How often do good quality SSD's die. Hugely overblown concern like the nonsense a few years ago regarding swap ( I have a database with millions of entries on a mac server writing 24/7 and I am losing like 1-2% a year in terms of longevity, meaning my mac will be 50-100 years old by the time the SSD is worn out)
It's more about "how" it does it rather than "what" it can do. For the average user, Mac is probably still more elegant. For power users such as yourself, however, priorities are obviously different.
Also ironic: For a while there Apple was making "IBM-compatibles" and IBM wasn't!
there are people that dont get outside because anything can happen and die
No, but there's a thing called gouging and Apple does that with storage and ram.
I didn’t get to know the PowerPC era, but from what I’ve heard/read, PowerPC chips were extremely hot and the opposite to efficient. And what I’ve known, are the PowerPC game consoles like the PS3 and Xbox360, and the thermal problems were quite evident with the problems that generation had. I’m curious, why do you think PowerPC macs were efficient?
Wow, 128GB on a modern laptop would be so constraining for me… yes, you can add as much external storage as you want, but I’d never get a laptop with so little storage honestly, much less spend 5k on that. I didn’t even know some M4 MacBooks shipped with 128Gb in 2024…
Two issues,
The G3s and G4s were efficient. The G5s were not. There's a reason Apple never made a G5 laptop and efficiency is why. Some of the iMac G3s didn't even have a fan.
Oh, I didn’t know that! Because all I knew about PPC back in the day were the hot PS3 and Xbox360 SoC, and I knew Apple had ditched PowerPC CPUs in favor of Intel for the same reason (hot and inefficient G5) I assumed that was the nature of that architecture. I didn’t know some of the G3s didn’t even have a fan!
Yeah. I realized now after reading the post again, that they were talking about RAM, not storage.
In my view, that’s just nostalgia. I started with Macs even before Power PC’s and the move to Intel was a leap like the one to Apple silicon in 2020. PowerPC machines got extremely hot relative to the performance.
My impression of the PPC era was - 1st gen - a lot of potential, there did need to be a move from 68K, but with the 1st gen it was still potential, and not 100% there. G3 - G4 - very good, performance justifying the switch. G5 - just running too hot to live up to the claims, and at that point x86 was taking the lead in terms of real-world performance. The G5 PowerMac was the most obvious example of this - there was the sense that Apple had to throw out their heat management strategy at the last minute and cobble something together from scratch just to make the machine perform at anything close to the claims.
PowerPC was faster intel, and Apple fully exploited that advantage, but the problem was that with both Moto and IBM focus was not innovating the PPC for desktop/mobile processing, they had their own priorities (and problems). Intel improved their cpus and while the G4 represented a big step forward performance wise, the G5 languished, Moto was largely out and IBM while creating the G5 wasn't dedicating that much resources.
