“I don’t use this computer for serious work.” Dropped $3K on MBP to play around with. Definitely should have gotten MBA
Of course, not near the top in terms of money because there are a few hobbies that cost vastly more.
That says a lot about the community you live in.
Sad
I'm always so jealous of these people, 60hz is just so bad for me now and even make me a bit motion sick.
I can see it in everything, moving the window, scrolling, the cursor.
There's less ghosting in 240hz.
And scrolling on 60hz to me looks blurry.
I'd like to think that those who don't notice the difference have improved brain GPUs that can compensate for ghosting.
Wow. My perspective was those that did notice the difference were more perceptive. Thank you - now I realize there is a completely different take. (I'm not sure that it's helpful mind you... but it gives me something to chew on).
For screen with 60 FPS, the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS was pretty obvious and I could guess it 100% of the time.
For screen with 144FPS, the difference between 72FPS and 144FPS was not obvious at all and I couldn't reliably guess it at all. I also checked it with a few other persons, and they all failed this simple test.
So now I'm holding firm opinion, that these high-FPS displays are marketing gimmick.
https://pastebin.com/raw/hwR62Yhi here's HTML, save it and open. left click reveals which half is "fast" (full FPS) or "slow" (half FPS), scroll changes speed, F5 generates new test.
I hosted a LAN party when I was in my early twenties when higher hz monitors were getting more popular in specifically the gaming scene. My buddy and I were playing a match of Counter Strike together side by side, me at 60Hz and him at 120Hz. I used to think like you, but it blew my mind how smooth it was in comparison, so much so I ordered a new monitor that weekend. I don't think it improved my ability to play in any significant way but it definitely felt nicer and smoother. Conversely, at the time you had to specifically set the option in Windows to account for higher Hz and if I forgot to on a reinstall or for whatever reason, I could tell something was off and would question my FPS and turn my counter on to see if I was getting lower FPS. You may not believe it, but I would noticably play worse. I thought it was psychosomatic myself until it happened a handful of times.
Now, I'm not a pro CS player by any means, but I guarantee you it matters, makes a difference, and is noticeable. I'm getting older now and care less as time goes on, but I still swear by and game on a high Hz monitor. When I look over my wife's shoulder on her low Hz monitor, the mouse movements are like a flipbook and when gaming on a Nintendo Switch 2 at 60 FPS, it is laughably noticeable.
While I agree the jump from 60 -> 140 hz/fps is not as noticeable as 30 -> 60, calling everything above 60 a ”marketing gimmick” is silly. When my screen or TV falls back to 60hz for whatever reason I can notice it immediately, you don’t have to do anything else than move your mouse or scroll down a webpage.
I would live a much happier life.
When I use a desktop display, my pattern is: load page, read content for 10-30 seconds, scroll, repeat.
When I use a phone, the read-time-before-scroll is more like 1-5 seconds due to the much smaller display.
I notice the scrolling blur in both places on 60 Hz displays, but it bothers me way more on a phone because I'm scrolling so much more.
There is nothing groundbreaking about 120hz.
It’s unfortunate if it bothers you. I have the same reaction to 30Hz.
In tracking motion your eyes/brain can see improved motion resolution (how clear the details are in an object moving across the screen) up to 1000Hz.
Personally I've had concussions and bad screens do make me sick. Even 60hz TVs if I'm sitting somewhat close, particularly for certain content. All the chaos of Dr. Strange / Multiverse was too much for me to watch.
I agree on the nano-texture display having used one in person for a little bit. It's sort of like an ultra fine matte texture that isn't noticable while using it, but is noticable compared to other devices in the same room. I hope it becomes a more standard option on future devices.
That said, I've used Thinkpads with matte displays and while not as fine, they mostly have the same benefit.
I ran that thing for like 6 years til the replacement for the failed GPU failed again.
More matte screens please!
My mom has an M1 air, and its resolution is not great. Everything looks a bit blurry compared with my 4K Dell XPS my wife’s MacBook Pro m4 display. I guess the air’s native resolution means it has to do fractional scaling.
