Windows is not some huge cess pool of malfunction, nor does it require a specific set of esoteric knowledge. I do prefer the Mac experience myself, but let's don't let logical fallacies (anecdotes) lead to insular judgments. Windows is capable of doing everything that any Mac can and the experience is getting more and more similar every year.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why I'm switching to PC after 17 years of being on a Mac
- Thread starter 67952
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Windows is not some huge cess pool of malfunction, nor does it require a specific set of esoteric knowledge. I do prefer the Mac experience myself, but let's don't let logical fallacies (anecdotes) lead to insular judgments. Windows is capable of doing everything that any Mac can and the experience is getting more and more similar every year.
No it's not except that it has a fundamental flaw they have not been able to fix; at it's heart Windows is still MS DOS.
What does that mean? Programs/apps are not sandboxed the same as the Unix based OSX and that allows huge access to the OS from outside sources.
In reallity I have always found Windows to actually be slightly faster than OSX, but the closed architecture and across platform integration of OSX/iOS makes it for me.
Anyone with even some semblance of computer competence shouldn't have problems with the "virus" thing. His entire post is incredibly melodramatic.
[doublepost=1481135144][/doublepost]
Uh no, DOS is no longer at the heart of Windows. Hasn't been for ages now.
Erm, no. The current MBP has 4 TB ports which give you access to 16 PCI-E 3.0 lanes. What we have here is a paradigm switch. Apple went from internal expandability to external expandability. Which is ultimately much more useful. With the old 17" you could have one eSATA, which was nice of course. With the current MBP, you can connect a multitude of professional storage arrays. And displays. And ethernet. And basically anything else you need. You could not do that in the old paradigm.
In fact, this makes the new MBP lineup much more adaptable. By using a simple intermediate connector hub, I can make it do exactly what I need and in a configuration I need. And I can connect external devices via any port I want. Which means that I don't need to awkwardly bent that video or power cable anymore, just because the connector happens to be on the wrong side of the laptop. And if I need to process and copy few dozen TB of video data to our server I can just disconnect the storage unit from the server and do it locally on my laptop, accomplishing this task in a fraction of a time I would have needed if I did it via the network (its an actual use case that happened only a week ago). With the new design, I have options I never had before.
Heck, if our data server should fail, I can simply connect the RAID storage arrays to the MBP and run it as an emergency storage server for few days. No other laptop in the world can do it, and not many desktops can, either. Its much better than in the old days, where a failed Mac Pro meant getting another (expensive) Mac Pro and hoping that the RAID array will be recognised correctly. Now I just plug in the RAID array. And if I run out of storage, I just buy another one. Again, something not possible with the internal expandability paradigm. In the end its cheaper, more flexible and also more maintainable, because the system is modular.
Sure, in the days where RAM was limited and expensive. Now the computer literally comes with the maximal amount of RAM that can fit in it by default.
And thats exactly the argument I am just not buying. The new MBP uses the same class CPU and GPU as any MBP before it. It is much more adaptable than any MBP before it. It offers insane connectivity (16 PCI-E 3.0 lanes). It has better display and better battery life than any MBP before it. It comes with as much RAM as that form factor can effectively support (yes, I know, DDR4 thing and all would be another choice). And its also lighter and more mobile. I just don't see how this is trimming the top end. I think what you are trying to say is that they are not making it any faster. Which is most certainly true. Apple seems to be comfortable with the performance class of the MBP and keeps it stable rather than trying to accommodate faster hardware.
As a developer and heavy user of open-source software who spends most his time in the shell, I very much disagree with this statement. Yes, Apple should provide free certificates for open-source developers. Thats the only point of criticism I have. Apple's developer infrastructure is incredible for open-source and the UI/Unix interaction is second to none. Not to mention that much of the OS X and its tools is open-source in the first place.
That is simply because the supply outpaces the demand. Few months from now, you'll have your same-day replacement as well. We had a few service cases with our retina MBPs, which also don't have swappable parts, and that was 2-3 days at an external service provider (which means that they had to clear the repair with Apple first and order the part).
Lucky you. We have two Thinkpads. Both of them developed catastrophic failures within few months after purchase . The repair took around 3 weeks. Sure, anecdotal case, but thats enough for me to never buy a Thinkpad again.
