After that, it depends on what you are doing. I develop using a PC, macbook (for iOS builds usually) and a Linux machine (running mint).
Linux is best for Node/JS heavy development, IMO, largely because of the long filenames in Nodeland and the general linux-first documentation and help. Recently I have found its also pretty good for Dotnet Core development. The OS is nice as well as in that sort of bare-metal coding, it kind of gets out of the way.
Windows, either with VS or VS Code, is for things that require a lot of power or are huge (usually related): Docker stuff is easier, solutions with hundreds of projects, etc. When I want to throw code against a tiny god, the PC is my go to.
Presumably the author has already purchased the Mac, in which case, s/he's already obtaining the benefit from that purchase. To rationally justify the replacement cost (which is not just the cost of the hardware itself, but the opportunity cost of learning the new platform, purchasing new software, etc.), the benefits of switching have to be greater.
It's those benefits--not necessarily of the platform itself, but of switching--that aren't clear to me.
I think you're discounting the performance aspect as well - if workload X is too slow on the fastest mac, it may well still run on a windows machine since they can be specced higher. Cost isn't a factor for everyone - sometimes you literally just need the fastest possible machine, in which case Windows can be it.
Am I missing something or does this seem like one thing? Or is there use case for VR that isn't gaming? And what is 'upcoming 3D' exactly?
>if workload X is too slow on the fastest mac, it may well still run on a windows machine
Can't argue with that, but what are such workloads if you are not game developer? Wouldn't cluster of Linux servers always be a better choice? Unless of course you are die hard Windows fan.
Training and design.
I do machine learning development. It is very helpful to have a CUDA-compliant GPU (read: NVIDIA) on your local machine so you can develop and run things quickly. Yes, you can use AWS, but that is costly, you need to push your data into the cloud, and you definitely cannot do it w/ sensitive data such as health records/medical images with localization clauses. None of the major machine learning platforms work well on non-CUDA compliant GPUs, most are barely functional outside NVIDIA cards.
I waited over a year for the new MBP and was disappointed to see no NIVIDA GPU on them. I love the MBP, it is an absolute pleasure to use. But the new line had barely any horsepower improvements. It was almost a step back from the 2014 MBP I already owned. Further, the cost was obscene for the value/improvements I was getting.
I'm not happy about it, but I purchased an Alienware w/ a hefty NVIDIA card and 32GB RAM. It is a beast, but it meets my work needs. I do miss the agility of a MBP (e.g., carrying it in one hand to a cafe or onto a plane), but ultimately horsepower is needed more.
My first Mac was in 1992 (a IIsi). Since then every computer I've bought (servers aside) has been a Mac.
Last week my MBP died. The battery overheated and 'burst', taking the case and trackpad with it. I'll still have a Mac desktop for development and cartography, but I need a laptop, and I simply can't justify £1250 for a MacBook.
Instead, for the first time in 25 years, I'm buying something else: a Chromebook, on which I'll install Ubuntu. It's pretty much the same weight (1.19kg vs 0.91kg) and size; it does word processing, web browsing, PDF viewing, and Ruby hacking just fine; and it costs £1,000 less. Sure, the performance is much, much worse, but for my uses that's fine.
* Generally nicer hardware even compared to things at the same price point. Don't forget that hardware is more than RAM and CPU specs. There are some notable exceptions with pretty nice hardware, like the surface pro tablets.
* More friendly UX all around. This is somewhat subjective, of course, but if you'll recall a while back there were some big corporate IT departments who explained that IT costs were much lower for Mac users. They chalked this up to a combination of increased user friendliness, lower virus risk, and increased reliability.
The only activity in my life where I actually choose to use Windows is for FPS games. However, that advantage is disappearing; over half my steam games support mac now.
So in my book the Mac is still best but I also agree that the direction Apple is going doesn't look too promising.
I remember spending time trying to figure out how to disable the animation that plays when switching OSX virtual desktops - only to find out that you literally can't without code injection or a third party app - rendering the virtual desktops on OSX entirely useless.
The fact that this a) is the default behavior and b) is not configurable, is just another in a long line of awful OSX UX and it only gets worse with every update. El Capitan changed terminal font smoothing to something woeful which was also a struggle to revert.
Honestly the only way I have found development possible on native OSX and Windows is by stretching a terminal(/putty) to the full size of the desktop and handling all window management with tmux.
Pretty minor issue though, I still love both. I'm just not sure if I'll love the new versions everyone seems to be whining about :)
To give more detail on my use case: I'm not a developer so things like terminal or unix don't really matter to me. And I don't think I've had a virus since the 90s.
That's really what it's all about though. Many developers prefer a unix environment. Windows is often neglected in open source, so getting up and running with a working dev environment can be a challenge. So, for many, Windows just isn't really an option.
That leaves macOS as the only option that's a first class citizen in all regards -- hardware support from manufacturer, support in open source projects, support for proprietary applications (I.e MS Office), etc.
For non-programmers though, there really isn't a meaningful difference. Take your pick.
If you are just starting out or you aren't in the Apple's ecosystem (e.g. you don't have Idevices) then Windows might be the place for you. I'd still go with Linux personally, but that's just me. Or if you just need more power, but I'm guessing most people here don't actually NEED that much power
- If I have sublimetext maximized on other display, my mouse cursor gets stuck at default pointer, no longer changing on context.
- If I have same sublimetext maximized on other virtual screen, my mouse cursor stucks in text select.
- Option to reorder icons in dock via drag and drop goes away randomly.
- When I plug display to my MBPro 2016, menubar has white square where tray goes.
- It gets stuck in boot -> kernel panic -> restart -> boot loop when I am starting it with display plugged in via their HDMI dongle.
- On random, finder stops showing changes in filesystem. I've had this happen to me in Mavericks on old laptop, it keeps happening in Sierra on new one.
Quarrel over operating systems is pretty pointless, if it doesn't run natively, slap a hypervisor on it and run whatever you like in a VM; for me that'd be a Linux or BSD, I'm not really opinionated there (although certain things run faster in Linux due to experience).
(Obviously I don't grok the laptop lifestyle, I don't understand the "work everywhere" mentality, in fact, I don't want it at all. It's called work place for a reason - at least for me. I do have a laptop (or half a dozen, who has time to keep record?), the mainly used one is a Getac unit with a carrying handle that weights ~3 kilos or so; at least it's silent, has a superbright screen and a battery that's larger than most ultrabooks by volume ;)
You obviously don't understand what those 2 letters stand for (hint it stats with Personal and ends with Computer).
As a non-game developer, what practical advantages does Windows hardware and software provide over Mac?
The writing doesn't make it clear to me. Sure, there are some interesting facts noted, but there's no connection drawn or relationship established between the facts and the impact on the author's ability to work, or the work product itself.