Prediction Time

[Bhavin]

The iPad Air update is interesting, I think the next version of the iPad Pro will have 8GB RAM and run macOS 11 and have thunderbolt 3/USB4. This will allow it to run two 4k or a single 6k Apple XDR display. It would compete with the Microsoft Surface. Apple has already invested in developing the magic keyboard case.

With the following line up:
No ARM MacBook 12,
ARM MBA 13
ARM MBP 14
ARM MBP 16

 

[Falhófnir]

I'm almost 100% certain the iPad will never run MacOS. iPad OS might evolve to be closer to MacOS, but it will always be a separate operating system. 8GB RAM is a maybe, though they have only just gone to 6GB and it is quite unusual to get two upgrades consecutively. Two USB C (USB 4?) ports for the iPP would be an interesting and logical next step for a 'laptop alternative' device as well.

If the 12" MacBook returns, I'd look for it to be folded in as a smaller Air (to all intents and purposes it was the replacement of the 11" Air) as it was in a bit of a weird position being the only model and quite a niche size in its own lineup.

 

[Bhavin]

I don't think apple will abandon iPadOS on the iPad Pro, I think macOS will be in addition to iPadOS. USB4 is the next USB standard. all USB4 ports will have thunderbolt 3 capability as it part of the standard. I don't believe apple will add 2nd USBC port on any of the iPad range.

 

[Yebubbleman]

The iPad Air update is interesting, I think the next version of the iPad Pro will have 8GB RAM and run macOS 11 and have thunderbolt 3/USB4. This will allow it to run two 4k or a single 6k Apple XDR display. It would compete with the Microsoft Surface. Apple has already invested in developing the magic keyboard case.

With the following line up:
No ARM MacBook 12,
ARM MBA 13
ARM MBP 14
ARM MBP 16

The 13" MBP supposedly won't get the 14" treatment for another year. That either means that Kuo and company were wrong and that the MacBook Air is making the jump this year (likely subsuming the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro in the process) or that you will have 13" MacBook Air and Pro concurrently on ARM for a year before the Apple Silicon 13" MacBook Pro becomes the Apple Silicon 14" MacBook Pro. Eventually, though, one way or another, your MacBook lineup prediction is likely going to be correct (even if they don't refer to the 14" as a "Pro".

As for the iPad Pro, 8GB of RAM is sound as is USB4. It running macOS 11 is not. Apple just made it a point to differentiate the iPad from iOS (even if that's a mostly marketing gesture at this point). They're not going to change it up just because macOS on Apple Silicon can run iPadOS apps natively.

Plus, if anything is out there to compete with the Surface, it's an iPad running iPadOS, not an iPad running macOS. iPadOS has a much more vibrant ecosystem than macOS these days. The past 5 years have not been kind to the Mac platform.

 

[Kung gu]

The past 5 years have not been kind to the Mac platform.

I think the years ahead will be a game changer for the Mac with the advent of ARM Macs

 

[theluggage]

Plus, if anything is out there to compete with the Surface, it's an iPad running iPadOS, not an iPad running macOS. iPadOS has a much more vibrant ecosystem than macOS these days. The past 5 years have not been kind to the Mac platform.

The past 5-10 years have been unkind to all desktop/laptop personal computers as the industry has thrown all of its weight behind mobile and web technologies - it's just that the Windows world is tethered by the huge, corporate sector who have barely been weaned off DOS.

Possibly now people are starting to realise that, while phones and tablets have taken a big bite out of the PC market and are very good for some things, there is still a need for "proper" desktops and laptops (e.g. as soon as you need to type/edit any text longer than a tweet, or need a decent amount of screen estate to display information). This may be reflected in the fact that Apple have gone to the effort of moving the Macs to Apple Silicon, rather than just let the iPad Pro progressively cannibalise the MacBook range. (I mean, seriously, how long does it take people to realise that attaching a keyboard cover to an iPad turns a great tablet into a terrible laptop that loses the extreme portability of an iPad but which you can't actually use, you know, on your lap or otherwise without a desk).

One consequence of the rush to mobile is that the ability to run iOS Apps on an ASi Mac is, now, probably more valuable than the lost(-ish*) ability to run Windows applications - at least in the consumer market. It's going to ensure that the Mac isn't frozen out of streaming services, banking apps, casual games etc. where "available for iOS & Android" is the new "Works with Windows!". Catalyst, on the other hand, sounds as if it still needs significant work by the developer to ensure compatibility and, while it might be a boon for developers who are already committed to supporting Mac I don't think it is going to unlock a load of iOS Apps.

However, that might require Apple to swallow their pride and make a touchscreen Mac - or even a 2-in-1 "convertible" - to make iOS Apps more usable because, inconvenient truth: designing a touchscreen App is different from designing a Pointer/Keyboard-driven app. Frankly, it's high time they did: the Surface Pro and 2-in-1s are high-profile competition to the iPad Pro and MacBook. Even if people end up using them as one or the other, it is likely to influence their buying decision - and most competing PC laptops (i.e. higher-end ultrabooks with retina-class screens) have touchscreens anyway. The "gorilla arms" argument isn't wrong, but it is about having touch as the primary UI on a laptop/desktop - this is about having the flexibility to use touch with individual applications that work best that way.

