Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I’ve never had a windows computer last more than 2 years, work or personal. The last one I had for personal use was terrible. Crashing, freezing, hardware failing, doesn’t boot up etc.

Wow.....

My desktop is a 14 year old Dell that I've done nothing to except add ram and replace the hard drive with an SSD. My work laptop is a Dell latitude that is three years old and it runs just fine. My previous work HP lasted five years before I was forced to replace it by IT.

I've never had any computers give up in two years, or thee, or five. I keep my MacBooks for close to a decade.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iHorseHead
Wow.....

My desktop is a 14 year old Dell that I've done nothing to except add ram and replace the hard drive with an SSD. My work laptop is a Dell latitude that is three years old and it runs just fine. My previous work HP lasted five years before I was forced to replace it by IT.

I've never had any computers give up in two years, or thee, or five. I keep my MacBooks for close to a decade.
yup.. generally the same luck most people have lol. No idea how someone can ruin multiple pc's after just a couple years
 
Before I retired, my employer would refresh the staff’s computers (laptops, desktop and workstation) on a rotating basis every 3 to 5 years. The suite of potential machines changes every year but typically varied between Dell or HP. The Dell machines were ok but inevitably the HP machines (laptops through high end workstations) had serious “infant mortality” issues. Large numbers of hardware issues usually during the first couple of months, occasionally right out of the box. They would get repaired or replaced without issue but it was always a pain and an impact to productivity. But if the unit made pass the first few months then it was fine. It went on for years (only with HP) and was apparently their business strategy: Repair/replacement costs were acceptable based on the money saved from shipping low quality hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: schnaps
Still usable is more important than still works.

Example, I've got a 1984 IBM 5155 luggable that still works but not usable in 2024 while a 2008 Thinkpad x200 (upgraded with 8GB RAM and SSD) that still works and still usable with Windows 11/10 and even better with Linux Mint.

Macbook Air 2011 and earlier that's limited to 4GB or worse 2GB RAM have very limited or no usability in 2024. For Apple Silicon devices, there's no fully complete Linux option to fall back on so once Apple stops MacOS support it'll be a paperweight and you'll be forced to buy a new device which is what Apple wants.
 
I would agree with this except the part about macbook air 2011 and earlier.
I guess usable is another subjective term.
One could put a lightweight linux distro on these and have a quite usable device.
I haven't tried it on a 2011, but I put windows 11 on a 2012 air with 4 gb ram and it ran well - was also quite usable.
I would even consider them usable running mountain lion or mavericks with chromium legacy or sealion browser - which I have also done on the 2012 air.
 
Unsupported unpatched MacOS or any OS for that fact is too risky to expose to the internet.

Clean install of Windows 10/11 boots to desktop with around 3GB used so 4GB is useless.

Linux Mint boots to desktop with just over 1GB used + shared video memory from 4GB so you have to micromanage what apps you run or browser tabs so very limited.
 
These exercises are worthless. Most people don’t want to use a Windows 11 PC with 4 GB of RAM. They don’t want to use a ten year old Mac either. I’m talking about for a daily driver, not for having nostalgic moment. I have a twenty five year old Windows PC that I use occasionally for FreeCell, but I sure wouldn’t want to use as my main computer.
 
That's why I said "usable" is a subjective term.
My needs are very basic, internet browsing and photo editing.
I grew up closing programs not in use so it is natural for me to conserve ram. I also close tabs I am finished with, or bookmark them to go back to.
The 2012 air was my daily driver using dual boot of windows 11 and mountain lion with photoshop cs6.
I also had Solus budgie on it for a while and it ran as smooth as silk.
Not saying it would meet the needs of others, but was very useable for me.
 
Last edited:
That's why I said "usable" is a subjective term.
My needs are very basic, internet browsing and photo editing.
I grew up closing programs not in use so it is natural for me to conserve ram. I also close tabs I am finished with, or bookmark them to go back to.
The 2012 air was my daily driver using dual boot of windows 11 and mountain lion with photoshop cs6.
I also had Solus budgie on it for a while and it ran as smooth as silk.
Not saying it would meet the needs of others, but was very useable for me.

