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.
Apple Halted M2 Chip Production in January Amid 'Plummeting' Mac Sales
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People organising their photos isn’t a normal day to day operation?
My phone memory was filling up so I was doing some housekeeping moving it onto a computer to organise into folders to be filed away in an external drive.
Seems like a very ordinary thing to do. Something a base model should handle with ease.
Goes to show 256GB and 8GB is a terrible configuration in 2023.
Unified memory is terrible really.
Last edited:
How often are you exporting large number of photos? When doing so, is it a surprise that the system is spending most resources doing so? How often do you think that most people do large batch processes like that? Obviously you need a much beefier pro machine is this is a daily occurrence for you but I doubt that someone who mainly does web browsing or emailing or simple photo editing is doing that every day.
256GB with 8GB is already outdated as soon as you receive it.
Windows 11 Arm on Parallels seems to do the trick for some people.
Personally, it has been years since I needed to run Windows on my Mac. just not a compelling feature.
Lol what on earth are you talking about. Apple is ahead of Intel and AMD, and Qualcomm ARM chips are a joke. As long as M3 is as impressive as we hope, Apple will continue to dominate. Qualcomm can't even catch up to M1.
100% agree….but the Macs boom of user base came from the ability to run Windows. Get ready to go back to 2003.
That was never a mainstream need. it was an enticement for a small subset of the user base but most people never needed to run Windows.
That is so incredibly inaccurate. I have known far more people who put Linux on their Macbook Pro than Windows. At best people liked to dual boot to play a Windows game once in a while, but being able to run Windows on a Mac was never a big selling feature... most people who buy Macs have always done so because they want MacOS. Hackintoshes were popular because people wanted a cheap (or sometimes more powerful) MacOS computer.
You can get a laptop with a bigger battery, or a Windows ARM laptop.Except in battery life and track pad performance.Maybe also the screen. I'm not sure there's anything out there better than the current MBP screens.
The screen you can get a laptop with 120+ Hz, or 4k resolution.
Cheap is not necessarily the case, hackintosh people want to use their powerful gaming PCs to try Mac OS, that's mostly the case and also because upgrades (RAM SSD) are way way more price wise than what apple charges you for upgrading your memory / storage.
We are talking about quality of the macs, which some people claim are the best of the best, which is not true (without talking about the operating system), macs are neither better than all PCs and also aren't worst than all PCs, they are in between (hardware talking only).
That's the only trick if you want to run windows, but there's a catch, you will also need to spend a lot of money in SSD and memory, at least 32 RAM and 1 TB SSD, ouch.
Instead with that money get a cheap PC.
No, Apple Silicon Macs
Intel Macs ... people are having trouble even giving those away -- let alone selling them
Why did Apple push it as a major feature to entice Windows users over then.
Define ahead, core i9 13 gen, thread riper smokes the best mac studio with any combination possible in both price and performance.
On GPU (desktop and mobile), apple is still a joke, can't compete with AMD or Nvidia and even with intel discrete cards.
In the laptop part, just talking about power consumption, then wait, in a few years one of those will catch apple for sure, just be patient.
It's called marketing, but even with that, apple's first intel macs couldn't run windows, you had to wait for a while in order to run windows (bootcamp) on macs.
Intels latest i9 chips beat Apple Silicon.
Also Apple has no answer to an Nvidia 4000 series GPU
Combine a PC with those two on board and it beats any Apple configuration.
Agree, some people don't get that apple can't compete with powerful CPUs/GPUs.
Marketing or not, bootcamp is a feature pushed by Apple to be fully utilised. So the previous post stating Macs aren’t supposed to run Windows isn’t true.
Think they’re shooting themselves in the foot going down this route.
They will probably hit a wall in development and won’t be able to push out faster chips to compete in the market in a few years. Similar to the Power PC days which is why they moved to Intel.
They are already gimping the Mac Studio by not upgrading it to an M2 Ultra and holding back that chip for a Mac Pro because they can’t push out a faster chip yet.
They found that was a useful (marketing) for a lot of people, but their migration from powerpc wasn't because they wanted to build a computer that could run mac and windows.
They only care to run mac os on whatever hardware they want.
They probably are aware that could end up leaving desktop market, they will focus on mobile (tablets, laptops, smartphones) as they did long time ago with the now defunct mac server.
Yep. People are forever making excuses for manufacturers cutting corners with these low spec configurations (on the Windows side as well as with the Mac!). I've never felt it was sensible.
When you consider that even using cloud based services for storage, you tend to keep a locally cached/stored copy of anything you view/edit/open synced to your local drive? 256GB seems ridiculous at this point. Nobody wants to buy a brand new computer, get it set up with their choice of applications and find out it's something like 80% full already.
My work computer issued by my company is a 15" MBP with 256GB of SSD and I have just over 100GB free right now. This is not a home machine that holds photos, music, and video. It holds a bunch of work apps and a bunch of documents of various kinds. Quiet sufficient.
On my home machine, I got 1TB because I do have a lot of those big media files.