So, anyway, I think the solutions to the iPad/Mac crossover problem will be either (a) buy both - with a lot of effort put into the way the iPad and Mac inter-work or (b) enjoy running iOS apps on your mac, but not vice-versa.

Meanwhile, I've never quite seen the point of the 12" MacBook given how small and thin a 13" MacBook Air already is (and that was before the 2018 bezel shrink). Also, yes, I don't see the 2-port 13" MBP having a reason to exist alongside an ASi "MacBook Air" that has the potential to pack the same power.

A 13" MBP replacement will need to distinguish itself with more ports, a better class of display (whether it's 14" or 13") or a better class of CPU (not just a higher-binned variant of the basic ASi). If there is going to be an "Apple Silicon Pro" (which will probably be needed to replace the machines that currently have half-decent discrete GPUs) then using that as the distinction between "Pro" and non-"Pro" Macs would make things a lot clearer.

(* There will probably be options for running Windows - Win10 for ARM maybe, x86 Windows under emulation/translation probably - but with a whole list of "ifs" and "buts" - I suspect that the practical answer will be to subscribe to a cloud-hosted virtual x86 machine via remote desktop...)

 

[Joe The Dragon]

(* There will probably be options for running Windows - Win10 for ARM maybe, x86 Windows under emulation/translation probably - but with a whole list of "ifs" and "buts" - I suspect that the practical answer will be to subscribe to a cloud-hosted virtual x86 machine via remote desktop...)

Till someone runs up an $300+ VPC bill in an week.

 

[Manzanito]

The iPad Air update is interesting, I think the next version of the iPad Pro will have 8GB RAM and run macOS 11 and have thunderbolt 3/USB4. This will allow it to run two 4k or a single 6k Apple XDR display. It would compete with the Microsoft Surface. Apple has already invested in developing the magic keyboard case.

With the following line up:
No ARM MacBook 12,
ARM MBA 13
ARM MBP 14
ARM MBP 16

I find it extremely unlikely that iPads will ever run macOS. Apple is more than happy selling you both an iPad and a Mac.

 

[ader42]

I’ll be in the market for new devices in a month or two.

The question I’ve been pondering lately is why buy an iPad Pro with Magic Keyboard once there is, for example, the option of a 12” MacBook with ASi that runs iPad apps, and allows me to run XCode or Maya if I want?

The only benefit of the iPad approach would be the ability to detach the keyboard and use touch-screen. A maxed out iPad Pro 12.9 with Magic Keyboard is £1918.

I guess the choice will be either OSX software or touch-screen/greater portability.

Maybe the genius move has been Apple bringing masses of software to Macs via our iPhones and iPads...

 

[theluggage]

The question I’ve been pondering lately is why buy an iPad Pro with Magic Keyboard once there is, for example, the option of a 12” MacBook with ASi that runs iPad apps, and allows me to run XCode or Maya if I want?

My opinion: the point of buying a "high end" iPad Pro (i.e. costs MacBook prices making it too expensive for a 'consumption only' device) is if you regularly use applications that:

• really benefit from being used hand-held with the touch screen
• integrate with the rear-facing camera for "serious" photography
• make good use of the Apple pencil (drawing, handwriting etc.)

...and the Magic Keyboard is there to attach when you need to do some typing. Otherwise, to repeat what I said above, you end up with an iPad + keyboard combination that just gives you the worst of both worlds.)

On the other hand, I have doubts about how usable iPad apps are going to be on a Mac without a touch screen, something that Apple have, so far, avoided - but maybe they'll change their tune.

I still think that - for most laptop/desktop users - iPads are an accessory rather than a replacement, making the iPad Pro something of a specialist (or "money no object" device) - but then Apple have always done rather well out of the "money no object" market...

 

[Scarboose]

My predictions:

1. iPad Pro: 6GB RAM still, even smaller bezels, no other notable outer changes, micro LED display
2. Can’t decide if they will drop the iPad Pro 11” because of new iPad Air. I would say most likely not.
3. MacBook Air will be dropped and replaced by simply, MacBook for first ARM device
4. 24” iMac will be the other first ARM device. It will be entry level compared to 30” iMac that will come out next year.
   • However, I believe the ‘entry level’ will still be better than the base 27” 2020 iMac
5. Both new Macs will be unveiled this month, ship in December

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think the years ahead will be a game changer for the Mac with the advent of ARM Macs

Hardware was never the issue with the Mac platform. I mean, sure, the butterfly keyboards and chasses too thin for the processors were issues on the notebook side of things. Though, the 16" MacBook Pro fixes that as best as we'll see as far as Intel Mac portables are concerned. The desktops didn't get prompt updates, but I don't so much blame that on technological issues as much as I blame Apple for not placing as much importance on those products.