Big conversation, equally I am pretty much out of Apple as of 2016, between the desktop OS and recent hardware releases. I kind of saw it coming and have been personally preparing to switch to Windows 10 for best part of a year. Apple has it`s own way, and it`s no longer for me simple as that. I just want more from my computers, really want to get into VR, equally just not happening with any Mac anytime soon in the near to middle term.
Apple is only just talking about AR, yet I am literally using AR on my smartphone on a daily basis as my Chinese reading skills are poor; open the App, flip to camera and all the text is now in english with the exact same background, like a video of the book only in english. To me this AR working in realtime for purpose, not just Tim & Co talking about it for another 3-4 years...
Maybe my RDF is out of calibration, don't know; really thought hard about it the last few days, my conclusion is I just think that Apple is absolutely way off the mark in 2016. So much interesting & exciting tech approaching, yet we as Mac users we are absolutely precluded from joining the party, for the sake of what? Being ever ****ing thinner, sorry it`s just BS, utter nonsense, and I for one have had enough of it. Anyway am over it now having a Surface Book and delighted with it`s performance, looking for a 2nd with Performance Base or hold until Surface Book 2 hits Asia, and looking at VR ready notebook just for the fun of it. This will be a blast, will be fun just to mess with VR and get back on the cutting edge.
Apple could have easily have had these sales even at a higher price points as long as the value made sense, however Apple is producing more hardware than they have in a longtime, equally so much more limited, with zero ability to upgrade anything. For me the most important aspect of the computer is the data, and now even the SSD is on the Logic Board, that`s fine for a ultra portable where portability is paramount, for a Professional/Prosumer Notebook, just NO, absolutely not.
Apologies for the rant, I really want to like want Apple produces, I don't hate or dislike Apple, just so disappointed, the thin thing is just getting old fast, I want the 15" MBP to be a beast of a portable, not neutered & watered down for the sake of a couple of millimetres here & there and a minuscule weight reduction.
I truly am
just very pissed off right now. Also please note I have consumed much Bacardi, which in all honesty is not really helping matters, well maybe a little TLDR MBP has not developed as I hoped it would, & "worse things happen at sea"
Q-6
Last edited:
Sweet dude - and I agree that the MBP is a beautiful machine. I wish I could justify buying it. I have a 15" 2015 top tier MBP.. the RAM is not sufficient. I bottleneck, and end up page swapping with my SSD because I run out of RAM... this is true for MANY working in development and creative department wheres they are using lots of memory.
The entire point of this discussion is Apple did not consider these people (many of whom write the applications you so fondly enjoy on MacOS and iOS) and for that reason, some of us are forced to upgrade to a Windows machine if we want to continue our profession and not be subjected to trash performance due to paging.
Do you understand what I'm writing? I've expressed my preference for Macs multiple times - and I've given legitimate reasons why this machine is an oversight for a specific community (again, many of whom drive the creative forces and applications people like yourself use... and also many of which MAKE MacOS such a great platform).
As far as your backhanded comment - real nice. Appreciate you being an adult about this. It's not difficult to monitor your resources, its pretty clear that even when I'm not debugging I'm using up to 12-13gb of RAM.
The game has changed - many of us run multi-monitor setups (multiple 4k, or Ultrawides etc.) and we are using quite a bit of resources, because, unix wise.. this is our choice for a device.
Apple has shunned that community. Enjoy watching the number of apps developed natively for MacOS drop more and more as time goes on if this continues.
Last edited:
I disagree it's true for many. Forgive me for being so sceptical, but I know for a fact that a lot of people don't really realize how much they need. Page swapping to SSD, for example, happens all the time, even if you have more RAM. That is not an indicator you need more. Also the RAM gets filled up no matter how much of it you have. For example, you claim that you use 12-18Gb RAM is really strange to me. It's a very specific, small range. And is that with memory compression? And do you actually feel that "missing 2Gb" of RAM? And how do you know when you've crossed that treshold?
There is a small amount of people who need as much RAM as possible. For example, people who render 3D scenes with insane amount of assets, people who run multiple VMs, etc. Then there is a large group of people who actually don't need more than 8Gb RAM but think they do, because the system uses swap (which it always does) or because their RAM is filled up (which it always is) and they think a lack of RAM is the reason for any slowdown (which it never is). Finally there is a small amount of people who know how much RAM they need. It's allmost like a gaussian function.
