway, Apple SoC in M series is a huge leverage thanks to shared memory: VRAM size == RAM size so if you buy M chip with 128+ Gb memory, you’re pretty much able to run SOTA models locally, and price is significantly lower than AI GPU cards
They "run" in the most technical sense, yes. But they're unusably slow.
How much of a difference would I see in compute between an M2 and M4 for example? Assuming it’s the same RAM. Did they also make the gpu and neural engine that much better between the two?
It's always interesting to see users have somewhat strong opinions over fan vs fanless. I could never go Macbook Air again because I've been to hotter climates and do things beyond just using a browser and invariably the keyboard gets too warm for my fingertips. I need the MBPs fans and Mac Fan Control, noise be dammed.
I still have a 2019 MacBook Pro with the non-butterfly keyboard and escape key (unfortunately still the Touch Bar).
It’s still a great laptop except the battery lasts maybe 75 mins. I just keep it plugged in but despite the fact it’s 6 years old I don’t notice any problems with it.
I’m tempted to buy an M4 laptop just because it’s “new” and “faster” but then I ask myself Why? It’s the same thing with my iPhone. Until my laptop dies or there is something functional that I can’t do with my old laptop I’m going to keep using it.
I have an M1 air that still lasts 7-8 hours on one charge. It's very different than the Intel battery life which I had 5 or 7 machines over the years.
depends on use, I had the same laptop but the speed increase when I upgraded to an M3 was easily worth it
> I don’t use this computer for serious work.
Next.
Why is this notion that basically only opinions on stuff that you've used in a work capacity are valid so widespread here?
I couldn't really trust the author of the review after he established his preference for "quiet computers" having no cooling slots or whatever he called them. Okay, fine, you're placing aesthetics above actual performance, then. The Pro laptops are the only ones viable for any really hardcore work because if you push the Air too hard it is going to just slow down in order to stay cool and that's not what you want if you are doing graphics work or in my case, I was running a bunch of containers in K8s. I never bought an Air because it was too similar to an iPad.
The thing that mostly irks me about Apple these days is soldered in RAM and non-upgradeable storage. Apple is still the best thing going for doing most pro development work, but it's just so irritating that they shit on us like this. I did buy an M4 Mini and expanded it some. My 2019 MB Pro is siting here on the desk, mostly unused these days. The Intel Macs are basically dead now--still great computers, but no longer desirable. My daughter is doing Graphic Arts in college and is using another 2019 Pro for that. I've used Macs continuously since at least 2014.
>The thing that mostly irks me about Apple these days is soldered in RAM and non-upgradeable storage.
Isn't the 'soldered-in' RAM and storage fundamental to the M-series architecture? It's not like there's a board with individual chips sitting in it for the RAM and storage, that could potentially have been 'popped out' if they weren't soldered in. It's all one giant 'chip' now.
There are separate chips.
But just like Strix Halo, they have to be soldered. There’s no way to reach the signal integrity required with connectors.
No, M series is a system on chip (SoC), that’s why it’s able to run local LLM models in a range impossible for other laptop brands: VRAM == RAM, unified shared memory at max speed for both CPU and GPU
I've heard many people saying CAMM2 solves this.
I have done real work, using a computer 10+ hours a day on every ecosystem, Windows, Linux, Mac. I've used each for ~10 years a piece.
My most recent laptop died and it really showed me what I appreciate in a laptop, performance, build quality, lightweight, good battery, low noise, good ergonomics.
I was sick of the recent overheating generation of pc laptops that don't last more than a couple years under my usage.
As a result I decided to try to switch back to a macbook after a decade hiatus.
The hardware is good but the software is absolute garbage. Trialing it for a week the amount of bullshit that is MacOS was enough, and Asahi wasn't there yet either. Instead I decided to get an AMD framework laptop.
Best decision ever.
I have a laptop that's got great quality, can be upgraded without paying a $5k tax, can replace the keyboard for $100 instead of $700, it works with me rather than against me and my wallet.
Which one did you buy? I’m also considering leaving mac just because of how slow and battery intensive the new macOS tahoe is.
>My ideal MacBook would probably be a MacBook Air, but with the nano-texture display! :)"
The MBA should also have the LCD display with 120Hz and brightness from MBP, Vapour Chamber cooling from iPhone Air, and better keyboard.