The issue with the platform is the software. It's the fact that macOS releases in the Tim Cook era are on a strict annual schedule and not on the Jobs-era policy of "we're releasing it when it's ready and not sooner". This problem definitely exists with iOS and iPadOS too, but it's much worse on the Mac with macOS. That doesn't show any signs of changing even as macOS hits version 11. It may not be 10.16, but 11 continues the same development trends that have been on-going since 10.9.

Changing the underlying architecture doesn't do anything to remedy these problems. Apple just needs to change their release cadence.

The past 5-10 years have been unkind to all desktop/laptop personal computers as the industry has thrown all of its weight behind mobile and web technologies - it's just that the Windows world is tethered by the huge, corporate sector who have barely been weaned off DOS.

First off, the Windows world has been off of DOS and DOS based applications for the past 19 years. Windows XP was the first Windows OS that removed DOS from the consumer flavor of OSes. You may have had some stragglers that held onto their Windows 98 SE boxes, but you're a bit outdated here.

Second off, the corporate sector uses WIN32 applications and there are still WAY more WIN32 applications out there than there will ever be macOS applications (PowerPC, 32-bit Intel, 64-bit Intel, ARM64/Apple Silicon or otherwise). Web technologies may have dominated thanks to Chromebooks and mobile optimized web-apps, but it's not about to overtake WIN32 outside of the home user space. Even then, Windows marketshare is still WAY high.

Third off, I say that the past 5-10 years have been unkind to the Mac in that the PLATFORM ITSELF has gone downhill. Developers are leaving the platform. The past five years of Mac hardware have been problematic for many reasons. You've had MacBook Pro and Mac Pro customers literally leave the platform due to faulty and non-existent hardware options (respectively). You've had an OS that gets updated too fast for high-end software to properly catch up (yet another cause for the alienation of higher-end users). And worst of it is that the track record of macOS releases since Snow Leopard is abysmal. I can only count three releases since that release that were as good. Considering there have been nine releases since Snow Leopard, that's bad. At least Windows 10 has only had one or two bad releases (looking at you, 1709) and even then, it was passable. I recommended against High Sierra to most of the people I've consulted for on the Mac side of things and I don't even need to do it with Catalina (most people are steering clear on its own).

If Tim Cook had Steve Jobs' level of quality control, we wouldn't be having this discussion on how unkind the past 5-10 years have been on the Mac.

Possibly now people are starting to realise that, while phones and tablets have taken a big bite out of the PC market and are very good for some things, there is still a need for "proper" desktops and laptops (e.g. as soon as you need to type/edit any text longer than a tweet, or need a decent amount of screen estate to display information). This may be reflected in the fact that Apple have gone to the effort of moving the Macs to Apple Silicon, rather than just let the iPad Pro progressively cannibalise the MacBook range. (I mean, seriously, how long does it take people to realise that attaching a keyboard cover to an iPad turns a great tablet into a terrible laptop that loses the extreme portability of an iPad but which you can't actually use, you know, on your lap or otherwise without a desk).

Apple doesn't believe in touch screens for the Mac. As someone who has used it on Windows, I can understand their viewpoint. It's a gimmick when it's in a laptop. My Surface Laptop/Book population aside, I will avoid touch screen models on all PC laptops I buy.

The keyboard cover makes the iPad Pro/Air/standard a good typing device. I'm personally of the mind that smaller than the 12.9" is too cramped for typing, but that's just me. I will say that a 12.9" iPad with a keyboard cover is the best notetaking device I have ever used, including laptops, iPad minis, Phones, and pen and paper. I don't see the appeal of the trackpad, but this is a relatively new area for Apple. So, I wouldn't be surprised to have this user experience improved over time. We did only just recently get the ability to download files from the web and access USB drives...

One consequence of the rush to mobile is that the ability to run iOS Apps on an ASi Mac is, now, probably more valuable than the lost(-ish*) ability to run Windows applications - at least in the consumer market. It's going to ensure that the Mac isn't frozen out of streaming services, banking apps, casual games etc. where "available for iOS & Android" is the new "Works with Windows!". Catalyst, on the other hand, sounds as if it still needs significant work by the developer to ensure compatibility and, while it might be a boon for developers who are already committed to supporting Mac I don't think it is going to unlock a load of iOS Apps.

Honestly, I can't think of a single iPadOS app that I'd have a better experience using unmodified on an Apple Silicon Mac than I would on an actual iPad. I can see iOS iPhone apps being better on an Apple Silicon Mac than on an iPad, but neither as good as the native device it was intended to be used on. Consumers may enjoy having some of their apps on the Mac, but I don't believe that's going to make up for what you can do in Windows. Windows apps on a computer (even one with an Apple logo) make way more sense than tablet apps on a Mac. Have you ever used Android apps on a Chromebook? It's cool because a Chromebook is otherwise stuck with whatever you get out of Chrome and whatever you can sideload with CROSH. But unless that Chromebook has a touchscreen, the experience is awkward and disjointed. Given Apple's strong stance on touchscreens on a Mac, iOS and iPadOS apps on Apple Silicon Macs will be a nice half-way point for nudging developers towards Catalyst app development, but nothing more than that.