Now, I don't know what you do, other than you're a developer (which can mean a lot of things). I'm a developer to, by the way! And so are the 130 people I work with in our gamedev studio. I can tell you, the number of people who need more than 16Gb RAM is very, very, very small even among developers and the creative department.
I don't know what you do, and it's possible you actually need more than 16Gb RAM. It's also quite possible you only think you do, but then again, I don't know you. However - let's say that you really do. Fine. That still doesn't mean you're right when you say that MANY working in development and creative deparment need more. It's simply not true. People waaaaay overestimate their actual requirements and attribute slowdowns or performance gains to completely wrong things. People are quick to say something is underpowered, and the entire computer manufacturing industry likes to push that way of thinking, to sell more hardware. And reviewers and journalists have no clue and are really uninformed.
BTW, I know you'll say I'm wrong and that you know many people who need more than 16Gb, etc. I know the story well.
Last edited:
I disagree it's true for many. Forgive me for being so sceptical, but I know for a fact that a lot of people don't really realize how much they need. Page swapping to SSD, for example, happens all the time, even if you have more RAM. That is not an indicator you need more. Also the RAM gets filled up no matter how much of it you have. For example, you claim that you use 12-18Gb RAM is really strange to me. It's a very specific, small range. And is that with memory compression? And do you actually feel that "missing 2Gb" of RAM? And how do you know when you've crossed that treshold?
There is a small amount of people who need as much RAM as possible. For example, people who render 3D scenes with insane amount of assets, people who run multiple VMs, etc. Then there is a large group of people who actually don't need more than 8Gb RAM but think they do, because the system uses swap (which it always does) or because their RAM is filled up (which it always is) and they think a lack of RAM is the reason for any slowdown (which it never is). Finally there is a small amount of people who know how much RAM they need. It's allmost like a gaussian function.
![ramneed.jpg]()
Now, I don't know what you do, other than you're a developer (which can mean a lot of things). I'm a developer to, by the way! And so are the 130 people I work with in our gamedev studio. I can tell you, the number of people who need more than 16Gb RAM is very, very, very small even among developers and the creative department.
I don't know what you do, and it's possible you actually need more than 16Gb RAM. It's also quite possible you only think you do, but then again, I don't know you. However - let's say that you really do. Fine. That still doesn't mean you're right when you say that MANY working in development and creative deparment need more. It's simply not true. People waaaaay overestimate their actual requirements and attribute slowdowns or performance gains to completely wrong things. People are quick to say something is underpowered, and the entire computer manufacturing industry likes to push that way of thinking, to sell more hardware. And reviewers and journalists have no clue and are really uninformed.
BTW, I know you'll say I'm wrong and that you know many people who need more than 16Gb, etc. I know the story well.
So, I work as a Software Test Engineer - Most of the time I run my MacOS instance and at least two VM's which are each allocated 2GB RAM. These are usually at full capacity (sometimes I up that to 3 VM's depending on tests being executed and against which environments).
I understand the concept of memory used vs cached vs swap.. I also get the intricacies of wired memory, memory used for apps and compressed memory. I think you're under the impression that you're intellectually superior to me, I appreciate how you feel, but again, I'm more than familiar with the difference. I'm asserting that, when all available memory is actively used (or in use, and yes, we aren't talking cached files or compressed/swap) the PC suffers slowdown that is incredibly frustrating and annoying.
I recognize you believe there aren't 'many', I'm happy your career doesn't expose you to that. In much the same respect maybe 50 out of the 70 developers I work with find themselves suffering from the issue that I am talking about.
Now, because you've seemingly accepted a MAY need the ram, you're making assumptions on the definition of 'many'.
I won't attack your education (which, frankly I think you've made insinuations about my knowledge of the function of memory as it applies to a PC) but, you're making it increasingly apparent that you're arrogant and refuse to accept the facts in front of you.
But hey - you're the smartest guy in the room, so - whatever.. right?
Not at all. After your explanation, I am inclined to believe you know what you're talking about and you probably need more RAM. Most people that say they need more - usually don't. So forgive me for being doubtful.
However, you're still wrong that MANY people need more. No they don't. You do, maybe your colleagues do, but 80% of people here who are crying that they need more - don't really. And even if they did, they'd still be in the minority.