Heh, matte; finally. Gloss is such a PITA if you can't control what's behind you, which ironically is a pretty common dev-with-macbook experience. Walking around to different parts of the office. Off-sites. Etc.
I've only purchased matte screen laptops because I only use them for travel. Lenovo pretty much.
Also prefer semi-gloss for my monitors as I work in well lit daylight conditions if I can help it. There have been very high quality semi-gloss monitors for ages now.
You won't notice 8ms difference in input lag
lots of people can notice that. my last job involved meticulously timing our software's input-tp-display latency, testing viewers' responses to it, and fighting for each and every ms we should shave off of it.
For my sins, I have recently been called upon to cold boot and then provision a few dozen Samsung tablets by hand. The "laggy Lagdroid piece of lagshit" pasta has been repeated a lot. I swear to God it just ignores ten percent of touch events if it's doing anything in the background.
I’ve been swapping back and forth between a MacBook Pro and a Linux workstation lately. The input latency difference is insane - macOS is sooo much worse than Linux. It’s gotten to the point that I’m porting code to Linux just so I don’t have to use my editor from macOS.
I don’t know how many milliseconds the difference is, but going back and forth it’s so obvious to me that it’s painful.
Anyone can notice an entire frame of input lag.
The question is more whether it’ll bother you.
[deleted]
I have 165Hz monitors. Software feels noticeably more snappy.
As a seasoned gamer, and one time world record holder, I absolutely can notice 8ms of lag.
Musicians can feel latencies as low as 1ms.
Apple is designing pro gear for its target audience.
I definitely notice the difference between 10 ms and 26 ms. 26 ms already feel sluggish when playing drums, guitars or keyboard instruments. But there is no way anyone can feel a difference of 1 ms.
That’s audio latency, not musicians doing music. In my experience if you have two musicians that are supposed to be playing unison, 5-6 ms is enough to feel “off”
It depends on the frequency. At higher frequencies, the ear is capable of higher time precision. It's why a snare pops and a bass drum blooms.
The study wasn’t conducted with musicians making music.
Fun fact, 1ms is the approximately the amount of time it takes for sound to travel 1 foot. Do musicians move all their speakers to be within one foot of their ears? Do people in a band notice a difference if they're not standing within 1 foot of their partners? No, they don't.
I highly doubt anyone notices 1ms latency. I might believe rare people can notice 10ms.
Anecdotically, 7ms vs 3ms latency is felt as weirdly heavy action when playing midi keyboard. It's not felt as latency, but it's felt. And I bet the difference could be reliably established in double-blind testing (3 samples, find an outlier).
1ms seems less believable, but I wouldn't be surprised, if some people could notice that too.
[deleted]
I was on the fence for same reason - should I get the nano display? I opted for the 15" MBA, and the display has been great. Way better than my 2019 Macbook Pro. I've had zero issues with glare, but I'm also in an office environment during the day and use it at night when home.
"My ideal MacBook would probably be a MacBook Air, but with the nano-texture display! :)"
Mine as well. What is the likelihood this will happen?
I have a hunch it will not and they will either scrap the nano texture completely or keep it as differentiator for the Pro line, but I am curious what others think.
Mine too, and I bought an air in the last generation and I barely use it because I thought the 60hz display would be ok, but I've been living with 120's everywhere for long enough the 60hz is actually horrible to use now. First world problems for sure, but it's enough that I literally don't use the machine.
I’ve used MBP for many many years, but recently bought an MB Air. I slightly miss the extra ports. I love how much lighter it is. I never notice a speed difference. I’m always ssh’d into a Linux box if crunching any real data, and for UI stuff the CPU doesn’t need a fan at all. Definitely gonna stick with MB Air.
I also went for the fantastic nano texture display on my M4, after having glossy my M1. Very happy with the decision as I use the laptop in brightly lit enviroments so appreciate fewer reflections. Going back to a glossy display is a shock.
Same experience. I cannot consider any screen that does not have the nano texture coating. It is exceptional and a huge improvement. To the point that I actually prefer a tester Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra over Apple’s own iPhone display.
I do not like the Apple Nano Texture. 5% of the time it really helps but 100% of the time it just reduces the picture fidelity somehow. When doing visual tasks like video editing, it is just not good.