However, that might require Apple to swallow their pride and make a touchscreen Mac - or even a 2-in-1 "convertible" - to make iOS Apps more usable because, inconvenient truth: designing a touchscreen App is different from designing a Pointer/Keyboard-driven app. Frankly, it's high time they did: the Surface Pro and 2-in-1s are high-profile competition to the iPad Pro and MacBook. Even if people end up using them as one or the other, it is likely to influence their buying decision - and most competing PC laptops (i.e. higher-end ultrabooks with retina-class screens) have touchscreens anyway. The "gorilla arms" argument isn't wrong, but it is about having touch as the primary UI on a laptop/desktop - this is about having the flexibility to use touch with individual applications that work best that way.

So, anyway, I think the solutions to the iPad/Mac crossover problem will be either (a) buy both - with a lot of effort put into the way the iPad and Mac inter-work or (b) enjoy running iOS apps on your mac, but not vice-versa.

There won't be a cross-over. The experience using iOS and iPadOS apps on Apple Silicon macOS releases will be overrated. It's just a means to nudge developers towards Catalyst. Apple knows this and is hoping the message is sent accordingly.

Meanwhile, I've never quite seen the point of the 12" MacBook given how small and thin a 13" MacBook Air already is (and that was before the 2018 bezel shrink). Also, yes, I don't see the 2-port 13" MBP having a reason to exist alongside an ASi "MacBook Air" that has the potential to pack the same power.

12" MacBooks and 11" MacBook Airs before them did serve useful purposes. They're solid classroom computers for IT training, especially where desk-space is limited. But as a daily driver? Hell no. The 13" Air's current form factor is damn near perfect. It just sucks for x86. ARM64/Apple Silicon will be another story though.

A 13" MBP replacement will need to distinguish itself with more ports, a better class of display (whether it's 14" or 13") or a better class of CPU (not just a higher-binned variant of the basic ASi). If there is going to be an "Apple Silicon Pro" (which will probably be needed to replace the machines that currently have half-decent discrete GPUs) then using that as the distinction between "Pro" and non-"Pro" Macs would make things a lot clearer.

Right. The "13-inch MacBook Pro" concept as has existed in the Intel Mac era was mismarketed. It made way more sense when that machine was the "MacBook". If Apple structures the Apple Silicon portable lineup so that the Air is on the low-end, the "MacBook" at 14" is on the middle-end and the MacBook Pro, solely at 16" is on the high-end, that would make some sense. Similarly, if Apple gave the would-be 14" MacBook Pro most of, if not all of the power in the Apple Silicon 16" MacBook Pro, then at least it would earn "Pro" designation. The fact that the 2020 4-port 10th Gen Intel based 13" MacBook Pro at $1799 costs nearly $800 more than any other similarly (if not better) equipped 10th Gen 13" ultrabooks (because let's be real, even the best 13" MacBook Pro is just an over-glorified ultrabook) is kind of embarrassing.

(* There will probably be options for running Windows - Win10 for ARM maybe, x86 Windows under emulation/translation probably - but with a whole list of "ifs" and "buts" - I suspect that the practical answer will be to subscribe to a cloud-hosted virtual x86 machine via remote desktop...)

That's not practical given that most cloud-hosted virtual desktop providers charge per resources used times the amount of time used for. It's very sensible for businesses; it's horrible if you use Windows for personal use. It will require a second computer.

My predictions:

1. iPad Pro: 6GB RAM still, even smaller bezels, no other notable outer changes, micro LED display
2. Can’t decide if they will drop the iPad Pro 11” because of new iPad Air. I would say most likely not.
3. MacBook Air will be dropped and replaced by simply, MacBook for first ARM device
4. 24” iMac will be the other first ARM device. It will be entry level compared to 30” iMac that will come out next year.
   • However, I believe the ‘entry level’ will still be better than the base 27” 2020 iMac
5. Both new Macs will be unveiled this month, ship in December

1. iPad Pro will get A14X. But yeah, otherwise MicroLED is probably the only change.

2. They won't drop the 11" iPad Pro. It has 6GB of RAM to the Air's 4GB of RAM, also better screen and speaker system and FaceID. The two iPads will continue to exist side by side. You just won't have as many people going for the 11" iPad Pro due to not needing it. Though you'll always have people who don't need the extra umph of the 11" Pro still buying one because it's Apple and they want to blow their money on it.

3. "MacBook Air" isn't going anywhere. They tried to kill it (which is why the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro was a "MacBook Pro" and not "MacBook Air" when it was a continuation of the 2010-2017 MacBook Airs). Same with iPad Air. Then they reversed course. They're not going to flip-flop on this one again anytime soon.

4. The 24" iMac will be better than the 21.5" iMac it replaces. I don't believe it will be better than the 2020 27" iMac, but it will get close enough to turn heads.

5. We don't have an event day yet for iPhones or Apple Silicon Macs yet. Considering Apple would need at least a week lead time, we're looking at mid-month at the absolute earliest for announcement. Furthermore, no Apple Silicon Mac will get released before Big Sur is launched and we still have a little ways to go on that front too.

 

[Kung gu]

Hardware was never the issue with the Mac platform.

