Won't they they notice when their drives suffer from write exhaustion much sooner than larger memory models used for similar purposes?

This isn’t going to happen within the device’s useful lifetime.

Won't it? Devices can live a long time. And if the drives are user replaceable then even longer!

Aren't most companies on a 3-5 years replacement schedule for laptops? Usually based on some combo of accounting/tax rules, warranty and service plan availability?

If devices have only one short life at a single customer before being trashed or smelted then folks need to wake up. Reuse comes before recycle for a reason.

I rarely ever buy new and usually got hand-me-down equipment at work. The last brand new equipment I was issued on the job was probably 2013.

My employer was on a fixed 3 year cycle when I started here (20+ years ago). Every multiple of 3 years, you got a new laptop. At the time, the old ones were given away to employees for personal use.

At some point, they went to a 4 year cycle. Employees can keep equipment as long as they want - 4 years is the minimum to request new hardware (without a reason and approval). The give away disappeared as well, not sure what happens to the old stuff today.

Back when I was on Windows/Dell, that 3-4 year replacement cycle for crucial. The systems just didn't hold up over time. Even more so for people who travelled. Now that I'm on a Mac, the hardware seems to hold up much better (aside from the occasional poor design like the keyboards of ~5 years ago).

They last for years with constant writes; on the order of magnitude with petabytes

The properties surely vary among drives... but this isn't worth much concern

I'd throw a computer swapping this much out the window before the NAND would give up

A typical Samsung SSD is warrantied for between 100 and 500 TBW[1].

[1] https://semiconductor.samsung.com/us/consumer-storage/intern...

What are you trying to say here, that one can only expect what's warrantied?

I expect nothing more than OEM support in that warranty. I fully expect the things to work outside of it.

Techreport (and others, before we go down that path too) tested those along with many other drives. They were written to persistently for more than a year and a half continuously.

Sure, Samsung and others only agree to financially be on the hook for N bytes. The point is, the drive can handle it - and the situation doesn't make sense.

Let's take a step back or two. We're focusing on numbers one would never even have the patience to reach while swapping

Used drives can have life in another device or the whole device may be reused for a less taxing purpose ... if it hasn't been exhausted because of cost cutting.

Sure, so hopefully the person before you bought a machine with sufficient memory

... and didn't walk away from it for days, if not weeks, while it was swapping. Ignore the numbers. The proposed problem is ridiculous.

> They last for years with constant writes; on the order of magnitude with petabytes

For anyone else wondering, that test did use one TLC disc (Samsung 840). It had a major issue at 300TB, then went on till 800 (failed somewhere around 900).

Not many new MLC/SLC in the consumer market.

https://techreport.com/review/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-t...

Unless you meant another test?

That's indeed the test I had at the forefront.

That's a good/fair distinction - QLC or whatever now is probably less reliable.

My point remains, though. Worrying about the lifetime of the drive by way of memory/swapping is silly.

You'd have to leave the box unusable for days, if not weeks, to meaningfully contribute to wear.

The NVMe drives in a MacBook Pro are the same speed, or in some cases slower, than any modern PC laptop with NVMe Gen4. [1]

The arguments I've seen defending Apple seem to boil down to one of a few different base arguments:

* The software is better optimized! (dubious, needs evidence)

* Even when the software isn't as optimized, the OS does memory compression so swapping doesn't happen as often! (true, but so does Windows and Linux, so it's not a differentiator for Macs)

* Okay but when swapping does happen, the SSDs are super fast! (true, but not any faster than a comparably-equipped PC, and often slower if you're looking at PCs in the same price range as the Mac)

I could be missing something but I haven't yet seen any credible argument backed by evidence that Macs are anything but mediocre with 8GB of memory.

BUT, even if there were such arguments, it would add literally a few dollars to the BOM to make 16GB the base, so why are we all bending over backwards to defend Apple?

edited to add: don't tell me that it would cost more than a few dollars to make 16GB the base -- another common false argument is that the memory in a mac is somehow "special." It's not, it's completely standard LPDDR4X or LPDDR5, sourced from the same suppliers as everyone else uses.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/macbookpro/comments/17qhxbl/ssd_ben...

I think the adjective “mediocre” is a tad heavy-handed here. I’ve had a variety of laptops – PC and Mac – since the mid-2000s. Apple Silicon is far and away the biggest leap forward I’ve seen, bar none. On a recent 5 hour flight, I shut off WiFi and only had a terminal open. At the end of the flight, I still had over 90% battery remaining. That is monstrously impressive, if only for the screen’s power consumption.

Add to that the fact that the terminal is nix instead of Windows (Powershell is not the same, and if you’re falling back to WSL then congrats on admitting nix tooling is superior), and it’s a very compelling machine.

Yeah, I use an M1 machine for work, and you’re right about the efficiency. But as a creative pro or a developer (two of the target markets for Macs), your machine is the main tool you use to get things done. Calling a machine “Pro” and shipping it with 8GB of memory in 2023 is a slap in the face to those professionals when it’d be less than 1% more expensive to double it to 16GB.

That’s why used the term mediocre, and I stand by it.

I don’t have much to say about the terminal stuff other than that my personal thinkpad that runs Linux does the terminal thing a hell of a lot better than my Mac does.

If you’re running Linux on a laptop, then yes, that’s even better. However, AFAIK nothing has battery life close to Macs. I’d consider one if they did.

My work Mac is perma-docked, but my personal Air spends most of its time on my lap, and I greatly value the battery life.

My Thinkpad gets about 10 hours of battery life under Linux, running an editor, browser with a million tabs open, docker containers, and the occasional video playback. That’s enough for me, and I’m not convinced that a Mac would have meaningfully higher battery life with the same workload (especially running Docker, which is a hog on MacOS).