Is it possible to install previous macOS version on newest macbook model? I see people having terrible experience with macOS Tahoe yet I am considering purchasing a macbook..
On M5 MacBook Pro: no, simply because no builds with drivers for it exist
On all others, including the M4 MacBook Air and the M4 Pro/Max MacBook Pro currently for sale: yes. At most you'll have to make a bootable USB if it's already got Tahoe installed, you can even install in place (but some things might break, of course)
no this is not possible because apple stops signing older versions soon after they release the latest.
No, that's a separate issue. You can upgrade a M4 or earlier machine from 15.6 to 15.7 even today, despite 26.0 being out for a while, so Apple's still signing a 15.x release at the same time as they're offering 26.x releases. (You likely won't be able to downgrade from 15.7 back to 15.6.)
Downgrading a M5 machine to 15.x would be impossible not because of a signing issue but because Apple never released a 15.x build that supported M5 hardware.
> (When I chose the new laptop, Apple’s M4 chips were current. By now, they have released the first devices with M5 chips.)
Does anyone have any feedback on the new M5 models?
I upgraded from M4 to M5 MBP because I broke my M4's screen and so my company ordered a replacement M5 while the M4 is being repaired. I can't really notice a difference at all. It's an absolute work horse, but so was the M4. I _did_ spring for the nano texture display this time around, and that is definitely nice (but nothing to do with the M5)
Do you think you’ll have any regrets about the nano texture display?
I was torn between nano and regular glass, but opted for the regular glass.
I have the nano-texture display on my M4. At this point, I don't think I can go back to standard glass. For text work, I find there are no downsides. If you work more with color and detailed art, I think that's the only case where you need to put extra thought into it. Otherwise get it
I got the nanotexture on my current work M4 MBP—it doesn't completely eliminate reflected light, but it diffuses it a lot. If I were in a dark room with a light source positioned perfectly to reflect off my screen in my face, I would probably still have trouble with it, but in general I don't need to reposition the screen to avoid glare nearly as much.
I would say it's worth the extra, what, $200 or so? on the price of the M4 MBP. If it were much more expensive, I would be less sure.
No, I love it. I had non-matte glass screens in my MacBooks since 2012 and I didn't realize how much better it is to no longer see lights reflected in there all the time.
I hate to say it but it's totally worth it. Direct sunlight incredible.
I just upgraded from an M1 to an M5 a couple days ago.
It is rather shocking how much faster everything feels given I didn't think my old macbook pro was slow. While I expected xcode builds to be faster (and they are), I was a bit shocked when opening a new firefox tab was instantaneous since I hadn't noticed it wasn't before.
Another thing I didn't expect is that the new speakers have noticeably more bass and can get quite a bit louder.
I didn't get the nano-textured display, because having to adjust the display angle to get colors to render correctly is more annoying than having to do it for glare (I don't work in a high-glare environment).
I may have to check out the new nano display. The old matte display was really a superior choice to the glossy screens of the past several years.
How is Apple's nano-textured display different from ThinkPad's famed matte display?
funny i was recently picking between a glossy and nano texture screen and came to the opposite conclusion — the glossy screen’s image was so much more crisp, and i didn’t really see much difference in terms of reflection
The part about noticing web pages loading (at most) 8ms faster due to the display is total nonsense. Many can notice the difference between 60 and 120Hz when scrolling, but definitely not for a page load. That’s less than 1/10th of the blink of an eye.
If page load seems noticeably faster, it’s far more likely that it’s simply a faster machine. Or imaginary.
After 18 years of Mac-abstinence, I just bought a MacBook Air and realized there is apparently no way to change the App Store language without changing region and payment method. WTF? That seems like the most basic thing one could imagine. What has happened to Apple?
I was able to switch the App Store language from English to Spanish by changing my primary language in System Settings > Language & Region > Preferred Languages.
It didn't require me to switch my region or payment method.
That seems like classic Apple, really.
Why did you think Apple was user friendly or flexible...it's the Apple way or the highway. Most only stick around because of the currently superior hardware
I have the M4 Max. The fans never really come on unless I launch something that maxes out the GPUs, which I rarely do. I do have some software projects that use all CPUs and maxes those out while they build (all 14 of them). The fans stay silent.