You said basic Internet browsing, but does that include YouTube? Can it play YouTube videos at 1080 without stuttering? Also, I can’t imagine webpages load very fast so you must have patience to use it.

Newer versions of macOS seem to be more power hungry and have higher requirements. Windows seems to make their operating system able to function on a larger variety of hardware. For me personally I wouldn’t downgrade to Windows just to avoid having to buy newer hardware. If I was on a tight budget, I could buy a four year old M1 MacBook and it would be just as fast as current models for most tasks. It would be considerably faster than something that was ten years old.

Most people nowadays don’t even use a computer, but do everything on their phones. I’m a bit old fashioned (or maybe just old) so I like having a larger screen with keyboard for some things.
 
No, doesn't include YouTube.
Edit: Actually, I do occasionally view instructional videos on YouTube with no issues.

I too need/prefer a bigger screen than a phone, but can get by on a 10" tablet just fine, which is what I use now along with a mac mini desktop setup for more in depth photo editing.

I'm really not fond of the current macos versions and have no problem staying with mojave (esp. for 32bit app support and staying away from subscription based software - keep using photoshop cs6 etc).

I have not experienced slow web page loading, but that is again a subjective/relative term, as I don't have an apple silicon mac to compare it to. That being said, I would not consider laggy internet usable.

I don't personally see windows 11 as a downgrade, just a different way of doing things, some I prefer, some I don't.

As far as a 4 yrs old m1 macbook goes, I don't know if I would be comfortable buying a laptop that needs to be trashed if the ssd dies, as is the case with all apple silicon from what I have read.
 
Last edited:
yup.. generally the same luck most people have lol. No idea how someone can ruin multiple pc's after just a couple years

You'd be surprised. I've listened to other people's gripes, taken one look at their hardware and gone "really?".

The thing with Apple is that they know these people whose ego overrides everything else including common sense. And they do everything they can to pander to it including how they design their hardware for the most part - which is why they have the userbase and the particular form factors they have.
 
Cisco, IBM and Google beg to differ:

"60% of Cisco’s employees now use Mac. And it isn’t just the employees enjoying the benefits of working on Mac. Cisco’s IT department requires 33% fewer admins to manage their Mac fleet, and the sales and software engineering teams have seen performance increases across the board. The data is clear."

"It’s not just worker productivity, happiness and satisfaction that are boosted by employee choice — there are other real benefits for the business as well.

The data reports that:
  • Mac users experience almost 5 times fewer cyber threats, and 9 times fewer virus issues than PCs, based on Cisco’s Secure Endpoint detection software.
  • 89% of Mac users leverage biometrics compared to 29% of PC users, a known boost to security.
  • The streamlined upgrade process for macOS Ventura, which took just one month compared to the six-month timeline for Windows 11, demonstrates Mac's agility in adapting to new technology.
While Mac’s higher upfront cost is a concern for organizations when allocating employee devices, Cisco found that Mac was actually $148-$395 less expensive over three years, depending on the model."


