Has Apple Silicon made you reconsider the Mac platform?

[AndyMacAndMic]

This is also a machine that you could use for ten years.

I disagree with you on that point. The SSD has a finite live and is soldered on the motherboard. Also the M1 models with 8 GB of RAM use the SSD a lot for swap memory and that shortens the live of the SSD as wel.
If the SSD fails the M1 is out off warranty and the user faces the cost for a replacement of the whole motherboard.

My guess is that because of the non replaceable SSD the average life time of a machine will be around 5 years.

 

[pshufd]

I disagree with you on that point. The SSD has a finite live and is soldered on the motherboard. Also the M1 models with 8 GB of RAM use the SSD a lot for swap memory and that shortens the live of the SSD as wel.
If the SSD fails the M1 is out off warranty and the user faces the cost for a replacement of the whole motherboard.

My guess is that because of the non replacable SSD the average life time of a machine will be no more than 5 years.

I'm currently using a Late 2009 iMac with a HDD. I upgraded the RAM from 4 GB to 16 GB. It's actually a great system for what I use it for.

I used my Early 2008 MacBook Pro 17 until it died in 2018. I did replace the HDD with an SSD and upgraded the RAM.

I am currently using 2014 and 2015 MacBook Pro 15 systems and they run just fine. Actually they are quite nice.

If you're worried about the SSD, get 512 GB or 1 TB. I also wouldn't buy one of these with 8 GB. Mainly because I would want to use it for a decade. Or hope that it has excellent resale value.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

I'm currently using a Late 2009 iMac with a HDD. I upgraded the RAM from 4 GB to 16 GB. It's actually a great system for what I use it for.

I used my Early 2008 MacBook Pro 17 until it died in 2018. I did replace the HDD with an SSD and upgraded the RAM.

I am currently using 2014 and 2015 MacBook Pro 15 systems and they run just fine. Actually they are quite nice.

If you're worried about the SSD, get 512 GB or 1 TB. I also wouldn't buy one of these with 8 GB. Mainly because I would want to use it for a decade. Or hope that it has excellent resale value.

I was talking about the M1 machines where the SSD is not replaceable.
In your old machines you could replace the HDDs with a SSD and if a drive fails you can replace it with another one yourself. In the current M1 configurations this is not possible so if the SSD fails you can not replace it. You said a machine like this could last for 10 years. The average life span of an SSD (especially a system disc) is around 5 years, not 10 years. So even on a machine with 16 GB the life span also will probably not be 10 years.
A simple solution would have been: a replaceable SSD. In that case the machine could last for 10 years or even more.

 

[pshufd]

I was talking about the M1 machines where the SSD is not replaceable.
In your old machines you could replace the HDDs with a SSD and if a drive fails you can replace it with another one yourself. In the current M1 configurations this is not possible so if the SSD fails you can not replace it. You said a machine like this could last for 10 years. The average life span of an SSD is around 5 years, not 10 years.

I have not replaced the SSDs in my Retina MacBook Pros nor have I replaced the HDD in my Late 2009 iMac and I have no intention of doing so. The iMac is already a decade old and still providing service. The 2014 is almost 7 years old and the 2015 is almost 6 years old and I have no doubt that they will both provide reliable service for at least a decade.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

I have not replaced the SSDs in my Retina MacBook Pros nor have I replaced the HDD in my Late 2009 iMac and I have no intention of doing so. The iMac is already a decade old and still providing service. The 2014 is almost 7 years old and the 2015 is almost 6 years old and I have no doubt that they will both provide reliable service for at least a decade.

View attachment 1700401

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you agree if you could replace the SSD the life span would be much longer? Also in the screenshot above it is pointed out that the average SSD lifespan is shorter than 10 years.

I don't see what you are trying to prove when we both can agree that a replaceable SSD would prolong the lifespan? What is here to disagree about?

 

[pshufd]

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you agree if you could replace the SSD the life span would be much longer? Also in the screenshot above it is pointed out that the average SSD lifespan is shorter than 10 years.

I don't see what you are trying to prove when we both can agree that a replaceable SSD would prolong the lifespan? What is here to disagree about?

I suspect that the average lifespan vs the projected lifespan is due to how people take care of their systems.

