Last week I heard on Windows Weekly that Paul had been given a Mac by Intel. Not just any old Mac but an M1 MacBook Pro.
This week a preliminary review turned up on the site. A comparison between an Intel based PC and the new M1 Macbook Pro. I am certainly not a Macbook expert but, in terms of pricing and features, they seemed similarly equipped. I come at this as a PC user on Windows 10. Windows has been my OS of choice for many years. Primarily because I work in enterprise IT and you really need to use what your customers use and what you support.
Of course, the M1 Macs have come with some considerable hype. There are many YouTube videos promoting a revolution of ARM processors. So, I am interested at whether the hype is real.
I start from the position that, in business, the PC isn’t disappearing. Many home users have a PC budget that is nowhere near the price of any M1 Mac. On the other hand we also see that Chromebooks are making a niche out of appealing to a cloud based future and easy manageability. I also think that today’s Ultrabook designs are a direct response to PCs like the MacBook Air.
I think the failure Windowsphone and Windows still being embedded in just one form factor also says to me that people don’t really care about operating systems. People run applications. In the past Windows has benefitted from having a vast applications library. In business it benefits from running line of business applications. On MacOS you can get Microsoft Office and a number of capable web browsers. If this is all someone needs, then a new M1 MacBook Air is very favourably priced at the premium end of a home user budget. The same place as a Surface Laptop.
It seems to all boil down to whether you can use MacOS. That seems about it.
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612651">In reply to illuminated:</a></em></blockquote><p>That's not-necessarily a fault of Windows though: same-thing is true with preinstalled apps on Android devices. Both offer manufacturers flexibility to add things, which they get paid to do by the companies whose software they add, and thus the device can be sold at a cheaper-price to the consumer.</p><p><br></p><p>And Microsoft did have something a while back called "Signature PC", where it would be a clean image, but not sure whatever happened to that.</p><p><br></p><p>And sure, Windows 10 does come with a lot of "fluff" apps in the Start Menu by-default, but after doing a right-click > Uninstall on them, none of them have ever re-appeared for me, just like if you "Uninstall" or "Disable" stock apps on Android…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612769">In reply to illuminated:</a></em></blockquote><p>Sadly, for legal-compliancy, in many-areas of the world, IT have no-choice but to put various auditing, scanning and reporting software on there.</p><p><br></p><p>A home-machine is likely to only be running an AV and possibly full-disk encryption, by comparison.</p><p><br></p><p>And it's not just Windows: corporate iOS and Android devices often have to have apps installed on them using managed-solutions like VMWare AirWatch or Microsoft InTune</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612653">In reply to curtisspendlove:</a></em></blockquote><p>Yes: clearly the M1 is a good-thing, as it will give the industry a swift kick-up-the-backside, and hopefully create better CPUs all-'round. But I'd rather have a better CPU in a Windows device, personally, than switch to macOS</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612672">In reply to jdjan:</a></em></blockquote><p>As time goes on, I think AAA PC-gaming will become super-elite as spec-wise you're going to have games by the end of this decade asking for specs like "16GB RAM minimum; 24GB preferred; 32GB recommended", and asking for something like 200-300GB of hard-disk install space. Especially once they start offering 8K, 16K and 32K resolution-support and all the models, meshes and textures to support them…</p><p><br></p><p>Eventually, streaming-services will take-over for AAA as it'll just make-sense to subscribe to them than keep paying to upgrade the RAM, GPU, CPU, storage and motherboard locally…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612683">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>I believe there is even a distro currently that works on the new M1 macs… (though I'd be more-interested personally to see Windows 10 on ARM running on one)</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612725">In reply to Prebengh:</a></em></blockquote><p>Okay… I was meaning no native-boot is possible yet.</p><p><br></p><p>Given Windows 10 on ARM supports AMD64, Intel32, ARM64 and ARM32 apps, what happens if you try to run an Intel32 (x86) or ARM32 app?</p>
dftf
<p>I don't think anyone would deny Apple have done a great thing with their M1 processor; but it's also not something that cannot be copied. I'm sure we'll soon see an AMD CPU which has the RAM integrated, and this would make sense for lower-end devices as I can almost guarantee the vast majority of home-users and small-business users never do any upgrades on their machines. (Using an external USB HDD would be about it.) So why bother to keep the RAM separate when most users would never upgrade it, and you can reduce a bottleneck?</p><p><br></p><p>And such processors would likely run faster, and with AMD's ever-decreasing nm size, use less-power. So before-long, you'll see Windows devices attaining similar battery-life to M1 macs. (Though Windows continuing to offer 32-bit support, unlike current versions of macOS, may hinder things there: as CPUs having to have both AMD64 and Intel32 instruction-set support I'd imagine will somewhat limit what they can do to shrink the CPU designs more? Not a chip expert, so don't quote me on that, but I imagine 64-bit only CPUs will be more-efficient…)</p><p><br></p><p>But as to what I would like: a better CPU powering a Windows device. Sorry, but I just don't personally see the need to use macOS for myself. I can do what I need to on Windows 10, and it largely works-fine for me. Sure, there's new features I'd like to see, and improvements to existing ones, but I don't get any blue-screens or issues following Windows Updates or any of that stuff other people seem to get monthly. Sorry your device is unlucky, but mine isn't, so I see no-need to switch…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612879">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>It is mad how you consider iOS and the latest versions of macOS have gone 64-bit only (kernel and apps); as has Ubuntu and derivatives, like Mint (kernel only, not apps); and I have read that by the end of 2022, Google will only provide 64-bit images of Android that will only run 64-bit apps.</p><p><br></p><p>Yet Microsoft still offers 32-bit kernel versions of Windows 10, that can run 16-bit apps.</p><p><br></p><p>At-least for any device you buy online or in a shop it can no-longer have a 32-bit kernel version of Windows pre-installed, but progress sure is glacially slow.</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612925">In reply to james.h.robinson:</a></em></blockquote><p>You know, I hear this all-the-time whenever I mention retiring the 32-bit kernel versions of Windows, so I really am curious: how-many large-enterprises still have 16-bit apps, or use devices that only have a 32-bit driver available?</p><p><br></p><p>And for those that do, (1) why not just run an older version of Windows on those PCs, inside a segmented network, which doesn't connect to the Internet; or (2) why not install the LTSC versions of Windows 10 on them, as you clearly won't be using modern-features on them, like Microsoft Store apps, or things like the Xbox Game Bar or "Your Phone"? Surely old apps and devices would run-better on an older version of Windows?</p><p><br></p><p>At the very-least, I think Microsoft should offer versions of Windows 10 that are 64-bit only… you're never going to get Apple M1 levels of CPU design on the PC side when all CPUs have to keep supporting the 32-bit instruction set…</p>
dftf
<blockquote><em><a href="#612937">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>As above: why don't they use the LTSC on such machines (given they only use them to run some old apps or devices, and won't be making-use of new features) or just run older versions of Windows on them, which would be better-suited to running old apps and drivers anyway?</p><p><br></p><p>There's a reason retro-gamers on Windows often get-hold of old PCs and run Windows 98SE or Windows 2000, instead of running the 32-bit versions of Windows 10 and endlessly hunt-around forums trying to get fan-made launchers, patches and hacks…</p>