[HN Gopher] My Impressions of the MacBook Pro M4
___________________________________________________________________
My Impressions of the MacBook Pro M4
Author : secure
Score : 76 points
Date : 2025-10-31 10:13 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (michael.stapelberg.ch)
(TXT) w3m dump (michael.stapelberg.ch)
| arbirk wrote:
| You won't notice 8ms difference in input lag
| moonAA wrote:
| agree
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| I have 165Hz monitors. Software feels noticeably more snappy.
| bitwize wrote:
| Musicians can feel latencies as low as 1ms.
|
| Apple is designing pro gear for its target audience.
| doph wrote:
| lots of people can notice that. my last job involved
| meticulously timing our software's input-tp-display latency,
| testing viewers' responses to it, and fighting for each and
| every ms we should shave off of it.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Anyone can notice an entire frame of input lag.
|
| The question is more whether it'll bother you.
| weinzierl wrote:
| _" My ideal MacBook would probably be a MacBook Air, but with the
| nano-texture display! :)"_
|
| 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.
| raggi wrote:
| Mine too, and I bought an air in the last generation and I
| barely use it because I thought the 60hz display would be ok,
| but I've been living with 120's everywhere for long enough the
| 60hz is actually horrible to use now. First world problems for
| sure, but it's enough that I literally don't use the machine.
| oofbey wrote:
| I've used MBP for many many years, but recently bought an MB
| Air. I slightly miss the extra ports. I love how much lighter
| it is. I never notice a speed difference. I'm always ssh'd into
| a Linux box if crunching any real data, and for UI stuff the
| CPU doesn't need a fan at all. Definitely gonna stick with MB
| Air.
| carbocation wrote:
| One thing that wasn't mentioned is the max sustained screen
| brightness for SDR, which is higher on the M4 Pro (1000 nits)
| compared to the M4 Air or M1 Pro (500 nits).
| flyinglizard wrote:
| There's an awesome app called Vivid which just opens the HDR
| max brightness. I use it all the time with my M3 Pro when
| working outside and I believe it also works on earlier models.
| whycome wrote:
| There are so many base features that are inexplicably
| relegated to 3rd party apps. Like a better finder experience.
| Or keeping screen on. Or NTFS writing.
| filoleg wrote:
| > There are so many base features that are inexplicably
| relegated to 3rd party apps.
|
| > Like a better finder experience.
|
| > Or keeping screen on.
|
| Do you mind linking or naming which tools you use for those
| 2 purposes?
|
| Asking out of pure curiosity, as for keeping the screen on,
| I just use `caffeinate -imdsu` in the terminal. Previously
| used Amphetamine, but I ended up having some minor issues
| with it, and I didn't need any of its advanced features
| (which could definitely be useful to some people, I admit,
| just not me). I just wanted to have a simple toggle for
| "keep the device and/or display from sleeping" mode, so I
| just switched to `caffeinate -imdsu` (which is built-in).
|
| As for Finder, I didn't really feel the need for anything
| different, but I would gladly try out and potentially
| switch to something better, if you are willing to recommend
| your alternative.
| dan_can_code wrote:
| Not op but raycast is for sure an improvement on the
| stock finder.
|
| https://www.raycast.com/
| inference-god wrote:
| What's crazy is that Vivid app...costs money!
| deaddodo wrote:
| Welcome to the Mac ecosystem. Where basic functionality
| is gated behind apps that Apple fans will tell you "are
| lifesavers and totally needed in Windows/Linux/etc)" for
| $4.99-14.99/piece. And, when they get popular enough,
| Apple will implement that basic functionality in its OS
| and silently extinguish those apps.
|
| And that's _when_ they let you modify /use your OS the
| way you want.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| I don't mind that. 3rd party Mac utilities are nice: well
| designed, explained and do what they're supposed to
| because someone makes a living of it. I'm happy to pay
| these prices.
| nwienert wrote:
| There's multiple free versions and forcing HDR on isn't a
| basic feature by any means.