So - you need more. Sorry to hear that Apple doesn't have what you need, and I'm glad there are computers that do. Most people will be perfectly fine with this, including developers and creative professionals. The RAM situation has been blown way out of proportion. Just as ports. And everything else, really. It's Apple, though, that should be normal by now.
I disagree it's true for many. Forgive me for being so sceptical, but I know for a fact that a lot of people don't really realize how much they need. Page swapping to SSD, for example, happens all the time, even if you have more RAM. That is not an indicator you need more. Also the RAM gets filled up no matter how much of it you have. For example, you claim that you use 12-18Gb RAM is really strange to me. It's a very specific, small range. And is that with memory compression? And do you actually feel that "missing 2Gb" of RAM? And how do you know when you've crossed that treshold?
There is a small amount of people who need as much RAM as possible. For example, people who render 3D scenes with insane amount of assets, people who run multiple VMs, etc. Then there is a large group of people who actually don't need more than 8Gb RAM but think they do, because the system uses swap (which it always does) or because their RAM is filled up (which it always is) and they think a lack of RAM is the reason for any slowdown (which it never is). Finally there is a small amount of people who know how much RAM they need. It's allmost like a gaussian function.
![ramneed.jpg]()
Now, I don't know what you do, other than you're a developer (which can mean a lot of things). I'm a developer to, by the way! And so are the 130 people I work with in our gamedev studio. I can tell you, the number of people who need more than 16Gb RAM is very, very, very small even among developers and the creative department.
I don't know what you do, and it's possible you actually need more than 16Gb RAM. It's also quite possible you only think you do, but then again, I don't know you. However - let's say that you really do. Fine. That still doesn't mean you're right when you say that MANY working in development and creative deparment need more. It's simply not true. People waaaaay overestimate their actual requirements and attribute slowdowns or performance gains to completely wrong things. People are quick to say something is underpowered, and the entire computer manufacturing industry likes to push that way of thinking, to sell more hardware. And reviewers and journalists have no clue and are really uninformed.
BTW, I know you'll say I'm wrong and that you know many people who need more than 16Gb, etc. I know the story well.
The argument that 16Gb is enough because lots of people think they need more, when they don't really, doesn't cut it. "Need" is not the sole driver for purchase. The fact remains that 16 Gb has been the top threshold for over 5 years now, and it's approaching the time when people need, or want, more. It would be good to have that choice.
I'm still holding out for the MacBook Ultra.
Enough need it that it is silly to not have a BTO option or allow it to be user upgradeable. It's unfortunate because, Dell isn't so much an option as it is my ONLY option. It's not like I'm making a choice.. I prefer MacOS.. I prefer unix base.. but.. they aren't giving me a choice. That's the problem.
Yes, for most people they don't need more.. but, This is apple's professional grade laptop and their top tier configuration. It's a let down.
Is there a particular reason why you are running those VMs locally? If that is part of your normal workflow, wouldn't it make more sense to run them on a cluster somewhere?
Considering an overwhelming majority of the WORLD uses Windows... I'd say it's more than just "luck"
Here's an interesting YouTube by a creative pro discussing the "dongle" issue. You'll get the gist of it in the first few minutes. Basically he talks about the unreliability of the types of connections that the new MB Pro forces you to use:
He doesn't have a new MBP, but knows it's bad. We should trust him, because he says he's the greatest Apple fan in the universe - so that must mean he's objective. And he has that cool hairstyle, so you know he's a real pro. And he thinks that adapters are complicated. Then he shows one and says it's broken. And then repeats they don't work right. Usually, I wouldn't take this as solid evidence, but he does say "trust me" - so that does change things.
I also love his engineering expertise, where he explains that you can, really, put a port anywhere. Because that's how things work. Basically, they just had to drill a few holes in the chassis.
I'm also a creative pro, I guess. Here is my scary dongle situation. It's completely terrible - I had to, like, attach this thing to the power cable, and then hook up the Wacom wifi dongle on it, I.... I don't know how I managed it, really. So complicated, so unreliable - they can just break! I also have 2 USB-C to USB-A adapters but I wouldn't even know where to begin, they are just so complicated, having to put them on cables, and then choose which port to connect them to - it's basically torture.