Also, how much people use the Cloud vs how much they do on their own system

And how much RAM they have.

At any rate, I see no reason why 1) I can't get ten years from a system, and, 2) the average system won't last ten years.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

I suspect that the average lifespan vs the projected lifespan is due to how people take care of their systems.

Also, how much people use the Cloud vs how much they do on their own system

And how much RAM they have.

At any rate, I see no reason why 1) I can't get ten years from a system, and, 2) the average system won't last ten years.

SSDs have finite read and write cycles. Nothing to do with how you take care of your system. Also you keep avoiding my remarks about being unable to replace the SSD. I asked you if you would agree that a replaceable SSD wil lengthen the lifetime of your machine, but you don't respond to that.

1) The chance you get 10 years from an M1 system is probably there but not likely. But what do you have against a replaceable SSD in the case it fails before that? Do you really want to replace the whole motherboard if that happens?
2) An average system with replaceable HDDs/SSDs/RAM etc. can last much longer than 10 years. I have some machines at home to prove that.

But in short, I don't want to go around in circles and chew over the same arguments over and over. Take care of your system and be happy with it for hopefully 10 years

 

[pshufd]

SSDs have finite read and write cycles. Nothing to do with how you take care of your system. Also you keep avoiding my remarks about being unable to replace the SSD. I asked you if you would agree that a replaceable SSD wil lengthen the lifetime of your machine, but you don't respond to that.

1) The chance you get 10 years from an M1 system is probably there but not likely. But what do you have against a replaceable SSD in the case it fails before that? Do you really want to replace the whole motherboard if that happens?
2) An average system with replaceable HDDs/SSDs/RAM etc. can last much longer than 10 years. I have some machines at home to prove that.

But in short, I don't want to go around in circles and chew over the same arguments over and over. Take care of your system and be happy with it for hopefully 10 years

I have nothing against replaceable SSDs.

And I have nothing against Apple's approach either.

And M1 systems will drop in price and they will become more affordable to people looking for lower priced systems.

I have a 1999 Dell Inspiron 4000 and a 2000 Dell Inspiron 4100 and both still work. I have a computer on my desk from the 1970s and it still works. I used it this morning.

If you buy an old computer, you take a risk that it becomes a paperweight.

My main point is the argument that people looking for low-priced equipment can't afford Apple computers. That's incorrect. I see people asking about used Apple gear all the time.

 

[canesalato]

This is also a machine that you could use for ten years. It's only going to get faster as software companies make native versions and it's only going to get better as software companies that don't support macOS take a hard look at supporting it natively (not through WINE).

Uhm..I think it will become faster in the next year, then software updates will gradually start slowing it down. I still expect it to be viable, speed wise. In about 5 to 6 years I expect apple to cut software updates for it. It could potentially last around 10 years if you could install Windows natively (as software support is much longer in the windows world) and the hardware does not fail before, but my last 3 MacBooks all failed after around three years, so I don't have super high hopes on durability 😒. We need to keep in mind that reparability for these computers is 0. Everything is soldered or glued....

 

[rui no onna]

I disagree with you on that point. The SSD has a finite live and is soldered on the motherboard. Also the M1 models with 8 GB of RAM use the SSD a lot for swap memory and that shortens the live of the SSD as wel.
If the SSD fails the M1 is out off warranty and the user faces the cost for a replacement of the whole motherboard.

My guess is that because of the non replaceable SSD the average life time of a machine will be around 5 years.

I don't think this is that big an issue. Majority of SSD failures tend to be due to controller failure rather than P/E cycle wear.

I have seen SSDs that die from P/E cycle wear but they were either 1st gen with crappy wear leveling (basically you have worn out cells logging thousands of cycles and other cells with barely any use). That or they've been used in databases with lots of random writes and write amplification is probably ~50x.

That SSD Lifespan study states:

This paper provides a large-scale field study covering many millions of drive days, ten different drive models, different flash technologies (MLC, eMLC, SLC) over 6 years of production use in Google’s data centers.

Client use is typically lighter. I just checked the CrystalDiskInfo stats for the boot drive on my work PC which is definitely doing a lot of swapping (Samsung 850 PRO 256GB, 50% free space). With 20,500 hours logged (2.35 years), it's at 98% health, just 11.5TiB writes and wear leveling count is at 66 (out of 3,000 P/E cycles).