Again I do believe that the CPU and GPU is the main reason, along with thermal throttling, overheating and the weak GPU power(compared to Win PCs).

Apple can make the iPad Pro into such a beast because of the A12Z and for a tablet SoC, it does not overheat, does thermal throttle to an extreme degree and has a GPU that equal to an Xbox one S, not bad for a iPad SoC.

The A14 leaked metal scores are higher than the A12Z, and the A14 will be reference for the ARM Macs coming later this year.

All of the Mac lineup as of writing this, (Barring the Mac Pro, its a excellent machine, its just expensive for 99% of people) suffers from the above mentioned issues.

So if Apple can get their SoC game together, like they do for their iPad Pros, we will see very powerful machines.

16" MacBook Pro fixes that as best as we'll see as far as Intel Mac portables are concerned.

The 16" still suffers from overheating and poor GPU drivers, something again ASi will fix.

5-10 years have been unkind to the Mac in that the PLATFORM ITSELF has gone downhill.

Yes, you are right. Apple themselves started to dismantle the Mac platform since 2016, (fun fact - this is the year they started to test ARM Macs), from 2016 macOS update after update started to "remove" certain things, 32bit support, KEXTs, depreciation of OpenGL in favour of Metal.

WHY??

We got the answer at WWDC this year, Apple was making those decisions for ARM based Macs.

I don't even need to do it with Catalina

Yes, Catalina was crap, if not the worst macOS release ever. I think this is cause Apple was focusing on Big Sur.

 

[MrGunnyPT]

I'm curious about a possible 12/13/14" Macs.

Honestly I just want some good GPUs in it.. The 5300M is fine for what it is but we need more performance below the 16" line up..

Let's be honest the last 5 years in terms of generation brought nothing good in terms of GPU performance for anything below the 16" and it's time we fix that

 

[Scarboose]

3. "MacBook Air" isn't going anywhere. They tried to kill it (which is why the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro was a "MacBook Pro" and not "MacBook Air" when it was a continuation of the 2010-2017 MacBook Airs). Same with iPad Air. Then they reversed course. They're not going to flip-flop on this one again anytime soon.

My reasoning behind them dropping the ‘Air’ is that I think Apple wants and needs a straight up MacBook. With that in mind, what would be the difference between the two devices? They’re both entry level type devices. They tried both and it failed once before. This would be Apples opportunity to bring it back, and what better way to bring back the MacBook then making it the first Apple Silicon.

 

[ader42]

I too think the Air should disappear, the point of an Air is light, entry level, more battery and thin. I don’t see how the entry level MB can’t be all that with ASi.

 

[F23]

They should update the macs with the oldest chips, so Mac Mini and base 13 inch rMBP.

 

[Macmamamac]

Complete integration between all devices, all running same OS called ‘AppleOS’.

All devices will be touch/pencil and imac will be a massive iPad on a stand that gracefully reclines into ‘Cintiq mode‘ for art professionals. Non-artists can leave it upright.

 

[fokmik]

We will see the beginning on 10th of November with a heads up from Apple on 3rh

 

[theluggage]

The issue with the platform is the software. It's the fact that macOS releases in the Tim Cook era are on a strict annual schedule and not on the Jobs-era policy of "we're releasing it when it's ready and not sooner".

Absolutely agree that the annual MacOS version bump is a bad thing...

...but, to re-iterate my original point that the whole PC market has suffered partly because of the focus on mobile, Windows 10 has now moved to a "rolling update" system and you can't help but have noticed all the reports of instances of PCs that have been bricked by an automatic/forced update. Also, Windows has unpopular updates forcing "mobile-like" interfaces (the whole Windows 8/Interface-formerly-known-as-Metro debacle) - and one of my major dislikes about Windows 10 is the mixture of "new" (mobile-influenced) and old UI paradigms (even down to two "control panels" with slightly different sets of functionality). Even Linux has gone through a bad patch with horrible mobile-tainted, dumbed-down UI re-designs from Gnome and Ubuntu.

First off, the Windows world has been off of DOS and DOS based applications for the past 19 years. Windows XP was the first Windows OS that removed DOS from the consumer flavor of OSes.

...yet the 32-bit version of Windows 10 still supports DOS applications (not to mention Win3.1/Win95-era Win16 software which wasn't much better) - it's a bit like if Apple still had to put effort into supporting Classic Mac OS, or even Apple 2... (while, in reality, they don't even support 32 bit Intel any more...)

 

[Yebubbleman]

Absolutely agree that the annual MacOS version bump is a bad thing...

...but, to re-iterate my original point that the whole PC market has suffered partly because of the focus on mobile, Windows 10 has now moved to a "rolling update" system and you can't help but have noticed all the reports of instances of PCs that have been bricked by an automatic/forced update. Also, Windows has unpopular updates forcing "mobile-like" interfaces (the whole Windows 8/Interface-formerly-known-as-Metro debacle) - and one of my major dislikes about Windows 10 is the mixture of "new" (mobile-influenced) and old UI paradigms (even down to two "control panels" with slightly different sets of functionality). Even Linux has gone through a bad patch with horrible mobile-tainted, dumbed-down UI re-designs from Gnome and Ubuntu.