This is, by far, the fastest machine I've ever had. My previous laptop was a more modest M1 mac book pro. And before that I was on a cheapo intel i5 Samsung laptop - a stop gap solution after my last intel mac died when a loose keyboard key destroyed the screen (yep the generation with the crappy keyboards, worst mac I've ever owned). That intel was of course pathetic and shit. I wasn't expecting much and it disappointed me despite that. The M1 was about 3x faster. The M4 Max is a beast. In terms of build speeds, the i5 was unusable while building and would take 15 minutes. The M1 got it down to 5 minutes (10 CPU cores that are faster than the 4 intel ones). But it didn't have enough memory so swapping slowed it down a bit. The M4 max builds stuff in around 30 seconds. No more swapping and the 14 cores are quite a bit faster than the M1 ones. Same project (but of course with a few years of development). We have more tests now, not fewer.
Otherwise it's a great laptop. Keyboard is fine. Touchpad is best in class in the industry (everything else is pathetically mediocre in comparison; it's not even close), the screen is best in class as well (contrast, colors, resolution, everything). And Apple learned it's lesson when it comes to keyboards. Most windows/linux laptops I'm aware off are a compromise between heating/cooling, lousy input and output devices, performance, design, screen quality, etc. Apple nails all of those things. Nobody else does.
High end Macs are not cheap. But for professionals it's a minor expense. If you lease a car for getting your ass to work every morning, you are probably spending 2-3x more at least than what this would cost you. And the whole point of getting to work is to open your laptop and earn a living with it. It's more important than the damn car. It's what pays for that car. I spend less than what used to be 1 hour of my freelance rate per month on this absolute monster. Maybe it's 2 hours for you if you just got started. That's still nothing on 160ish billable hours per month. Employers tend to be less enlightened of course. But if it's your choice, don't be frugal and buy the laptop you need. If a simple browser is all you need, of course get something decent looking like a mac book air or whatever. But otherwise, get the best you can afford. I've compromised once with that Samsung. I did not enjoy that.
We used to sell conversion kits to shoehorn a pixel qi display into the thinkpad x230. Since apple has put in 1,000nit displays on the pros, we don't bother anymore. The nano texture sold me and it performs wonderfully outdoors. I hate giving apple money but here I am.
It's because Apple sucks the least. They still suck, though. They could build decent computers that are upgradeable, but they refuse because they want your $$$$ in large amounts.
Honestly I hate giving money to Lenovo, they're one of the worst companies I've had to deal with at least when it comes to support.
+1 to that. Simply horrendous post-purchase support. Company representatives on all levels, from a simple technician to head of Linux support department, will be lying straight in your face, just to scam a few thousands bucks out of you.
But their keyboards are still the best, and trackpoint is unmatched.
As soon as System76 or Framework or any other vendor offer that, I'm giving them my money.
why is it getting hot?
i noticed my ola macbook pro was connected to my router even when it was sleeping..
probably sending some private info periodically to apple and cia
If you'd like to change that, you can go to System Settings → Battery → Options → Wake for Network Access
Or just search for "Power Nap" (what it used to be called). They usually wake up intermittently for Time Machine backups, wake-on-lane and other stuff.
I have mine set to `NEVER` [wake for network access] and yet it still makes DNS requests often while asleep.
Curiously, it is able to maintain network connection even through the 1/4" steel of the safe it's stored within. The older Intel MBP doesn't and cannot.
I have done this, yet every now and then my macbook still wants to connect to my bluetooth headphones from my backpack.
Hah, sounds like OS X! I have every possible Universal Control setting turned off, yet the process continues running and slurping up CPU cycles. It's impossible to kill or really disable unless you turn off SIP, and I'd prefer not to do that.
i'll never understand picky preferences about monitors... i still use an LG flatron wide that's old enough to vote... and when i slack at the apple store, it's not like i notice some life-or-death difference. a monitor is a monitor.
ok, i guess for graphic designers it might matter more?
Some old LCD displays were quite crisp. Sure, you can see individual pixels. The mouse tail has a clear zig-zag. But I find these nice on the eyes in their own way. I suspect because eyes autofocus more easily.
New super high-res displays are also nice on my eyes. The displays in between, those from the last decade or so, have been hit or miss for me.
that's me, and it really doesn't matter