Comment by umanwizard
Comment by umanwizard 10 hours ago
That just isn't true. Battery life, for example, is definitely not irrelevant for most users.
Comment by umanwizard 10 hours ago
That just isn't true. Battery life, for example, is definitely not irrelevant for most users.
Most people sit at their desk with the laptop plugged into the socket and use the battery for meetings or in a cafeteria. Either takes maybe an hour or two, three hours tops.
So what? Most people don't care about battery, so let's just have a crap battery? That argument would work, if Apple released a super light laptop with a tiny battery, specially made for "most people who sit at their desk".
No, people do care about battery life. That's where Macs excel. (I'm saying this as a Thinkpad user, where getting 6-8hrs of battery is doable, if you don't do anything on the laptop).
my point is that foregoing a superior OS for reasons that are only relevant on paper is not logical.
Sure, there are pros and cons for everything. It also depends on circumstances. I remember in 2012 I'd dim the screen and play with cpufreqd to get maximum time out of a battery, because I had a 3h train ride to my university weekly, with no power sockets most of the time on the train. I barely could do 3h. Today, in age of cheap PD powerbanks and USB-C everywhere, I'd easily take a better OS over battery life.
Mac battery life is insane - I agree. It is very impressive what they have done. Still, I prefer my ThinkPad running Arch even though it probably has 1/2 the battery life of my Macbook.