 
Last edited:
1. First of all, not many companies use Macs. Very rarely they do. Especially in Northern and Central Europe.
2. Almost all of the servers we have (over 10,000) run on Windows
3. Apple doesn't have any enterprise software. What is something that's equivalent to Azure? Nothing.
4. Despite very small percentage of users using a Mac we have so many tickets opened about Macs. Today 15 tickets were open, the last one being "Microphone doesn't work on a Mac" + Addigy is extremely uncomfortable to use.
5. If Windows was bad it wouldn't be so mainstream. macOS is only used by 5% of the world (15% if we count desktop only operating systems)
6. Doesn't change the fact that older PCs are more usable and receiving security updates for far longer than Apple's macOS. Compare macOS how usable is OS X El Capitan (which dropped many Macs) to Windows 10 these days and which OS is more secure.
1. You're right to a point in the old stodgy world of legacy companies who are on old systems but have you seen what modern tech companies use ? Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. They're overwhelmingly Mac shops and they praise how Macs simplify their security headaches and bring them less virus, trojan problems.
2. I work at a university and almost all our servers are Linux (around 1000) - we ALWAYS try to avoid a Windows server and in 95% of cases we can (even though for our university, the licensing is essentially unlimited).
3. Of course Apple has enterprise software, lots of it, just not exactly what you need.
4. Mac are notoriously simpler and more reliable machines, fine you get some tickets about Macs but that's just your unique scenario. Windows 11 still has its old; horrific Control Panel with seven Windows for accessing microphone options. Please don't tell me that Windows does this better than Mac when Microsoft rely exclusively on third parties for ALL of their hardware needs.
5. Windows was there first, it's very powerful lobbying made it a mainstay and it CAN be a lot cheaper than Mac initially, regardless of the fact that in the long term there's a good chance that poor quality Windows machines cost more in replacements, reinstalls and user headaches than just buying a MacBook in the first place.
6. This is about the only place I agree and disagree with you at the same time. You're right that Apple could continue to release security updates to older machines, probably without much of a performance impact as security updates are not typically monolithic architecture rebuilds (however in some cases they are), they're often just simple changes to code which address poorly though out data movements in memory and CPU treatment. However for Apple, OS and hardware advancements are tied tightly to their business model - when they release a new OS they typically release new hardware and no doubt they want sales of this hardware hence pushing people generally in the direction of new sales is their model - am I in agreement with this, no, but its how most companies operate and it wont change tomorrow.

Now, finally, please prove to me which OS is more secure because one seems to get more updates. There's absolutely NO correlation. A more insecure machine may receive more updates because they've more problems to fix, a more secure OS may receive less because its already relatively secure or the success in exploiting something is more complex due to other security factors. Please stay out of this discussion as I don't get the impression that you know what you're talking about. Windows machines by default make everyone an admin with nothing more than an UAC "Ok" to stop them doing something stupid (something they see so many times per day that clicking OK is just instinctual and provides little security). Macs still prevent major system changes behind a user password entry which is very rare meaning the user will think twice before giving it. Macs are also built on a fundamental "security from the ground up" approach of a Unix system with security as first principals. Windows was a disaster from the ground up "security system" from its inception. Please DO NOT compare these systems from a security point of view.
 
Last edited:
Still usable is more important than still works.

Example, I've got a 1984 IBM 5155 luggable that still works but not usable in 2024 while a 2008 Thinkpad x200 (upgraded with 8GB RAM and SSD) that still works and still usable with Windows 11/10 and even better with Linux Mint.

Macbook Air 2011 and earlier that's limited to 4GB or worse 2GB RAM have very limited or no usability in 2024. For Apple Silicon devices, there's no fully complete Linux option to fall back on so once Apple stops MacOS support it'll be a paperweight and you'll be forced to buy a new device which is what Apple wants.
Mojave/HFS debloated on the Air runs Waterfox and Chromium-legacy (both modern browsers); all Airs up through 2015 have a user-upgradeable "blade" SSD. Then install Parallels 18, and then create as many Windows and Linux hypervirtualizations as you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Cisco, IBM and Google beg to differ:

"60% of Cisco’s employees now use Mac. And it isn’t just the employees enjoying the benefits of working on Mac. Cisco’s IT department requires 33% fewer admins to manage their Mac fleet, and the sales and software engineering teams have seen performance increases across the board. The data is clear."

"It’s not just worker productivity, happiness and satisfaction that are boosted by employee choice — there are other real benefits for the business as well.

