> Apple Intelligence is designed to protect your privacy at every step. It’s integrated into the core of your iPhone, iPad, and Mac through on-device processing. So it’s aware of your personal information without collecting your personal information. And with groundbreaking Private Cloud Compute, Apple Intelligence can draw on larger server-based models, running on Apple silicon, to handle more complex requests for you while protecting your privacy.
All the marketing fluff aside, Apple literally says Apple analyzes your personal information in the core of your device and sends it to the cloud for more complex tasks. That's orders of magnitude worse than Recall which is on-device, opt-in and fully encrypted.
I use both Windows and Linux, and while I agree with your first three points for specific proprietary software depending on your job, the last two seem a bit odd. I thought these are often considered advantages of Linux?
I know that my opinions on these 2 topics are controversial, but they come from decade to usage of both of them as end-user that just want to click and use.
Moreover I think that not only windows' model is bad, and worse what makes it better than linux's model is the monopolistic and proprietary nature of windows.
At first, comparing both model can be thought as a joke: on windows, discovery and installations are manual, update are either manual or have to be implemented by the software developer, uninstallation is a bad joke that can let several gigabytes somewhere on your hard drive without even your knowledge or knowing how to find them (I'm not considering the app store, winget, etc because they are either bad or not well integrated).
But because windows versions last long, that they are very few of them and because the software is decoupled from the OS, installing a software on any windows machine that is less than 10 or 15 years old is downloading one of the maximum two installers, click to install and it's done. To update is just to accept the update for most software, but indeed to check first if there is an update for still many software and repeat the installation step. There is now redeeming the uninstallation: going to the parameter windows, uninstalling the software, and praying everything is properly removed.
In theory, on linux everything is better: click on the app center/use a command and look for what you want, clink install/type a command to install, everything is updated in one click/command, a software is uninstalled in on click/command.
But practice is different: discovery is still manual because you need to have more information and know the alternatives. Installation and update are where the real issue is: at the difference of windows, there is a close coupling of the OS and software. Every software has to be built and packaged for the dozen of distributions and all the versions of each distribution. The work is often duplicated: both the distrib managers and upstream propose their own packages. if you need or want to install from upstream, the dev must have their own repository that you have to add or you have do install the package manually. Update has the same issue: cross your fingers that your distribution and its version is covered either by the distribution or upstream, and that there is no conflict several sources are available. If you installed a package manually, it's not better than on windows. And because of the software-OS coupling, updating the OS means updating the software, and updating the software may mean updating the OS. Uninstallation is much better: afaik the issue of removing the dependencies is mostly resolved, and if sometimes some stuff is not removed, it's either small, not safely removable or easy to find.
For the OS updat, in theory again linux is much better, but in practice and since windows 7, here again because of the longevity of the OS versions and the decoupling OS-software I had less issues under windows
I think I understand where you're coming from, since I used to feel the same way. For system packages, and for Windows installations, I also have plenty of nightmare stories across decades. I haven't had as many issues lately with Linux (running Fedora GNOME), while Windows has become even worse somehow. Flatpak and AppImages address these concerns to a large extent (but has its own problems with disk space, of course), but that's my experience anyway.
Some software has excellent Windows/Mac versions but no Linux version.
And some only has a Windows version.
If WINE eventually works well enough I can confidently use random Windows programs, esp. if they can be installed in a nice sandbox, that would let me go to Linux.
I'm not who you asked, but the reason I migrated to Macs years ago, and the reason I stay, is that I don't want my computer to be a maintenance hobby unto itself. I need to do actual work.
I also enjoy the polish Apple provides in other ways -- the platform features you get if you're on a Mac, use an iPhone, have a Watch, etc, are all pretty great. Cobbling together something like that on my own under Linux probably isn't possible.
Linux isn't a maintenance hobby unto itself if you don't make it one. After the initial migration struggles (which you'll get on MacOS too), if you choose a boring distro like Debian, the maintenance burden is similar to Windows. Lots of Linux users love customizing the crap out of their stuff, so it becomes one, but it isn't inherently like that if you keep your configuration somewhat close to stock on whatever distro you use. (I've also heard good things about immutable distros for that, since if something doesn't work, you can just rollback and it will work again)
It isn't until you need something like Microsoft Office or Photoshop. At which point you're either using FOSS alternatives (and dealing with it's incompatibilities with the proprietary file formats) or dealing with a very fragile wine setup.