| jonaustin wrote:
| Looks like there's an OSS app that does basically the
| same thing: https://github.com/starkdmi/BrightXDR
| zrm wrote:
| NTFS writing isn't that inexplicable. NTFS is a proprietary
| filesystem that isn't at all simple to implement and the
| ntfs-3g driver got there by reverse engineering. Apple
| doesn't want to enable something by default that could
| potentially corrupt the filesystem because Microsoft could
| be doing something unexpected and undocumented.
|
| Meanwhile if you need widespread compatibility nearly
| everything supports exFAT and if you need a real filesystem
| then the Mac and Windows drivers for open source
| filesystems are less likely to corrupt your data.
| deaddodo wrote:
| Finder is the number one reason it boggles my mind that
| people claim macOS as head and shoulders above other OSes
| "for professionals". Finder is a badly designed child's toy
| that does nothing at all intuitively and, in fact, actively
| does things in the most backwards ways possible. It's like
| taking the worst of Explorer (from Windows XP), and
| smashing it into the worst of Dolphin or Nautilus; and, to
| top it off, then hiding any and all remaining useful
| functionality behind obscure hot keys.
| asdff wrote:
| It has been more or less the same as long as I've used it
| (20 years or so). Familiarity is a plus. It is a pretty
| simple and straightforward tool. I'm not sure what you
| might find perplexing about Finder.
| veqq wrote:
| People have to pay money to change screen brightness on a
| Mac?!
| danaris wrote:
| ...I'd have to say that seems like a radical reading of the
| text.
|
| No; you can adjust screen brightness just fine with the
| built-in settings, including with the F1 and F2 keys (plus
| the Fn key if you've got them set that way).
|
| This Vivid app is specifically for extra HDR levels of
| brightness. I've never had a problem with my M1 or M4 MBPs,
| either inside or outside, with the built-in brightness
| levels. (But, to be fair, I don't use it outside a lot.)
| radicality wrote:
| I would personally be afraid of using that in case it causes
| damage long-term to the screen either due to temperature or
| power draw or something. Idk if there are significant
| hardware differences but in this case I would guess there's a
| real hardware reason for it?
| treetalker wrote:
| > (When I chose the new laptop, Apple's M4 chips were current. By
| now, they have released the first devices with M5 chips.)
|
| Does anyone have any feedback on the new M5 models?
| danielbln wrote:
| I upgraded from M4 to M5 MBP because I broke my M4's screen and
| so my company ordered a replacement M5 while the M4 is being
| repaired. I can't really notice a difference at all. It's an
| absolute work horse, but so was the M4. I _did_ spring for the
| nano texture display this time around, and that is definitely
| nice (but nothing to do with the M5)
| j_bum wrote:
| Do you think you'll have any regrets about the nano texture
| display?
|
| I was torn between nano and regular glass, but opted for the
| regular glass.
| ymyms wrote:
| I have the nano-texture display on my M4. At this point, I
| don't think I can go back to standard glass. For text work,
| I find there are no downsides. If you work more with color
| and detailed art, I think that's the only case where you
| need to put extra thought into it. Otherwise get it
| pcdoodle wrote:
| I hate to say it but it's totally worth it. Direct sunlight
| incredible.
| danielbln wrote:
| No, I love it. I had non-matte glass screens in my MacBooks
| since 2012 and I didn't realize how much better it is to no
| longer see lights reflected in there all the time.
| __mharrison__ wrote:
| Incredible hardware. Love that I can also run local llms on mine.
| https://github.com/Aider-AI/aider/issues/4526
| amelius wrote:
| But are these llms worth their salt?