My gripe with Macs is you can't upgrade them. I've replaced the SSDs multiple times in my systems but it's always been to get more storage.

 

[LeeW]

I suspect that the average lifespan vs the projected lifespan is due to how people take care of their systems.

And this is the thing, I see all the fanatical postings in MR since the M1 was launched about how amazingly fast it is, 40 Chromes tabs open along with a host of other **** and it runs without issue on 8GB. It doesn't though. They all post their stats and the first thing you see if that was their true usage is a permanent 4-8GB swap file. So not it does not run amazing with 8GB of ram, it is permanently OOM and swapping significantly. Sure it happened on previous models but the M1 disguises it better.

We will see what the future brings.

 

[pshufd]

Uhm..I think it will become faster in the next year, then software updates will gradually start slowing it down. I still expect it to be viable, speed wise. In about 5 to 6 years I expect apple to cut software updates for it. It could potentially last around 10 years if you could install Windows natively (as software support is much longer in the windows world) and the hardware does not fail before, but my last 3 MacBooks all failed after around three years, so I don't have super high hopes on durability 😒. We need to keep in mind that reparability for these computers is 0. Everything is soldered or glued....

I just run old operating systems. My Late 2009 iMac is running High Sierra. I think that my 2007 MacBook Pro 15 is running Leopard.

All of my other systems are running Mojave. I find no need to be on the latest operating system.

 

[canesalato]

I just run old operating systems. My Late 2009 iMac is running High Sierra. I think that my 2007 MacBook Pro 15 is running Leopard.

All of my other systems are running Mojave. I find no need to be on the latest operating system.

If that's the case then the only question is hardware reliability. It could last ten years if it does not fail. I hope so because I bought one and my experience has not been great in the past! 😊

PS: It's Christmas here so, merry Christmas everyone!

 

[pshufd]

And this is the thing, I see all the fanatical postings in MR since the M1 was launched about how amazingly fast it is, 40 Chromes tabs open along with a host of other **** and it runs without issue on 8GB. It doesn't though. They all post their stats and the first thing you see if that was their true usage is a permanent 4-8GB swap file. So not it does not run amazing with 8GB of ram, it is permanently OOM and swapping significantly. Sure it happened on previous models but the M1 disguises it better.

We will see what the future brings.

I run two Windows desktops, one with 48 GB of RAM and the other with 64 GB (expandable to 256). The larger systems has 45.3 GB cached which means that my system doesn't even have to go the SSDs to get data. My Macs have 16 GB (the limit) but I'm looking forward to an M1X with DIMM slots (either a Pro or iMac) so I can put in at least 64 GB.

 

[canesalato]

And this is the thing, I see all the fanatical postings in MR since the M1 was launched about how amazingly fast it is, 40 Chromes tabs open along with a host of other **** and it runs without issue on 8GB. It doesn't though. They all post their stats and the first thing you see if that was their true usage is a permanent 4-8GB swap file. So not it does not run amazing with 8GB of ram, it is permanently OOM and swapping significantly. Sure it happened on previous models but the M1 disguises it better.

We will see what the future brings.

I agree. For people who care about reliability, I would go with the 16GB models...

 

[rui no onna]

And this is the thing, I see all the fanatical postings in MR since the M1 was launched about how amazingly fast it is, 40 Chromes tabs open along with a host of other **** and it runs without issue on 8GB. It doesn't though. They all post their stats and the first thing you see if that was their true usage is a permanent 4-8GB swap file. So not it does not run amazing with 8GB of ram, it is permanently OOM and swapping significantly. Sure it happened on previous models but the M1 disguises it better.

We will see what the future brings.

Yeah. I had around 20+ tabs open several of which were Best Buy and Amazon and my swap was at 4GB. The annoying thing though was when I went back to the MR thread I was replying to, the page was stuck and not responding to input.

This sums it up quite well though:

I/O is faster on the M1 than on Intel-based Macs. So when you do run out of free memory and MacOS needs to use swap (virtual memory), it’s faster than ever. It’s not magic, of course. If you really need more than 16 GB of RAM, you need more than 16 GB. But faking it is a lot more fun than it used to be.