This reduced overall image quality and caused pixel-fine details, such as small text, to appear smeary on high-density LCDs. In contrast, well-designed glossy displays provide a superior visual experience by minimizing internal refraction and reflecting ambient light at high angles, which reduces display pollution. Consequently, glossy screens often appear much brighter, blacks appear blacker without being washed out, colors show a higher dynamic range, and small details remain crisper. High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use even in full daylight, and reflections are manageable because they are full optical reflections with correct depth, allowing the user to focus on the screen content.
Apple's "nano texture" matte screens were engineered to solve the specific optical problems of traditional matte finishes, the washed-out colors and smeary details. But they cost more to make. The glossy option is still available, and still good.
The glossy era macbooks otoh have been a disaster in comparison imo. Unless your room is pitch black it is so easy to get external reflections. Using it outside sucks, you often see yourself more clearly than the actual contents on the screen. Little piece of dust on the screen you flick off becomes a fingerprint smear. The actual opening of the lid on the new thin bezel models means the top edge is never free of fingerprints. I'm inside right now and this M3 pro is on max brightness setting just to make it you know, usable, inside. I'm not sure if my screen is actually defectively dim or this is just how it is. Outside it is just barely bright enough to make out the screen. Really not much better than my old 2012 non retina model in terms of outdoor viewing which is a bit of a disappointment because the marketing material lead me to believe these new macbooks are extremely bright. I guess for HDR content maybe that is true but not for 99% of use cases.
Not my experience in lit environments. Looking at a mirror-like surface trying to distinguish content from reflections is exhausting.
Unless I blast my eyes at full brightness which is more exhausting.
You guys need to stop reading apple advertisement material and take it for gospel just because it has some fancy scientific words in it.
I guess Apple cheaped out on their glossy displays, because I definitely didn't care for mine in full daylight
I haven't seen a single display that ever overcame that properly for long term work. Sure, phones use it but they increased luminosity to absurd level to be readable, not a solution I prefer for daily long work.
I admit there are corner cases of pro graphics where it made sense (with corresponding changes to environment) but I am not discussing this here.
But if there’s a window or something bright behind you, the specular reflection from the glossy and generally not anti reflective coated screen can be so bright and so full of high frequency details that it almost completely obscures the image.
And since I might be trying to work involving text in a cafe as opposed to doing detailed artistic work in a studio, I would much prefer the matte surface.
You know what's glossy? Movie posters and postcards.
It is probably a pretty good screen, though.
I don’t really like Apple overall. But, to some extent, it’s like… well, maybe that’s a good way of selling incremental engineering improvements.
It's more on-brand for an Apple apologist to grope around the annals of history looking for some circuitous justification that makes other people look silly when no such example exists.
I don't recall Apple ever "insisting" anything about glossy vs. matte. They simply eliminated the matte option without comment, and finally brought it back many years later.
If you have a reference to a public statement from Apple defending the elimination of the matte option, I'd like to see it.
To be clear, I've been complaining about glossy Macs ever since matte was eliminated, and I too purchased an M4 MacBook Pro soon after it was available.
> “…the MacBook provides incredibly crisp images with richer colors, deeper blacks and significantly greater contrast…”
This is positioning for glossy being superior.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2006/05/16Apple-Unveils-New-M...
Wasn’t the matte option that disappeared just then removing the glass in front of the screen? I seem to remember that (my MBP from that time was glossy).
The nano textured coating they are using now is quite complex and I am not quite sure it was applicable at such scales cheaply enough back in 2015.
Glossy was an available option, but not the product line wide choice.
The top of the line Late 2008 MacBook Pro (not Unibody) included: > An antiglare CCFL-backlit 17" widescreen 1680x1050 active-matrix display (a glossy display was offered via build-to-order at no extra cost, and a higher resolution LED-backlit 1920x1200 display also was offered for an extra US$100).
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook...
This is a quiet boon for those who enjoy working outdoors but find the sun/brightness a problem.
I live in a sunny place with big windows and basically use it all day every day. When it turns off my screen feels broken I so prefer the brightness.
Thanks again!
Unless you’re making Instagram content, very few photographers use HDR. Everything else will look the same on both screens.
