You can go with a last gen Intel MBP with Radeon 5600m. Still a great machine.
For the same reasons you mentioned, I’m going to stick with my 2020 iMac and 2018 MBP as long as Apple will support those machines with new OS releases.
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 Vision Pro's Virtual Display Feature Works With Intel Macs, But Limited to 3K Resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For the same reasons you mentioned, I’m going to stick with my 2020 iMac and 2018 MBP as long as Apple will support those machines with new OS releases.
I love my 2018 iMac and was in the market for a 2020 iMac with a decent 1 TB ssd drive size, but I think next release of OSX won't support either. It will a mac studio or mac mini only for the next OSX release.
I dunno, it wouldn’t connect to mine with a display today til it was awake and the password was entered. It should of it’s always on and open
Apple will keep the support for Intel for some more releases because of the Mac Pro.
As for storage, I rely on external. With 40gbps NVMe drives there is no compromise on speed compared to the internal while being much cheaper. That way I can seamlessly transition my workflow on the MBP when I’m traveling.
Agreed. The sharpest thing was the face closeup in the rope walking video. The rest reminded me of quest vids
The same Intel MBP I will be using another 4 years minimum. It's a monster (4TB - 32GB), still performs amazingly well and native Windows is clutch for Steam games I still use and some random programs.
I’ve had problems with this feature. It simply doesn’t connect if you select and finger tap the connect button that hovers over the Mac. You can see the button depress but nothing ever happens. The only way i can make it work is to go to Control Center, select the icon for Mac connection and choose from the list. That’s how I also found out that it doesn’t only work with Mac laptops as had been initially reported. None of the normal Vision Pro inputs work with the Mac screen, though. You still have to use a keyboard/mouse attached to the Mac.
One beneficial side effect I discovered accidentally is that if I’m connected to a Mac and I’m in another Vision Pro app, the virtual keyboard doesn’t appear. That confused me for a bit, thinking it was a bug, but then I started typing on the Mac’s keyboard and it worked, allowing me to use the Mac’s keyboard with other apps outside the Mac.
One beneficial side effect I discovered accidentally is that if I’m connected to a Mac and I’m in another Vision Pro app, the virtual keyboard doesn’t appear. That confused me for a bit, thinking it was a bug, but then I started typing on the Mac’s keyboard and it worked, allowing me to use the Mac’s keyboard with other apps outside the Mac.
Ok, lets do a test, I'll load & render a thousand part parametric solidworks or inventor assembly @ 32 courses on the 2015 15" i7, the 2019 16" i9, and any Mx machine Apple has made since then of your choice.
i7: 6min 20sec
i9 w/cooling mods: 3min 42sec
Mx: Still waiting since 2020.
At what? The problem remains that Silicon isn't "better" if it can't do the work at all. Anything remaining after needing an old Intel Mac do the heavy lifting, is menial tasks an iPad can do & transport easier.
I mostly agree, with a few notes.
Microsoft is, or should be, treating ARM like the future of full Windows. But there’s some stuff lost in translation there too. Microsoft too is tasking the opportunity to centralize more control, like drivers.
A lot of the issue is not so much that it’s ARM it’s that there’s no proper hardware dual boot, so there’s no true hardware support.
Also, Intel is following the path of Apple anyway, with more power efficient and modular designs. They already did this once with the original Core series and Core 2 Duo. I mostly agree about efficiency but now that they have got the efficiency down, they are cranking up the power. And Apple cares more about battery powered devices anyway, Intel’s strong suit has always been with computers that stay plugged in.
For a gaming computer your power estimates might be a bit low but I get your point, but Apple just doesn’t seem to care. Other than gaming I’m not sure what software on Windows anymore is an absolute necessity that only runs on Windows and doesn’t work in virtualization. Even on Intel Macs a lot of people virtualized rather than actually using Boot Camp.
Windows isn’t the dominant absolute necessity it used to be. One has to think this was an attempt to claw back some of that power from Microsoft by making people choose again, at a time when Apple believes they are in a better position to do so.
When they introduced the Intel Macs they made a point of saying that it can boot Windows. When they introduced AS they showed virtualized Linux and didn’t really do more than imply that say it can run software made for ARM processors. Windows wasn’t mentioned at all, and I don’t know if it’s because they can’t because of the exclusivity agreement or if it’s that they just don’t care.