The data reports that:
  • Mac users experience almost 5 times fewer cyber threats, and 9 times fewer virus issues than PCs, based on Cisco’s Secure Endpoint detection software.
  • 89% of Mac users leverage biometrics compared to 29% of PC users, a known boost to security.
  • The streamlined upgrade process for macOS Ventura, which took just one month compared to the six-month timeline for Windows 11, demonstrates Mac's agility in adapting to new technology.
While Mac’s higher upfront cost is a concern for organizations when allocating employee devices, Cisco found that Mac was actually $148-$395 less expensive over three years, depending on the model."



Really, what this ultimately boils down to is that Macs are more accessible to less qualified and capable IT.
And I do have to admit, there are *plenty* of people like that out there.
And in boiling down to that, what it really tells you is more about the companies ability to train in the fundamentals and troubleshooting expertise.

I've dealt with *many* large MSP's whose staff are so poorly skilled that they are absolutely better off being Mac shops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: schnaps
I've dealt with *many* large MSP's whose staff are so poorly skilled that they are absolutely better off being Mac shops.
Really? Do Office and Adobe documents look any different on one versus the other? Or are you referring to the desktop environment, where both operating systems are virtually identical aside from the names of similar widgets, e.g., trash versus recycling bin. --If you want stupid-simple, then Windows 8 Metro is your mamba-jamba.
 
I
Really? Do Office and Adobe documents look any different on one versus the other? Or are you referring to the desktop environment, where both operating systems are virtually identical aside from the names of similar widgets, e.g., trash versus recycling bin. --If you want stupid-simple, then Windows 8 Metro is your mamba-jamba.
It's ironic that you should say this because yes, documents often look enormously different on one compared to the other. Apple consistently shows more honest, and precise display elements in documents (take a PDF or Pages) - their fonts are truer to life as their philosophy is to rasterise the real font as opposed to show something that might be slightly more readable but the wrong widths, the wrong representation. They do better aliasing that is truer to the fonts design AND the fact that virtually all relatively recent MacBooks going back 5 years are exclusively Retina displays (compared to the hodge podge of utterly diabolical displays available in the Windows world) documents generally look enormously better. Windows does have high DPI computers finally but it's so inconsistent. Does that make a big difference to someone writing a legal letter where the text is more important than the design, probably not. But someone making something nicely designed, a newsletter, a poster, an attractive sign-up form, someone who takes pride in their work and wants it to be well and accurately represented - I would have no hesitation in saying that you'll have a better time on a Mac.

Also, their desktops are genuinely worlds apart in functionality so please don't suggest that Windows and macOS are essentially the same. Your argument can't simply be "they both have desktops, hence they're the same". There is a simplicity in using macOS that doesn't exist for one second in Windows, which has simply become an accumulator of ancient code and keeping their corporate customers happy. In relation to design, Apple cares about the user (mostly), Microsoft cares about appeasing their big contracts and their demands.
 
The point is you can replace the parts, thats the benefit of it.
yes, if you do that then Pc last longer but also improve the product initial cost, and if you change the gpu/cpu thats basically a new machinery ...otherwise clearly not
 
They don’t want to use a ten year old Mac either
I have one that runs Monterey that is still very fast - so it runs Zwift and Fulgaz.

Very reliably too I might add. That’s all it does, connected permanently to a 4K TV screen.

It also gets the Ultra graphics profile in Zwift that most of the new silicon powered Macs do not get.


On the comment before about Apple caring about the user, they do not. They are a giant company with a big lack of regard for users (customers). I had a big fight with them.
 
Last edited:
I have one that runs Monterey that is still very fast - so it runs Zwift and Fulgaz.

Very reliably too I might add. That’s all it does, connected permanently to a 4K TV screen.

It also gets the Ultra graphics profile in Zwift that most of the new silicon powered Macs do not get.
True but that’s not your main computer. I know people who use an older computer for streaming.

On the comment before about Apple caring about the user, they do not. They are a giant company with a big lack of regard for users (customers).
You can replace Apple with any other corporation and this would be true. I’d rather have a good product from a company that has zero cares about me rather than a crap product from a company that cares. Apple has good customer service, but it has nothing to do with the care. It’s because they want people to keep coming back to spend $$$$
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.