I think you may have mixed up mini-LED backlighting with OLED and microLED displays. mini-LED backlights merely allow for better local dimming of the backlight behind an LCD, but the number of independently variable backlight zones is still orders of magnitude smaller than the number of pixels. Over short distances, an LCD with local dimming is still susceptible to all of the contrast-limiting downsides of an LCD with a uniform static backlight (and local dimming brings new challenges of its own).
OLED is the mainstream display technology where individual pixels directly emit their own light, so you can truly have a completely black pixel next to a lit pixel. But there are still layers and coatings between the OLED and the user, so infinite contrast isn't actually achievable.
microLED is an unsuccessful technology to provide the benefits of OLED without as many of the downsides (primarily, the uneven aging). But nobody has managed to make large microLED displays economically yet, and it doesn't look like the tech will be going mainstream anytime soon.
Contrast is significantly poorer on the Air display, and HDR is already in your own photos if you have a modern smartphone, so the idea that it’s niche or irrelevant is a naive take.
The perceptual difference between sdr and hdr isn’t a minor bump, it is conspicuous and driver of realism.
If one cares about the refresh rate of their screen, then they’d trivially notice the improvement that high nit displays provide.
Times changed and the best hardware for me right now is a Dell XPS from the model lines a few years back that looked like an aluminum sandwich with a black plastic filling. These machines are fantastic but (1) no OLED, (2) now high speed refresh rate, and (3) the keyboard isn’t great.
Could this modern Apple hardware bring me back to Free OS on pretty hardware, or is there something else I should try?
Which some people do, but I don't think the average person asking this question does (and I don't)
But yeah if you wanna run 600B+ weights models your gonna need an insane setup to run it locally.
Anyway, Apple SoC in M series is a huge leverage thanks to shared memory: VRAM size == RAM size so if you buy M chip with 128+ Gb memory, you’re pretty much able to run SOTA models locally, and price is significantly lower than AI GPU cards
It’s still a great laptop except the battery lasts maybe 75 mins. I just keep it plugged in but despite the fact it’s 6 years old I don’t notice any problems with it.
I’m tempted to buy an M4 laptop just because it’s “new” and “faster” but then I ask myself Why? It’s the same thing with my iPhone. Until my laptop dies or there is something functional that I can’t do with my old laptop I’m going to keep using it.
Next.
The thing that mostly irks me about Apple these days is soldered in RAM and non-upgradeable storage. Apple is still the best thing going for doing most pro development work, but it's just so irritating that they shit on us like this. I did buy an M4 Mini and expanded it some. My 2019 MB Pro is siting here on the desk, mostly unused these days. The Intel Macs are basically dead now--still great computers, but no longer desirable. My daughter is doing Graphic Arts in college and is using another 2019 Pro for that. I've used Macs continuously since at least 2014.
Isn't the 'soldered-in' RAM and storage fundamental to the M-series architecture? It's not like there's a board with individual chips sitting in it for the RAM and storage, that could potentially have been 'popped out' if they weren't soldered in. It's all one giant 'chip' now.
But just like Strix Halo, they have to be soldered. There’s no way to reach the signal integrity required with connectors.
My most recent laptop died and it really showed me what I appreciate in a laptop, performance, build quality, lightweight, good battery, low noise, good ergonomics.
I was sick of the recent overheating generation of pc laptops that don't last more than a couple years under my usage.
As a result I decided to try to switch back to a macbook after a decade hiatus.
The hardware is good but the software is absolute garbage. Trialing it for a week the amount of bullshit that is MacOS was enough, and Asahi wasn't there yet either. Instead I decided to get an AMD framework laptop.
Best decision ever.
I have a laptop that's got great quality, can be upgraded without paying a $5k tax, can replace the keyboard for $100 instead of $700, it works with me rather than against me and my wallet.
The MBA should also have the LCD display with 120Hz and brightness from MBP, Vapour Chamber cooling from iPhone Air, and better keyboard.
I've only purchased matte screen laptops because I only use them for travel. Lenovo pretty much.
Also prefer semi-gloss for my monitors as I work in well lit daylight conditions if I can help it. There have been very high quality semi-gloss monitors for ages now.