Sad fact is the computer industry as a whole is changing for the worse. Everything is going to this centralized control model. This is what the Linux/FSF/GNU/etc have been warning us about for decades.
We see the same problems on the software side with Apple trying to re-write the history of software sale and distribution.
Apple was always AAPL. At least since 12 Dec 1980.
And your historiography is highly biased.
We used to call this "IBM".
IBM dragged its feet into the micro-computer sector because their model was always that they serviced customers by providing a central computer they could control, and terminals (of various types) as needed by the customer. The software, hardware, maintenance, and training - all in a single shop.
Whining about soldered in RAM and SSD is just whining about the trees and missing the forest.
Whether it's Google, or Meta, or Microsoft - the goal is to capture users and make them dependent upon a proprietary digital ecosystem.
I've concluded some people hate Apple because Apple beat the others at their game. First they beat IBM (took some time, and IBM's own fumbling), and now they are beating Google and Meta. Microsoft hangs on only because of legacy investment by hundreds of millions of people using Windows, Outlook, etc. But MSFT is not expanding their market share, it is contracting.
If you take an Intel i9 it will still be faster than the base model M1 in many tasks. It depends on what you do. Graphics heavy stuff, especially sustained, will slow an M1 down while the Intel will keep going. Yes it consumes far more power, but if you're on the charger then that's irrelevant. Haven't compared with M2 or M3 but it's not as simple as "faster in every way". Apple Silicon is faster in general OS stuff and running Apple-made software like Final Cut Pro X but not faster when running Premiere or Stable Diffusion.
Graphics heavy stuff would be comparing to whatever GPU was paired with that i9, not the i9 itself.
I also don’t understand the notion that it’s no big deal to take a massive performance hit in a laptop by not being plugged in. That’s entirely on Intel not focusing at all on perf/watt in that era.
Yes but overall the device is trash. The praising reviews must be from people who never tried a quest 3. If the quest 3 is $500 then the step up to the Vision Pro is worth a very solid $1000 tops. The fact 1) you can’t have two video sources playing video (with one muted) at the same time (think a sports game in one window and a movie in the other) and 2) the ability to share through “guest” requires a 3 minute re-registration makes the device junk to me. Apple blocked this device from being viable.
It's a special burger McDonald's produced for the CIA to transmit classified information before the internet was invented
There aren't very many comments on this post because
1. Intel Macs just aren't very exciting (for obvious reasons)
2. this really screws with the Apple cynic's narrative that everything that greedy old Apple does is for money, so they are going to skirt this far and wide
I don't have an Intel Mac anymore, but it's great to see Apple supporting older devices.
1. Intel Macs just aren't very exciting (for obvious reasons)
2. this really screws with the Apple cynic's narrative that everything that greedy old Apple does is for money, so they are going to skirt this far and wide
I don't have an Intel Mac anymore, but it's great to see Apple supporting older devices.
Having a 2023 Intel Notebook at work and cheapest day one M1 Air (2020?) at home, i have to say it is definitely worth it.
Battery life is terrible on the (way more expensive) work Notebook and it often gets hot to the touch. And there are also the fans making noise. Feels like battery life isn't even half of that of my Macbook. But the price is double. So i guess it evens out, right?
It is very obvious which one is the better hardware. And i definitely don't "happily" use Intel on the work Notebook. We need an alternative for Apple Silicon on the Windows market. But it is taking way longer than i expected.
I'd also happily sacrifice upgradability on our work Laptops, if it meant getting the same advantages. As it is, we are already not upgrading our Laptops in any way and just order them with what is needed (or a bit more) from the beginning.
At least Microsoft is still working on improving Windows ARM, which will improve virtualization on the Mac and also hopefully make ARM Laptops a good alternative to Macs. Especially with the Qualcomm - Windows ARM exclusivity deal ending this year and other manufacturers (AMD / NVIDIA) also working on ARM chips. Maybe we will even see it run natively on Macbooks again. (Although i doubt it)
Yep, and your comapny can be as Mac centric as it likes but if you NEED Windows, you're SOL.
Macs famously don't take any kind of performance hit if they're not on the charger, this is true for Intel and Apple Silicon equally. The performance hit only happens on some PC laptops and is due to the limited amps the battery can safely supply.
No I understand the reasons, what I don’t understand is when people make comparisons to windows laptops and act like the performance drop on battery is somehow acceptable when touting how much “better” intel chips are.