If you don't need that kind of thing then Linux is indeed pretty good these days. But especially in a business context, a lot of people do.
I've been waiting for years for an acceptable way to run Onenote on Linux. The browser does not count, it fetches pages on demand and is painfully slow. There are some wrappers around the browser, those don't count either. Running a Windows VM is unacceptable. People don't have success running it through Wine so I'm not going to try.
Why do I have to use Onenote? It's free. It syncs well with other computers and mobile apps. Sharing notebooks with other people works and is free. It's intuitive enough that my wife can use it. The search works, the formatting is rich enough, you can paste in pictures.
I don't need the rest of Office. The online versions or Google docs are good enough. If I can get Onenote and Fusion360 working well on Linux, I would likely switch to Linux.
Are you seriously suggesting someone new to Linux use Debian, one of the most annoying distros to set up for desktop use?
I used Linux Mint for about a year and gave up because everything was constantly breaking and the software was a direct downgrade from MacOS in terms of usability and prevalence. Oh, and new hardware usually doesn't even work on Linux.
Linux is like Communism, sounds great in theory but in reality it doesn't work.
Besides having to boot from an ISO and the arduous process of installing Linux in general compared to not having to do this with MacOS or Windows, hardware compatibility is by far the most annoying part of Linux desktop. Want to use a new laptop to run Linux? Well it probably will have a bunch of hardware issues you need to monkey patch.
It appears a site for software engineers can get lost in the sauce with the concept of something being "easy" - but Linux absolutely will never take off if it's a pain in the ass for the average computer user to install and use.
I switched from Mac to WIN a few years ago, because maintaining MB Pros became a nightmare, after having had six burned mainboards (with Macbook Pro devices each) within 3 years. I had definitely enough. Happy my former employer had to shell out the money for repairs/replacements. But each time getting back into a workable state with my backups still took north of two days.
And while for my day job I still need to use Windows, for my freelance business I am using Linux for quite a while now. Without any maintenance except regular updates (like with any OS out there). There is exactly nothing I am missing in terms of tools/software (for my line of work), while I am also benefitting from better performance, longer battery life and overall a smoother user experience.
>getting back into a workable state with my backups still took north of two days.
It sounds like you're not very good at backups, then.
I've only ever needed to do a real DR once, after we were robbed, but my Time Machine restore had my replacement Macbook up, runing, and with my application states in place within about 2 hours.
Ah yes, clearly a skill issue on my part. Thanks for that insight.
I'm sure you've never had the pleasure of working in a corporate environment where IT has banned Time Machine, external drives, and replacement machines that actually match your storage capacity. Where "backup and restore" means navigating a Kafkaesque ticketing system on your phone to get someone in a different timezone to temporarily unlock your account because you're now on an "untrusted device."
The actual data backup? 2-4 hours, worked fine. The rest was dealing with invalidated certificates, version mismatches in corporate "security" software (that ironically required Flash to be "compliant"), and finding a replacement machine that wasn't a 256GB base model when you need to restore from a larger drive.
But you're right - back when we were independent, before the corporate acquisition, Time Machine worked exactly as advertised. Two hours, everything restored perfectly. Then came the security theater that somehow made machines less secure while being infinitely more annoying to manage.
So yeah, clearly I'm just not good at "backups." Got it.
> As an Apple Silicon user, I doubt that. ;)
Feel free to doubt away - yours is definitely longer. For context: I'm comparing Windows vs Linux on the same dual-boot hardware (old Intel workhorse), not against whatever "M" you are running. Linux consistently delivers 40-45% better battery life than Windows on identical hardware. Still need the Windows partition for certain freelance client work, but working on eliminating that dependency entirely.
>I'm sure you've never had the pleasure of working in a corporate environment where IT has banned Time Machine, external drives, and replacement machines that actually match your storage capacity.
Well, I mean, it kinda DOES seem like my critique was on point. It just wasn't YOU that was bad at backups. It's that your IT department is worthless.
But either way, it's not an Apple problem.
>Apple Silicon
The power management on the Apple chips is really just amazing. It's like nothing I've ever used before. This level of performance AND insane battery life feels like a magic trick.
Oh, and the heat management is all part of it. I've had this machine for 4 years, and a few weeks ago it started making a disturbing noise I'd never heard before. "WTF????", I thought.