I don’t know how many milliseconds the difference is, but going back and forth it’s so obvious to me that it’s painful.
The question is more whether it’ll bother you.
Apple is designing pro gear for its target audience.
Mine as well. What is the likelihood this will happen?
I have a hunch it will not and they will either scrap the nano texture completely or keep it as differentiator for the Pro line, but I am curious what others think.
On all others, including the M4 MacBook Air and the M4 Pro/Max MacBook Pro currently for sale: yes. At most you'll have to make a bootable USB if it's already got Tahoe installed, you can even install in place (but some things might break, of course)
Downgrading a M5 machine to 15.x would be impossible not because of a signing issue but because Apple never released a 15.x build that supported M5 hardware.
Does anyone have any feedback on the new M5 models?
I was torn between nano and regular glass, but opted for the regular glass.
It is rather shocking how much faster everything feels given I didn't think my old macbook pro was slow. While I expected xcode builds to be faster (and they are), I was a bit shocked when opening a new firefox tab was instantaneous since I hadn't noticed it wasn't before.
Another thing I didn't expect is that the new speakers have noticeably more bass and can get quite a bit louder.
I didn't get the nano-textured display, because having to adjust the display angle to get colors to render correctly is more annoying than having to do it for glare (I don't work in a high-glare environment).
If page load seems noticeably faster, it’s far more likely that it’s simply a faster machine. Or imaginary.
It didn't require me to switch my region or payment method.
This is, by far, the fastest machine I've ever had. My previous laptop was a more modest M1 mac book pro. And before that I was on a cheapo intel i5 Samsung laptop - a stop gap solution after my last intel mac died when a loose keyboard key destroyed the screen (yep the generation with the crappy keyboards, worst mac I've ever owned). That intel was of course pathetic and shit. I wasn't expecting much and it disappointed me despite that. The M1 was about 3x faster. The M4 Max is a beast. In terms of build speeds, the i5 was unusable while building and would take 15 minutes. The M1 got it down to 5 minutes (10 CPU cores that are faster than the 4 intel ones). But it didn't have enough memory so swapping slowed it down a bit. The M4 max builds stuff in around 30 seconds. No more swapping and the 14 cores are quite a bit faster than the M1 ones. Same project (but of course with a few years of development). We have more tests now, not fewer.
Otherwise it's a great laptop. Keyboard is fine. Touchpad is best in class in the industry (everything else is pathetically mediocre in comparison; it's not even close), the screen is best in class as well (contrast, colors, resolution, everything). And Apple learned it's lesson when it comes to keyboards. Most windows/linux laptops I'm aware off are a compromise between heating/cooling, lousy input and output devices, performance, design, screen quality, etc. Apple nails all of those things. Nobody else does.
High end Macs are not cheap. But for professionals it's a minor expense. If you lease a car for getting your ass to work every morning, you are probably spending 2-3x more at least than what this would cost you. And the whole point of getting to work is to open your laptop and earn a living with it. It's more important than the damn car. It's what pays for that car. I spend less than what used to be 1 hour of my freelance rate per month on this absolute monster. Maybe it's 2 hours for you if you just got started. That's still nothing on 160ish billable hours per month. Employers tend to be less enlightened of course. But if it's your choice, don't be frugal and buy the laptop you need. If a simple browser is all you need, of course get something decent looking like a mac book air or whatever. But otherwise, get the best you can afford. I've compromised once with that Samsung. I did not enjoy that.
But their keyboards are still the best, and trackpoint is unmatched. As soon as System76 or Framework or any other vendor offer that, I'm giving them my money.
i noticed my ola macbook pro was connected to my router even when it was sleeping.. probably sending some private info periodically to apple and cia
Or just search for "Power Nap" (what it used to be called). They usually wake up intermittently for Time Machine backups, wake-on-lane and other stuff.
Curiously, it is able to maintain network connection even through the 1/4" steel of the safe it's stored within. The older Intel MBP doesn't and cannot.
ok, i guess for graphic designers it might matter more?
New super high-res displays are also nice on my eyes. The displays in between, those from the last decade or so, have been hit or miss for me.