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| With 128GB of memory they can have real world use cases. But
| they won't be as good as SoTA hosted models.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| They're not unless you curve the grading because they're
| running locally.
|
| Which some people do, but I don't think the average person
| asking this question does (and I don't)
| bigyabai wrote:
| If you bought a fully-featured computer that supports compute
| shaders and _didn 't_ run local LLMs, you should be protesting
| in the street.
| ericmcer wrote:
| Can't you run small LLMs on like... a Macbook air M1? Some
| models are under 1B weights, they will be almost useless but I
| imagine you could run them on anything from the last 10 years.
|
| But yeah if you wanna run 600B+ weights models your gonna need
| an insane setup to run it locally.
| accrual wrote:
| > My ideal MacBook would probably be a MacBook Air, but with the
| nano-texture display! :)
|
| 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.
| ymyms wrote:
| I think my ideal would be a MacBook Air with both the nano-
| texture and higher 120hz refresh rate the Pro has. With that,
| I'll trade an extra second of compile time for my rust projects
| for the smaller form factor.
| krashidov wrote:
| Dang I was gonna get one with nano texture but the opinion was
| 50/50 everywhere so I went with the Devil I know
| rsingel wrote:
| It's the first matte screen on a MacBook since 2011.
|
| I ran that thing for like 6 years til the replacement for the
| failed GPU failed again.
|
| More matte screens please!
| anonymous344 wrote:
| why is it getting hot?
|
| 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
| jlund-molfese wrote:
| If you'd like to change that, you can go to System Settings -
| Battery - Options - Wake for Network Access
|
| 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.
| rottencupcakes wrote:
| It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that
| glossy screens were the best option, and then to eventually roll
| out a matte screen as a "premium" feature with a bunch of
| marketing around it.
| m463 wrote:
| I wonder if they will (re)introduce premium keyboards with
| sculpted keys that self-center your fingers someday. magsafe
| coming back was nice, maybe more extra ports?
| dylan604 wrote:
| MagSafe + SD card reader + headphone jack + USB-C/TB4 only
| ports is fine by me. In 2025, I'm well past needing USB-C to
| USB-A dongles. We've had since what 2015/16 to start the
| conversion to C only.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Historically, traditional matte screen finishes exhibited poor
| optical qualities by scattering ambient light, which tended to
| wash out colors. This scattering process also affected the
| light from individual pixels, causing it to refract into
| neighboring pixels.
|
| 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.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Sounds like Apple marketing wankery. I have a matte high
| density LCD from 2013 (Lenovo) that looks great. Does Apple
| even make the displays? What exactly are they "engineering"
| here?
| kergonath wrote:
| > What exactly are they "engineering" here?
|
| The coatings, which do matter quite a bit when you are
| optimising for some durability/optical quality tradeoff.
|
| Glass covers make screens more durable, but imply internal
| and external reflections. Laminated screens on glass panes
| solves the internal reflections and improve transmission,
| but do not help with glare and external reflections. Those
| can be improved by texturing the glass, but at the cost of
| diffraction and smearing, leading to a decrease in
| effective resolution. Unless the texture becomes small
| enough, but then you need it to be durable enough to avoid
| being wiped or damaged by things that might come into
| contact with the screen.
|
| It turns out that there is a lot more than the bottom
| layers that matter in a display. You can see all these
| problems being solved in succession when looking at the
| evolution of Apple's displays over the years (and others',
| but it is much easier to find information about the good
| and bad sides of any Apple product). It's fascinating,
| actually.
|
| [edit] add the issue of oils on the human skin and you have
| do deal with oleophobic coatings for touch screens, which
| is another very important factor to consider. In addition
| to how the touch sensors are integrated.
| kakacik wrote:
| Somebody drank its portion of cool aid for sure. There is
| that little detail that glossy screens needed absolutely
| perfect conditions in front of them to not reflect literally
| whole world, making resulting visuals often subpar to matte.
| I have never, ever been in work conditions in past 20 years
| that didn't manifest this in annoying and distracting way.
|
| 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.
| seemaze wrote:
| Do you prefer glossy paper work? glossy book pages? glossy
| construction documents? The preference for a non-reflective
| surface for the relaying of dense information has been
| established for decades.
|
| You know what's glossy? Movie posters and postcards.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| non-reflective surfaces you cite have pigments on TOP.
| screens have depth causing parallax and light spreading.
