Re:Review: Apple's efficient M3 MacBook Airs are just about ...
by taylodl on Monday March 11, 2024 @12:45PM
(#39670468)
I'll take the 16" MBP, thanks. I can get more memory, in my case 36GB vs. 24GB, I get more cores, and most importantly, I get more ports. Am I paying half as much again? Yes. But I'm getting a machine I can realistically use for at least twice as long, so it's a better value in the long run and delivers more capability over its lifetime. Obviously, YMMV.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Review: Apple's efficient M3 MacBook Airs are just about ...
by Spartan-S63 on Monday March 11, 2024 @12:56PM
(#39670605)
I realized recently that my 16" M1 Max MBP is entering its third year of service for me. It still feels fast and I have plenty of disk space. I do wish I had more memory, but I have plenty for what I do now—though I'd want more if I did more with on-device LLMs.
I was tempted by the M3 Max, but I'll wait for M4 Max since my M1 Max is barely breaking a sweat.
For me, The Mx Pro/Max is a must-have since I tend to be a heavier user. For a casual user, though, I think the base Mx Air is a fine machine. In fact, I have a coworker doing SWE work on an M2 Air.
Re:Review: Apple's efficient M3 MacBook Airs are just about ...
by TMWNN on Monday March 11, 2024 @04:09PM
(#39672708)
>I'll take the 16" MBP, thanks. I can get more memory, in my case 36GB vs. 24GB
My current and previous MacBooks have had 16GB and I've been fine with it, but given local LLMs I think I'm going to have to go to whatever will be the maximum RAM available for the next model.
Similarly, I am for the first time going to care about how much RAM is in my next iPhone. My iPhone 13's 4GB is suddenly inadequate.
Re:Review: Apple's efficient M3 MacBook Airs are just about ...
by taylodl on Monday March 11, 2024 @04:18PM
(#39672786)
> My current and previous MacBooks have had 16GB and I've been fine with it
I have too, but my MBP is from 2012! It's not unrealistic for me to consider a machine that's going to get me to 2034.