The M1 Macs

To acknowledge how good the new M1 Macs are — and I am here to tell you they are *astonishingly* good — you must acknowledge that certain longstanding assumptions about how computers should be designed, about what makes a better computer *better*, are wrong.

daringfireball.net

 

[pshufd]

If that's the case then the only question is hardware reliability. It could last ten years if it does not fail. I hope so because I bought one and my experience has not been great in the past! 😊

PS: It's Christmas here so, merry Christmas everyone!

I look at reviews and try not to buy new generations of hardware. The Retina 2012 and 2013 were the first versions. The 2014 and 2015 were solid. Similar with the 2016 - disaster. 2017 disaster. 2018 disaster. 2019 much better but still have heat issues. I wouldn't mind buying an M1 because they are cheap and it would be fun to kick the tires but I arguably have far more hardware than I need. It isn't as fast as an M1 but it gets the job done.

 

[pshufd]

This sums it up quite well though:
I/O is faster on the M1 than on Intel-based Macs. So when you do run out of free memory and MacOS needs to use swap (virtual memory), it’s faster than ever. It’s not magic, of course. If you really need more than 16 GB of RAM, you need more than 16 GB. But faking it is a lot more fun than it used to be.

Buy two of them and partition your workload. I had considered doing that as I need to drive three monitors. I ultimately decided to just wait for an M1X.

 

[rui no onna]

Buy two of them and partition your workload. I had considered doing that as I need to drive three monitors. I ultimately decided to just wait for an M1X.

Oh, I'll be perfectly fine with just 16GB. I don't do anything too heavy apart from multitasking "light" apps. Air quotes on light because webpages nowadays are so bloated. I just don't like the fact that there's zero headroom on 8GB and you're already hitting swap right from the get-go.

 

[pshufd]

Oh, I'll be perfectly fine with just 16GB. I don't do anything too heavy apart from multitasking "light" apps. Air quotes on light because webpages nowadays are so bloated. I just don't like the fact that there's zero headroom on 8GB and you're already hitting swap right from the get-go.

Yeah. I'm not even sure that all of my programs will run on the M1. If I had to buy a Mac right now for trading, it would be the iMac with either the i7-10700K or the i9-10900K. Basically a clone of my Windows desktop. I could easily put in 64 GB of RAM and it would give me three 4k or better displays and enough CPU.

 

[ctjack]

The Retina 2012 and 2013 were the first versions.

But what was wrong with 2012 and 2013 Retinas? I am still using mine and it even has dual fans for 13 inch as opposed to single in MBP2015.

I also wouldn't buy one of these with 8 GB. Mainly because I would want to use it for a decade. Or hope that it has excellent resale value.

This trick well worked back then but sometimes it fails to work.
For example, Sandy Bridge intel CPU was a huge step forward - i got mine with dell xps 2011 and in 2012 i also bought MBP13. Those machines were still the best around time. Because even MBP13 2015 and dual core no touchbar MBP13 2017 were almost the same in terms of performance. So sticking(paying more) in 2011-2012 with 8gb of RAM would be a good decision instead of buying 2-4 GB.
Let's say you bought MBP13 2017 base for $1300 and upgraded it a lot with 16gb RAM. But then they came out with MBP13 2019 4-core with 8gb RAM ran circles around old dual core. The same goes with M1, M1 with 8 gigs is much better than 4-core MBP with 16gb of RAM.

My point here is that sometimes you are better of saving money towards future update rather than internal upgrades. If you had MBP13 2017(sold until 2019), then you could easily take a hit of selling it as used on ebay and put that $200(RAM price which you didn't spend earlier) towards your new 4 core Mac.

 

[pshufd]

But what was wrong with 2012 and 2013 Retinas? I am still using mine and it even has dual fans for 13 inch as opposed to single in MBP2015.


This trick well worked back then but sometimes it fails to work.
For example, Sandy Bridge intel CPU was a huge step forward - i got mine with dell xps 2011 and in 2012 i also bought MBP13. Those machines were still the best around time. Because even MBP13 2015 and dual core no touchbar MBP13 2017 were almost the same in terms of performance. So sticking(paying more) in 2011-2012 with 8gb of RAM would be a good decision instead of buying 2-4 GB.
Let's say you bought MBP13 2017 base for $1300 and upgraded it a lot with 16gb RAM. But then they came out with MBP13 2019 4-core with 8gb RAM ran circles around old dual core. The same goes with M1, M1 with 8 gigs is much better than 4-core MBP with 16gb of RAM.