Your list of dislikes about Windows 10 sound a lot like the ones I had before I actually started using it. Incidentally, humanity at large tends to dislike that which it knows little or nothing about.

Forced updates are not a thing anymore. Haven't been for years. You can choose whether or not to upgrade to the next Windows 10 release up until three months before the Windows 10 release that is currently installed runs out of support. At worst, it's unwise to update Windows 10 to a new version or "Feature Update" for 1-2 months after it launches. These days, a given macOS release is only truly stable as it's on the verge of being replaced by the next one (though Mojave and El Capitan were stable out of the gate and Catalina is STILL buggy as all hell).

"Metro" is an annoyance of the past. Having Windows Store apps side-by-side with Win32 apps doesn't cause users to even notice the difference. An app is an app and it just runs when you command it to.

The two control panels thing is weird at first. I'll agree. However, if functionality is in one and not the other, you are seamlessly redirected when you try to search for said functionality. It's not like you'll be stuck in one forever. And realistically, the Control Panel is an almost 30-year old convention. Microsoft can't just pull an Apple and just deprecate the whole system overnight without causing massive grief for both users and developers. So, it's slowly phasing out Control Panel bit by bit, while leaving enough in there for mission critical things to still be able to run. (That's also why Windows 10 still includes Internet Explorer 11.) This next release of Windows 10 pulls out the System info page from Control Panel.

But for the most part, your stated dislikes are more superficial than functional (if not moot).

...yet the 32-bit version of Windows 10 still supports DOS applications (not to mention Win3.1/Win95-era Win16 software which wasn't much better) - it's a bit like if Apple still had to put effort into supporting Classic Mac OS, or even Apple 2... (while, in reality, they don't even support 32 bit Intel any more...)

The 32-bit version of Windows 10 (which isn't even being shipped as the default operating system on any new PC and is only being supported on select business class desktops and notebooks for drivers) can run 16-bit code. This is not the same as DOS applications. While SOME DOS applications can run in the CMD shell, to say that it outright supports DOS applications is incorrect. It's not like Microsoft is building in anything extra to support 16-bit code in 32-bit Windows, that's just something 32-bit Windows has always been able to do. But, again, we're talking about a variant of Windows 10 that isn't supported on MOST PCs outside of virtualization, Intel Macs included.

 

[theluggage]

Your list of dislikes about Windows 10 sound a lot like the ones I had before I actually started using it. Incidentally, humanity at large tends to dislike that which it knows little or nothing about.

I've used Windows plenty, thanks, and my annoyances with Windows 10 are mainly the unnecessary UI changes from Windows 7 and XP not "oh lordy help where's the Apple menu!. Newsflash: Windows 8 wasn't an infamous flop because Mac users didn't understand it - Windows users hated it, Windows 10 was a partial climbdown and lots of users were very reluctant to upgrade from Windows 7. Change is fine, but the changes to Windows 8 were a silly, cargo-cult attempt to cash in on the mobile market...

...and, yes, you can greatly reduce the number of forced updates if you go out of your way to turn them off, but I know highly experienced Windows users who've recently had their machines broken by auto updates. I'm not saying that Apple haven't had update debacles - of course they have, and they're horribly irresponsible by encouraging everybody to upgrade on day 1 of a new MacOS - but they have nothing like Win10's forced upgrades.

While SOME DOS applications can run in the CMD shell, to say that it outright supports DOS applications is incorrect

So sorry - I should have said that the 32 bit version still supports some DOS 30-year-old applications. Silly me. Although 25-year-old Win32 code is still going strong and keeping support for that must be a major headache for Microsoft.

that's just something 32-bit Windows has always been able to do.

...it still costs money maintain that code, fix security issues etc. Apple didn't drop Classic, Carbon, Rosetta 1, 32 bit support etc. out of spite - they did it because it caused extra cost, extra bloat and - unlike Microsoft - they weren't beholden to a huge corporate customer base dependent on 20 year-old code.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I've used Windows plenty, thanks, and my annoyances with Windows 10 are mainly the unnecessary UI changes from Windows 7 and XP not "oh lordy help where's the Apple menu!. Newsflash: Windows 8 wasn't an infamous flop because Mac users didn't understand it - Windows users hated it, Windows 10 was a partial climbdown and lots of users were very reluctant to upgrade from Windows 7. Change is fine, but the changes to Windows 8 were a silly, cargo-cult attempt to cash in on the mobile market...

What unnecessary UI changes? They're getting rid of the 30 year old Control Panel. Unlike Apple, who has always been both user and developer hostile when it comes to its deprecations, Microsoft has to account for how large its install base is and, as such, can't deprecate the whole suite overnight. Otherwise, unless you're nitpicking, there's nothing needlessly Windows 8-ish about Windows 10. If you've used Windows 10 for more than 10 days, you'd know this already.

Also, why are we talking about Windows 8? Windows 8 is in the past (8.1 is only useful as a supported Windows for machines that don't have drivers support for 10).