| Your point would be valid if screens were paper-thin and
| image pixels came out the very surface
| asdff wrote:
| You'd need a jewelers loupe to appreciate parallax and
| spreading. Not a real problem in general use.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| i use a matte screen protector on my iphone. without it,
| i can see pixels. with it, i cannot. no loupe, just my
| nearsighted eyes
| asdff wrote:
| You can see actual pixels on a retina iphone? That is
| remarkable eyesight. I could do it on old non retina
| iphones but not on retina models.
| elliottkember wrote:
| Paper, books, and construction documents all use reflected
| and not refracted light.
| zdragnar wrote:
| > High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use
| even in full daylight,
|
| I guess Apple cheaped out on their glossy displays, because I
| definitely didn't care for mine in full daylight
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Glossy vs matte has started to matter less as the peak
| brightness goes up.
|
| When your screen can do 1,600 nits, daylight isn't as much
| of a problem
| asdff wrote:
| Yeah this m3 pro isn't really doing 1600 nits. Marginally
| brighter than my 2012.
|
| To get to actual 1600 nits you need to use scripts.
|
| https://github.com/SerjoschDuering/macbook_1600nits
|
| Not sure the impacts to display health or battery running
| the screen full bore like this.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I use Lunar and have used it on my Pro Display XDR and
| every MBP with XDR I've owned with 0 issues.
| asdff wrote:
| I used to have a 2006 macbook pro with the matte screen. It
| was glorious. None of these issues were present or really
| noticeable. Maybe you'd notice it in lab setting but not irl.
| Kind of like 120hz and 4k; just useless to most peoples eyes
| at the distances people actually use these devices. I've only
| owned matte external monitors as well and again, no issues
| there.
|
| 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.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| To each their own but I have a matte M4 Pro and I don't
| like it, and the screen is noticeably worse than my glossy
| M2 Pro.
|
| There's a graininess to the screen that makes it feel a
| little worse at all times, meanwhile I never had a problem
| in daylight just cranking brightness into the XDR range
| using Lunar.
|
| It's especially noticeable on light UIs, where empty space
| gets an RGB "sparkle" to it. I noticed the same thing when
| picking out my XDR years ago, so it seems like they never
| figured out how to solve it.
| daymanstep wrote:
| 120Hz is absolutely a noticeable improvement over 60Hz. I
| have a 60Hz iPhone and a 120Hz iPhone and the 60Hz one is
| just annoying to use. Everything feels so choppy.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| 4K too, at anything over 15" or so.
|
| I'm always baffled people insist otherwise.
| asdff wrote:
| At the distance I look at my TV screen (about 7 feet from
| the couch) I can't make out the pixels of the 1080p
| screen. 4k is lost on me. 2020 vision but I guess that is
| not enough.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| I'm 3m from my TV and I can absolutely tell 4K from
| 1080p, but it is indeed subtle.
|
| But a fraction of that distance to my monitor makes even
| 4K barely good enough. I'd need a much smaller 4K monitor
| to not notice pixels.
| asdff wrote:
| I can't tell at all when my mbp is in 120hz or 60hz. I
| tried to set up a good test too by scrolling really fast
| while plugging and unplugging the power adapter (which
| kicks it into high power 120hz or low power 60hz).
| coldtea wrote:
| > _I used to have a 2006 macbook pro with the matte screen.
| It was glorious. None of these issues were present or
| really noticeable._
|
| They were absolutely noticable. Contrast was crap. I
| immediately went with glossy with my next MBP around that
| same period.
| brians wrote:
| We have different eyes and different purposes, I think.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Unless your room is pitch black it is so easy to get
| external reflections
|
| This is nearly my preferred setup, only I have wall lights
| on the wall behind the monitors so it's not truly a dark
| room (which is horrible for your eyes). No over head lights
| allowed on while I'm at the keyboard.
| Keyframe wrote:
| You make it sound like what they, according to you, tried to
| do was a success. One look at nano texture screen is enough
| for a resounding no.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| > High-quality glass glossy displays are often easy to use
| even in full daylight...
|
| 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.
| shuckles wrote:
| It's classic Apple commenter not know about Apple. They offered
| matte display upgrades to the MacBook Pro almost 20 years ago.
