Staying on a Mac forums, will do that to you. Windows too has its fair share of update doomsday, its just u will never hear of it unless u go to pc websites.
...which I do frequently. Not only that, but I check the "Known Issues" page on each Windows 10 release before installing said release. Most of the issues don't apply to me (nor do they apply to the vast majority of users). It's honestly not bad. I started using Windows 10 with the Anniversary Update (v1607), which came out in July of 2016 - the tail end of El Capitan's run as the latest OS X/macOS release. There's only been one problem free version of macOS since then. I've used every Windows 10 release since 1607 and have only really disliked one (1709). They did have to pull 1809, but the revised version was pretty good after the first month. When Apple releases suck, they tend to stay that way for their entirety.
You mean because Microsoft's QC is currently and historically unimpeachable?
Why so black-and-white? There's a difference between "unimpeachable" and "better than Apple's". Historically, Microsoft's QC was worse. Now, they don't make sweeping changes to their OS that disrupt everything under the hood every Windows 10 release the way Apple does every year. Microsoft's QC isn't unimpeachable, but it IS better than Apple's right now and I direct you to both Catalina and High Sierra as recent evidence of that.
This is Apple's biggest problem, their current software QA standards.
When M2 comes out, I will evaluate Apple's macOS QA track record.
Their declining macOS QA has kept me running Mojave on my Mac mini 2018 despite the fact that TWO major releases have arrived.
I still periodically install the latest and greatest on a "disposable" external SSD to evaluate the software. Within an hour or so, I always switch back to my Mojave boot drive.
For sure, I will never run Crapalina on my Mac. It was a POS from the start and after the minor improvements it received over a year, it will no longer get any better.
My guess is that I will upgrade to Big Sur sometime in Q2 2021.
Windows 10 is no walk in the park. Version 1903 was a freakin' train wreck and 2004 (a.k.a. May 2020) had a poor reputation. I installed 2004 a couple of months ago and upgraded to 20H2 (a.k.a. October 2020) just recently. My primary Wintel PC (a gaming system) never ran 2004.
It feels like with every two Windows 10 bugs that are quashed, Microsoft introduces three new ones. Their software QA has also gone down the toilet. They should really stick to one feature release per year instead of two.
I only had a couple of issues with 1903/1909; and they were entirely RDP/Hyper-V related. On systems that I wasn't using those functions with, I had no issues with either version. Similarly, my run on 2004 has been pretty uneventful and seamless. I've never had a Windows 10 release that gave me the kind of headaches that Catalina and High Sierra did. I'll agree that Microsoft could stand to do one release per year instead of two, though I'm happy that it's seeming like the cadence is such that the fall release is the refinement release (fitting in with Windows 10 Enterprise's fall releases having an extra year of support) that's basically a service pack to the spring release. If the cadence is increased, the number of changes needs to go down.
The difference being that they run a rolling release, and force you update, whereas Mac users can uncheck a single box and camp on a single version of MacOS.
You're no longer forced until the version you are on hits end of support (1.5 years). Incidentally, Apple only provides two years of support for any given macOS release on top of the year in which it is the current (and sticking with an unsupported macOS release isn't much better than being on an unsupported Windows release). So, sure, you can uncheck that checkbox and be stubborn, but it's REALLY not a good idea.
Currently typing this on a high end 2017 MBP15, and sitting on a significant upgrade budget. If something significantly more powerful (particularly in GPU) than a loaded Intel MBP16 is in the offing or rumored by end of Q1, I might wait for it. But I do use BootCamp and Autodesk and plenty of other not-soon-ported x86 applications, and so I'm leaning towards getting the Last Best Intel MBP and holding on to it for at least 2-3 years until the transition is stabler.
I'd honestly get an Intel Mac, given your use case. Incidentally, I'm in a similar boat. Plus, working in IT, Boot Camp and x86 virtualization are both useful things that definitely won't be coming along for the ride with Apple Silicon.
Windows tends to have it's own issues...
No one is saying it doesn't. However, if you're comparing Windows issues and QC to macOS issues and QC, Apple's record is worse right now. I get that we're all Apple fanboys, but at least own up when your team is playing a crappy season!
Why? The entry level M1 Mac mini is $100 less than the entry level Intel Mac mini it replaced.
That said, you are probably better off saving money for a future purchase than attempting zero-interest financing.
Note that Apple does not take COLA price increases every year. Thus, if the new Mac model ___ costs the same as the equivalent from two years ago, today's model is actually cheaper when adjusted for inflation.
I've had Macs since the Nineties. They were all desktop models back then of course but even a more moderately priced unit was about $2000.
You do realize that we're in the middle of an economy-crippling pandemic, right? I can't afford an entry level Mac mini right now. And when I'm employed, I usually make enough to buy one with a single day's worth of work. Don't finance-shame people in the middle of an economic downturn unless you're buying.
Antecedent
Jun 2005 - WWDC 2005 keynote declares transition from PowerPC to Intel.
Aug 2009 -
Mac OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard" released as Intel-only, removing support for the PowerPC architecture.
Likely future
Jun 2020 - WWDC 2020 keynote declares transition from Intel to Apple Silicon.
??? 2024 - macOS 11.4 released as Apple Silicon-only, removing support for the Intel architecture.
Bye bye Hackintosh...
By 2024 will AMD/Intel be relevant?
A less than 15W TDP M1 mobile chip can outperform a 125W TDP chip like a Core i9 desktop chip.
I would not be surprised to see a 125W TDP Apple Silicon chip to outdo Threadripper 3900-Series and RTX 30-Series
When Apple labels a product as "obsolete" it means they do not have parts on hand to service it. So my 16" can still be repaired up to 2027.
Don’t see any reason why that would be different for Intel Macs.
You do realize that:
(a) Macs during the era of the PowerPC-to-Intel transition (on both ends of the transition) were not rated to last anywhere near as long as they do now (in terms of total time being able to run the latest release of macOS); Apple would support Macs for 5 years; now they're supporting them for 8 years (with them still being usable for two years thereafter with security updates for their final supported macOS release)
(b) The PowerPC-to-Intel transition is not the Intel-to-Apple-Silicon transition. 2005-06 is not 2020-2022. Steve Jobs was able to complete the former transition in a year. Tim Cook (Federighi and Srouji) are going to need all two years to complete the latter transition as evidenced by the fact that the M1 still has limitations preventing it from replacing every Intel Mac.
(c) Four years is not enough time for Intel and AMD to become irrelevant. A TON of things would need to happen in an impossibly short time (the development of an SoC not made by Apple, but still powerful enough to convince PC OEMS and software developers that Windows 10 for ARM64 is a superior platform to develop for when compared to Windows 10 for x86-64 being not least among them).
right?
Also, you only get 7 years of being able to order parts for a product if you're in the state of California or the nation of Turkey. Everywhere else, it's 5 years.
You're correct about this being the end of Hackintoshes; though, that end won't be immediate. Certainly, I'd build a 10th Gen Intel based Hackintosh while the parts still exist...