...and, yes, you can greatly reduce the number of forced updates if you go out of your way to turn them off, but I know highly experienced Windows users who've recently had their machines broken by auto updates. I'm not saying that Apple haven't had update debacles - of course they have, and they're horribly irresponsible by encouraging everybody to upgrade on day 1 of a new MacOS - but they have nothing like Win10's forced upgrades.

Your experience with this is very clearly dated. Microsoft hasn't forced Feature Updates down anyone's throat since Windows 10 v1809. Microsoft isn't even forcing preview quality updates down the throat of anyone that doesn't want them. Also the controls to defer Windows Updates could not be simpler (and is honestly no worse than Apple's).

Also, unlike Apple, Microsoft actually listens to the feedback of users when they complain that updates are too aggressive.

I support a plethora of Windows and Mac users. It's what I do with my life, both on and off the clock. There are a metric crapton more people bitching about Catalina than there have been of any Windows 10 release since the original pulled v1809 release (not since 1709 if you count releases that didn't get pulled). You can't tell me that Apple is better in this regard from any experiential standpoint.

So sorry - I should have said that the 32 bit version still supports some DOS 30-year-old applications. Silly me. Although 25-year-old Win32 code is still going strong and keeping support for that must be a major headache for Microsoft.

There's a big difference between saying "Windows 10 still supports DOS code" and "only the 32-bit version of Windows 10 which is only supported on a small subset of PC hardware and hardware components can still run a handful of DOS code". Microsoft isn't supporting 30 year old code in the version of Windows 10 that most systems run, so making the statement as though they are is dubious, I'm sorry.

Microsoft has plans to unify Win32 and Modern Windows apps. Look into it. In the meantime, they don't seem to have much trouble supporting Win32 code. It doesn't make Windows worse to use nor to develop for (as is evidenced by the fact that Windows' software ecosystem STILL kicks the crap out of the Mac's, especially after Apple nixed support for 32-bit x86 application execution).

...it still costs money maintain that code, fix security issues etc. Apple didn't drop Classic, Carbon, Rosetta 1, 32 bit support etc. out of spite - they did it because it caused extra cost, extra bloat and - unlike Microsoft - they weren't beholden to a huge corporate customer base dependent on 20 year-old code.

Apple has money to support all kinds of things that they'd rather not. They're sitting on enough cash to buy a small country.

Microsoft isn't hurting on cash either. So with both companies having more than enough money, I'm not too sure what your point on money is. They're able to patch and maintain code with a 10 year support cycle. 10 years is better than Apple's 3 years, or Canonical's 4 years by a long shot. The upshot is that someone who is too small to update their application every 3 years can still have their product work for and be sold on Windows. In contrast, the Mac software ecosystem (much like the iOS and iPadOS app ecosystems) don't benefit any developer who isn't constantly updating their code. If you have a developer making an app that goes out of business, you're eventually screwed out of using that app on an Apple platform. Tell me again how that's a great thing for the consumer?

 

[theluggage]

What unnecessary UI changes? They're getting rid of the 30 year old Control Panel.

Correction: they've been "getting rid" of the 30 year old Control Panel for 7 years - but it's still there. Attempt #1, with Windows 8, bombed, attempt #2 - with Windows 10 - 5 years and counting.

Also, why are we talking about Windows 8? Windows 8 is in the past

What I originally said was:

The past 5-10 years have been unkind to all desktop/laptop personal computers as the industry has thrown all of its weight behind mobile and web technologies

Windows 8 was a major failure, within the last 10 years, caused in part by MS's attempt to force the mobile-inspired/web-tech-based Interface Formerly Known as Metro on people. See the relevance to what I said? Heck, it takes a very short memory to forget all the fuss over the end of Windows 7 support last January. Some of us spent last Christmas upgrading relatives' laptops from Win7 to Win10 after the press was full of dire tidings of security armageddon... If you don't think that Microsoft has had major problems with the whole Win7/8/10 transition process and UI modernization then you're running a reality distortion field of about 17.5 on the Jobs scale... and that's based on the experience of Windows users, not Mac Fanbois (who have zero influence on Microsoft anyway).

Your experience with this is very clearly dated. Microsoft hasn't forced Feature Updates down anyone's throat since Windows 10 v1809.

Correction: a whole 18 months ago Microsoft grudgingly stopped forcing one particular type of update on users. It was ridiculous that they ever tried to force Feature Updates (which are almost comparable to annual MacOS releases), and they'll still force them on you when they declare the previous version has reached end-of-life (which can be as little as 18 months) - while for other updates they'll generously let you defer them for 35 days... before forcing them. Of course, this functionality varies depending on whether you've got the home/pro/enterprise version of Windows, which makes it all clearer... not. So, sorry, Windows 10 is still forcing updates on people.