My point here is that sometimes you are better of saving money towards future update rather than internal upgrades. If you had MBP13 2017(sold until 2019), then you could easily take a hit of selling it as used on ebay and that $200 towards your new 4 core Mac.

Nothing was wrong with them. But I was using my 2008 at that time. I decided to upgrade in 2014 and there was plenty of GOOD history with that generation. I bought the 2015 used in 2018 for peanuts (it had a fair amount of case damage but works fine).

I had a work-issue MBP 13 2015 that was maxed out. I used my own hardware as I found the 13 dual-core too weak for work.

I've never sold a computer system. I generally give them away or recycle them.

My general approach to buying stuff is to invest in the manufacturer and use the profits to buy the item.

 

[LeeW]

Oh, I'll be perfectly fine with just 16GB. I don't do anything too heavy apart from multitasking "light" apps. Air quotes on light because webpages nowadays are so bloated. I just don't like the fact that there's zero headroom on 8GB and you're already hitting swap right from the get-go.

Pretty much my view, 8GB would probably be fine but it really is starting to hit too much Swap to soon.

 

[SteveJUAE]

My position is in the middle. Most users don't care about the M1, true. But they will care about a fast, thin laptop that you can buy for a good price (or at least the value is there), has a great screen and amazing battery life. This new MacBook air is a VERY balanced machine. The base model does not need expensive upgrades to processors, ram and storage to work well. That's why I think it will be Very successful. Apple know they could have priced it much higher, but they did not. Why? Because, in my opinion, they see an opportunity to reach an important number of new users.
500-600 dollars, I think is a little unrealistic. We'll see.

How is this a "very balanced machine" it actually does less than its predecessor, although faster

The reason it's not priced higher other than the fact it's been put in a 3 year old case is Apple will know given current sales climate what the market can handle to achieve their goals of encouraging both users and developers etc to migrate to ARM

 

[canesalato]

How is this a "very balanced machine" it actually does less than its predecessor, although faster

The reason it's not priced higher other than the fact it's been put in a 3 year old case is Apple will know given current sales climate what the market can handle to achieve their goals of encouraging both users and developers etc to migrate to ARM

That too is a factor. But I don't think they are "too" concerned with that. After all, in the current situation they raised the price of the base (non-mini) iPhone 12 and the base iPad Air. But I am not disagreeing, that must be a factor they consider.

Regarding the first question, yes, it does less but it does it better. I think that the things it cannot do are not important for most users. Apple was incredibly smart (by 'smart' I mean *************) in cutting support for 32-bit intel in Catalina, so they didn't have to write two translation layers for the M1 while still being able to say that M1 Macs run the vast majority of Mac software!

Updated intel Macs ALSO don't support 32-bit intel anymore! In other words, Apple gave a major blow to intel's strongest advantage (compatibility) just a year before switching to ARM. And fanboys even praised them for doing so!! Apple IS evil. 😃

In the coming months compatibility will improve rapidly, the most significant thing you lose is native windows, which is important to me and other people here, but in my daily life I don't know anyone else who uses windows in a mac, except a couple of people who occasionally run it in a VM.

When I say "balanced" I mean that the base configuration of a Macbook Air, the one most non-tech people buy, is a good product. It has all the necessary specs to serve an average user well: light, portable, very long battery life, good screen and speakers, very fast and (rare for Apple) adequate RAM and storage.
A Surface Pro 7 is still sold, in its base configuration, with 4GB of RAM and 128GB of storage. An i5 Surface Pro 7 and the base Surface Book are fanless devices, even though they overheat and throttle like crazy! A Surface Laptop Go in its base configuration has 4gb of RAM and 64GB of slow, soldered storage. By the time you upgrade it to have decent specs (emphasis on "decent", not good), it almost costs like a Surface Laptop 3 (WTF). These are what I call unbalanced machines, overall quite good, but each one with some major flaw.