And then I realized what it was: I'd finally triggered the fans, which had never come on before. Turns out, rendering a shitload of high-def 360-degree video down into a flat file for Youtube sharing is computationally intense enough to trigger the M1's cooling system.
Can’t say I blame you after such an experience. To give another data point, I don’t think I’ve ever had any of my MacBooks fail. My old ones are still happily being used by my in-laws.
That being said, I am eyeing up Framework for next laptop.
> That being said, I am eyeing up Framework for next laptop.
Same here. Had the 2017-era MBP (pre-M1 days). Still miss my 2014 though - that thing was solid.
The newer Intel ones ran stupidly hot, especially driving 4K externals at full res. Add corporate "compliance software" (read: bloatware that shall not be named) and those machines basically lived at 80-90°C. Heat up in the morning, thermal throttle all day, cool down overnight, repeat.
Our IT dept tracked failure rates - roughly 0.5-1.5% (depending on holiday season or not) of the MBP fleet was always out for thermal-related repairs at any given time. Not exactly confidence-inspiring for a $3k+ machine.
Yeah, same here -- my Macbooks (and the Powerbooks before them) have been the most solid, reliable, and long-lived laptops of my entire life (and I'm 55).
I'm still using a 10 year old one as a poor-man's-NAS-controller. And the backup system that ships with the tool is insanely solid -- while I don't trust any single backup solution alone, the one time I did have to recover from backup (we were robbed), Time Machine had my new machine in exactly the same state as my stolen one within about 2h. I'm sure with faster bus speeds and drives now, it'd be even faster.
Yeah, as I mentioned in another comment - I really wish I could have kept that 2014 model. Hands down the best laptop I've ever used.
Unfortunately when we got acquired, we had to return all secondary devices with no buyout option (they used to let us keep older machines, but corporate policy changed that).
These days I'm running an older Lenovo Yoga that's actually holding up pretty well. Since I don't game and stopped doing video work, it covers my needs just fine. Swapped in a 2TB SSD and replaced the battery after about 6 years - can't complain about that longevity.
When this one finally gives up, Framework is definitely on my shortlist. Also planning to grab a mini PC for NAS/home server duties in the next few months - been putting that off way too long.
The repairability aspect of Framework really appeals to me after years of dealing with machines you basically have to replace entirely when something breaks. Seems like a much saner approach.
> I don't want my computer to be a maintenance hobby unto itself
That hasn't been the case with Linux, any more than other OSs, for some time now. At least not if you chose an LTS release of a big “getting work done” oriented distro rather than something geared around the bleeding edge or customisability.
There are issues with some software support, but that is almost all Windows stuff that you'll have the same problems with on Macs as Linux.
There are occasional hardware issues, which is where Apple limiting choice in favour of known reliability can look attractive, but that is mostly on the bleeding edge too which isn't a concern if you are “getting work done” (I had issues with some 2.5GbE NICs a while ago and swapped them back out, retried with the same kit last month, at least on apt-release-update later, and things are working just fine).
> if you're on a Mac, use an iPhone, have a Watch, etc,
I can see that.
Though I prefer to select my devices based on what they are best at rather than being locked to a single manufacturer's ecosystem. My watch (Garmin) and phone (Android) talk to each other just fine and integration with the desktop when I need it (mostly for planning routes & pacing plans using maps on the big screen) is web-based so works just as well with Linux as Widows or Macs.
Admitting that it isn't perfect is called being adult and offering a realistic assessment. I've had more issues with hardware with Windows in the past than Linux. Under the Apple system hardware issues are “solved” by simply limiting what is considered compatible.
Maybe actually read the my comment, in which I mention such caveats, instead of just scanning to pluck out the few words which agree with your existing blinkered view. Your reply is like film posters paraphrasing quotes like “Terribly written, nothing good to say about it!” to “Terribly good!”…
The problem is: it depends a lot on the specific program whether I want the newest or stay with some older version of some program. Many GNU/Linux distributions make this hard, while Windows makes this easy.
Huh, what? With Linux you can at least dockerize apps and run multiple versions with negligible performance impact. Doing the same in Windows is a mess at best.
Or did you mean that you want to pin an app to a specific version? This can be done also, trivially - not that it is a good idea in general.
Ah yes, dockerize apps. Jump through hoops to use an app, compared to Windows where it's just some clicks.
Nobody ever disputes that there are workarounds to the default packaging workflows of Linux distros. The problem is, your average user, even technical ones don't want using an OS to be a second job outside their real job.