Sure, now I have 4 USB ports instead of 2, I have 4 TB ports instead of two, but, it's just so unreliable, broken and complicated, as a creative pro, I can't deal with it.
Seriously, just give it a rest.
Last edited:
He doesn't have a new MBP, but knows it's bad. We should trust him, because he says he's the greatest Apple fan in the universe - so that must mean he's objective. And he has that cool hairstyle, so you know he's a real pro. And he thinks that adapters are complicated. Then he shows one and says it's broken. And then repeats they don't work right. Usually, I wouldn't take this as solid evidence, but he does say "trust me" - so that does change things.
I also love his engineering expertise, where he explains that you can, really, put a port anywhere. Because that's how things work. Basically, they just had to drill a few holes in the chassis.
I'm also a creative pro, I guess. Here is my scary dongle situation. It's completely terrible - I had to, like, attach this thing to the power cable, and then hook up the Wacom wifi dongle on it, I.... I don't know how I managed it, really. So complicated, so unreliable - they can just break! I also have 2 USB-C to USB-A adapters but I wouldn't even know where to begin, they are just so complicated, having to put them on cables, and then chose which port to connect them to - it's basically torture.
![dongle.png]()
Sure, now I have 4 USB ports instead of 2, I have 4 TB ports instead of two, but, it's just so unreliable, broken and complicated, as a creative pro, I can't deal with it.
Seriously, just give it a rest.
OMG you just won the internet with this post. LMAO.
I'm wondering if ANY laptop is a good choice for a guy who bought a 14-port USB hub for his studio.
EDIT: It's funny that he's complaining about the new MacBook Pro that needs all these "dongles"... and yet his current computer only has two USB ports which necessitates the need for a massive USB hub in the first place.
One of his complaints is that USB hubs can be somewhat unreliable. But that's a separate issue not related to the laptop itself.
His other complaint is that his audio interface works best when plugged into the laptop directly and not through a hub.
Since the new MacBook Pro does not have standard USB ports... the common thinking is he'll need a dongle to adapt the standard USB-B to USB-A cable to the USB-C port. And the dongle might add instability.
But I think he should eliminate the standard cable and dongle and swap in a more direct USB-B to USB-C cable. And he could do the same for the hub: USB-B to USB-C cable.
Then he'd have the same setup with the new MacBook Pro... but with without dongles.
For all this talk about "dongles"... I think people forget that sometimes using a different (and cheap) new cable is better than using the standard cable + dongle.
Especially for a setup like this in a studio environment.
You'll still need a dongle for a flash drive... but most other external devices can eliminate the dongle with a simple cable swap.
Last edited:
I work for a software security company - we do static analysis and we're heavily guarded from cloud based solutions. I could get a separate machine on site... but if I'm home It's useless.
That doesn't change the fact that there was clear differentiation between the product lines.
But that amount is a quarter of what I can get in competing systems, and there's real workloads where that matters. (I work with a lot of virtual machine stuff. Yes, 32GB is a bit cramped sometimes.) Again, the option of upgrading later is significant. Moreso, perhaps, with storage.
The connectivity isn't so insane when you compare it to what everything else is offering.
And no, it doesn't have a "better" display. It has a display which some people like better, and which many other people dislike, and which is less capable of doing some things that are pretty important to many users.
Technology progresses. Non-Mac systems are showing up with more memory and storage options, and if they'd followed that instead of focusing exclusively on thinness, we'd have a machine with 32-64GB of memory as an option. But we don't, because the users who'd care about DDR4 performance are outside of Apple's design envelope.
It's not just getting the certificates; it's that needing to use them creates a really significant barrier to entry. It's a pain.
My experience with them has been way better than my experience with recent-Apple. Old-Apple, sure.
See also: https://macperformanceguide.com/topics/topic-AppleCoreRot.html
[doublepost=1481162701][/doublepost]
Latency. I have done work on remote machines when I needed a GUI, and I have done local work when I needed a GUI, and I know which I'd prefer.
You could if it weren't so thin.
[doublepost=1481168425][/doublepost]
It is, if the laptop requires you to use hubs because of lack of ports. My current desktop, for instance, has six USB-3 ports.
I don't know the guy personally, but it's just one point of view, like other people's views here. His experience is that external hubs and adapters are not as reliable as built-in ports.