Improving the Windows 10 update experience with control, quality and transparency

While regular updates are critical to keeping modern devices secure and running smoothly in a diverse and dynamic ecosystem, we have heard clear feedback that the Windows update process itself can be disruptive, particularly that Windows users would like more control over when updates happen...

blogs.windows.com

...now, Apple treats iOS users just as badly, if not worse (my point: this plague is coming from the mobile market) but so far, on MacOS, once I uncheck one large friendly box saying "Automatic Updates", I can keep clicking "remind me later" on the nag boxes until the cows come home.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Correction: they've been "getting rid" of the 30 year old Control Panel for 7 years - but it's still there. Attempt #1, with Windows 8, bombed, attempt #2 - with Windows 10 - 5 years and counting.

Looking at Windows 8's implementation of the settings app as a self-contained asttempt to nix the Control Panel is the wrong way of looking at it. It's a 30 year old critical extension platform (it was still old enough to buy its own liquor by the time Windows 8 first came about). You don't just change that overnight. Attempting to do so is foolish and impractical. That's why it's happening very gradually.

Windows 8 was a major failure, within the last 10 years, caused in part by MS's attempt to force the mobile-inspired/web-tech-based Interface Formerly Known as Metro on people. See the relevance to what I said? Heck, it takes a very short memory to forget all the fuss over the end of Windows 7 support last January. Some of us spent last Christmas upgrading relatives' laptops from Win7 to Win10 after the press was full of dire tidings of security armageddon... If you don't think that Microsoft has had major problems with the whole Win7/8/10 transition process and UI modernization then you're running a reality distortion field of about 17.5 on the Jobs scale... and that's based on the experience of Windows users, not Mac Fanbois (who have zero influence on Microsoft anyway).

Windows 10 wasn't perfect at launch. But certainly by this past Christmas it was pretty decent. The problem with Windows as a hardware platform is that there are many crappy options that people are going to gravitate towards because they're inexpensive compared to the options that are decent. Most people's problems stem from either that or trying to upgrade systems that shipped or were built with Windows 7 (and therefore lack native Windows 10 drivers) in-place. As for Metro, it's not intrusive in Windows 10; the average user will not be aware of the difference between a "Metro" UWP app or a Win32 app. That's why I'm not sure why you're mentioning Windows 8. Aside from users that shouldn't upgrade past Windows 8.1 due to lack of Windows 10 drivers (which, at this point is 2009-2011 era hardware), there's no reason to be on Windows 8.1, let alone be mentioning it as a reason why computing platforms took a hit in the last 5-10 years. Windows 8 was a Vista/Me moment. Nothing more. Microsoft releases feature updates so that there will never be another Me/Vista/8 type of release that users refuse to ever adopt.

Correction: a whole 18 months ago Microsoft grudgingly stopped forcing one particular type of update on users. It was ridiculous that they ever tried to force Feature Updates (which are almost comparable to annual MacOS releases), and they'll still force them on you when they declare the previous version has reached end-of-life (which can be as little as 18 months) - while for other updates they'll generously let you defer them for 35 days... before forcing them. Of course, this functionality varies depending on whether you've got the home/pro/enterprise version of Windows, which makes it all clearer... not. So, sorry, Windows 10 is still forcing updates on people.

Improving the Windows 10 update experience with control, quality and transparency

While regular updates are critical to keeping modern devices secure and running smoothly in a diverse and dynamic ecosystem, we have heard clear feedback that the Windows update process itself can be disruptive, particularly that Windows users would like more control over when updates happen...

blogs.windows.com

...now, Apple treats iOS users just as badly, if not worse (my point: this plague is coming from the mobile market) but so far, on MacOS, once I uncheck one large friendly box saying "Automatic Updates", I can keep clicking "remind me later" on the nag boxes until the cows come home.
[/QUOTE]

Feature Updates are FAR from being as massive or as sweeping in terms of under the hood changes as annual Apple releases. That's the whole point of them. The idea isn't to release a new version of Windows 10 with more than a couple marquee changes. Even under the hood, you will have a ton of changes that primarily affect IT Pros, but never a home user. That's why Microsoft forced Feature Updates to begin with; if the changes aren't sweeping, why does it matter? That's also why Windows 10 Home doesn't give you the types of options to defer updates that Pro and Enterprise versions do. But the average home user isn't going to care or notice. I deployed several systems over the years, both in business environments where staying current with Windows 10 releases wasn't an issue and for home users. In those scenarios, the average user isn't even aware that they've updated to a whole new version of Windows 10, and yet they do it all the time.

Occasionally, you do have issues. I've never said the process isn't perfect. But hell if it isn't a zillion times better than the annual mess that we get from Apple's releases nowadays. I can only complain about one or two Windows 10 releases since 2015. In that same time, there are only two macOS releases that I DON'T have complaints about. If it's between Apple and Microsoft as to who is winning the OS-as-a-Service game, there's no contest. Microsoft is killing it compared to Apple.

Also, regarding the "Remind Me Later" button; you get that option in Windows 10 Pro and Enterprise. Hell, you can turn off nagging altogether, let alone a myriad of other customizations (have Group Policy, will travel). With Windows 10 Home, you don't need it. Hell, with home users that happen to have Windows 10 Pro and not Home, you don't need it. Because, again, the updates are not that severe in scope and change. Also, there are a zillion more people (in and outside of Microsoft) testing them so that if there's an issue, the Internet knows about it practically overnight.