| The current glossy black display only became a product line
| wide choice with the retina displays in 2012, likely because
| they didn't prioritize getting an appropriate matte glass
| finish on the retina screens due to low demand.
| marcosscriven wrote:
| Are you an Apple commenter?
| iAMkenough wrote:
| I can make the same argument about you. Matte display was the
| standard prior to Unibody MacBook Pros in 2008.
|
| 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.
| ..
| tomcam wrote:
| Downvoted for the unhelpful first sentence.
| inference-god wrote:
| As someone who buys and likes Apple stuff, I agree, it's a
| signature move from them.
| bee_rider wrote:
| They are really good at selling a small quantitative
| improvement that causes them to start using something, as a new
| type of thing going from impossible to possible. As if the tech
| didn't just didn't exist before Apple started using it.
|
| 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.
| lapcat wrote:
| > It's classic Apple to spend over a decade insisting that that
| glossy screens were the best option
|
| 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.
| dbbk wrote:
| The "matte" options also are totally different approaches,
| different quality levels. They're not the same product.
| kergonath wrote:
| > They simply eliminated the matte option without comment,
| and finally brought it back many years later.
|
| 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.
| lapcat wrote:
| The PowerBook and the first MacBook Pro were only matte.
|
| A glossy option was introduced in 2006, but the MacBook Pro
| was still matte by default.
|
| In 2008, the MacBook Pro case was redesigned, and then the
| display situation changed significantly.
| mdasen wrote:
| Apple was actually late to the glossy display party. HP and
| Dell moved to them a few years before Apple. I don't think
| Apple was "insisting" on them, but rather following an industry
| trend that they were late to.
| a-dub wrote:
| i recently worked with a macbook pro and it caused
| uncomfortable feelings of eyestrain. i had some app that was
| supposed to disable the temporal dithering but i'm not sure if
| it helped. i'm curious if there's anyone else on here like me
| who has experienced eyestrain with macbooks where the nano
| texture display has helped.
| amelius wrote:
| One day you wake up and it has auto-updated into iOS. No thanks.
| sunaookami wrote:
| macOS does not have auto update. In fact it doesn't bother you
| with any updates which lead to me behind patches behind because
| I was accustomed to Windows nagging me for updates every week.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| We used to sell conversion kits to shoehorn a pixel qi display
| into the thinkpad x230. Since apple has put in 1,000nit displays
| on the pros, we don't bother anymore. The nano texture sold me
| and it performs wonderfully outdoors. I hate giving apple money
| but here I am.
| lisbbb wrote:
| It's because Apple sucks the least. They still suck, though.
| They could build decent computers that are upgradeable, but
| they refuse because they want your $$$$ in large amounts.
| nomilk wrote:
| > The nano texture display is great at reducing reflections. I
| could immediately see the difference when placing two laptops
| side by side: The bright Apple Store lights showed up very
| prominently on the normal display, and were almost not visible at
| all on the nano texture display.
|
| This is a quiet boon for those who enjoy working outdoors but
| find the sun/brightness a problem.
| 13415 wrote:
| After 18 years of Mac-abstinence, I just bought a MacBook Air and
| realized there is apparently no way to change the App Store
| language without changing region and payment method. WTF? That
| seems like the most basic thing one could imagine. What has
| happened to Apple?
| zrm wrote:
| That seems like classic Apple, really.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| 20 years ago I bought a G3 iBook because the hardware was lovely
| and the system was supported perfectly by stock Debian woody.
| (Hands up if you remember having to bless your laptop with "holy
| penguin pee", part of the output of the yaboot bootloader used in
| PowerPC systems!)
|
| 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?
| dunham wrote:
| I bought one of those iBooks for Debian linux, but I found the
| resolution was a bit small for X. At the time, I had a thing
| for non-intel architectures. Prior to that, I had done a lot of
| work packaging up Debian for Sparc machines. I had access to a
| wide variety of Sun workstations at my job as a sysadmin at a
| university.
| dr_pardee wrote:
| > I still don't like macOS and would prefer to run Linux on this
| laptop. But Asahi Linux still needs some work before it's usable
| for me (I need external display output, and M4 support). This
| doesn't bother me too much, though, as I don't use this computer
| for serious work.
|
| "I don't use this computer for serious work." Dropped $3K on MBP
| to play around with. Definitely should have gotten MBA
| criddell wrote:
| If you are going to start making a list of expensive hobbies,
| $3K for a computer isn't going to be anywhere near the top of
| the list.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I think it actually would be quite near the top, in terms of
| ranking. Most hobbies are a lot cheaper.
|
| Of course, not near the top in terms of money because there
| are a few hobbies that cost vastly more.
| brulard wrote:
| What do you mean "in terms of ranking" vs "in terms of
| money"?
| IshKebab wrote:
| I mean if you ranked all the hobbies in terms of cost,
| casually spending $3k on a laptop would be near the top
| of the list. But there are a small number of hobbies that
| are vastly more expensive.
|
| The distribution is highly skewed. Like wealth. The 99th
| percentile are near the top in rank (by definition) but
| nowhere near the top in absolute terms.
| asdff wrote:
| The type of person shelling out 3k for a computer is not
| running it until the wheels come off.
| brailsafe wrote:
| What does the purchase price have to do with it? Seems like
| it would entirely depend on circumstances and constraints,
| rather than cost, how long someone would run something
| bix6 wrote:
| Lmao plus MBA works great for relatively serious work. I was
| hesitant to switch from MBP but the M1 air almost never lets me
| down.
| mastax wrote:
| He lives in Switzerland. $3K barely pays for a lunch and an
| espresso.
| kome wrote:
| i'll never understand picky preferences about monitors... i still
| use an LG flatron wide that's old enough to vote... and when i
| slack at the apple store, it's not like i notice some life-or-
| death difference. a monitor is a monitor.
|
| ok, i guess for graphic designers it might matter more?
| drnick1 wrote:
| Can't run Linux? No thanks.
| blindriver wrote:
| I still have a 2019 MacBook Pro with the non-butterfly keyboard
| and escape key (unfortunately still the Touch Bar).
|
| 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.
| lisbbb wrote:
| I couldn't really trust the author of the review after he
| established his preference for "quiet computers" having no
| cooling slots or whatever he called them. Okay, fine, you're
| placing aesthetics above actual performance, then. The Pro
| laptops are the only ones viable for any really hardcore work
| because if you push the Air too hard it is going to just slow
| down in order to stay cool and that's not what you want if you
| are doing graphics work or in my case, I was running a bunch of
| containers in K8s. I never bought an Air because it was too
| similar to an iPad.
|
| 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.
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| >The thing that mostly irks me about Apple these days is
| soldered in RAM and non-upgradeable storage.
|
| 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.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| There are separate chips.
|
| But just like Strix Halo, they have to be soldered. There's
| no way to reach the signal integrity required with
| connectors.
| quitit wrote:
| An frequently overlooked point is the display brightness. The pro
| models offer 1600 nits peak brightness, which makes these good
| units for looking at HDR content, especially if you like to take
| photos or edit videos. Meanwhile the Air maxes out at 500 nits,
| so the effect and contrast is drastically reduced for those
| models.
| nwienert wrote:
| Not just that but you can use Brightentosh to force it on.
|
| 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.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Normal content is still limited to 500 nits, and these being
| mini-LED displays, contrast is already infinite.
|
| Unless you're making Instagram content, very few photographers
| use HDR. Everything else will look the same on both screens.
| proee wrote:
| I was on the fence for same reason - should I get the nano
| display? I opted for the 15" MBA, and the display has been great.
| Way better than my 2019 Macbook Pro. I've had zero issues with
| glare, but I'm also in an office environment during the day and
| use it at night when home.
| mrcwinn wrote:
| Same experience. I cannot consider any screen that does not have
| the nano texture coating. It is exceptional and a huge
| improvement. To the point that I actually prefer a tester Samsung
| Galaxy S25 Ultra over Apple's own iPhone display.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-31 23:00 UTC)