This isn't really a thread for Apple vs. PC wars and I wasn't making an Apple vs. PC argument anyway. I was saying that the difference between an 11hr battery life and an 18hr battery life is negligible in practice for most of us, yet reviewers and Apple-preferers keep extolling it as some super criteria. I don't need it and I don't believe people in this thread are going ten hours between opportunities to top up either.
Still, I'll reply to a few of the things that were directed at me as it'll be quick.
Penny-pinching work laptops is penny-wise, pound-retarded.
Spending the same amount of money on something that is more useful to you is not "penny-pinching". You're arguing with a preconception of what I said.
You said battery life doesn't matter
Please do not rephrase what I said into something else. I never said anything as silly as "battery life doesn't matter". If you're looking at some low-end laptop that gets four hours and comparing it to something that gets ten hours, it's a factor. If you're comparing something that gets eleven hours with something that gets eighteen, then I said it's not that important to the vast majority. I stand by that.
The market says otherwise. Apple has grown its market share for years against Dell, HPE, and Lenovo (that's who it competes with, not Microsoft). Saying they don't truly compete because Windows and OSX don't have 100% application compatibility is cope.
Again, please point to where I said anything as simplistic as that. What I did say is that I don't take market share as a proxy for quality. You are perhaps implying that it shows vendors and reviewers are right to focus on battery life. I would point out that people buy things they don't need all the time and I'd also point out that Apple hardware is generally excellent. It's a mistake to assume you know how much of a factor of all that, having an 18hr battery life over an 11hr battery life is. It's also, and I shouldn't have to explain this to you, not comparing like for like because Apple sells to the upper-mid and higher end only. Whereas the proper comparison of market share would be across similar price brackets. Now you're a very smart cookie which makes me think either (a) you were just having a slow day when you made that point, (b) you're being disingenuous or (c) you are mistakenly engaging me on the level of some fanboy argument trying to show me that Apple is doing well. If it's (c) that's one Hell of an extrapolation from: 'we've passed the point of diminishing returns on battery life for mid- and upper- laptops'.
The opportunity cost of a dead battery isn't $2.01, it's getting nothing done at all. Over 5 years of asset depreciation, a laptop only needs to save me 3-5 dead battery incidents to be worth it to the company.
Well it would. But faulty batteries are a very different metric to how much power a processor draws. You were quoting me power consumption differences between the Intel chips and AMD chips. Fault rates on batteries is not something I ever commented on. Or are you trying to comment that an 18hr battery has a significantly lower failure rate than an 11hr one? If so, make that case, but it'd have to be something inherent to different capacity of battery or it's nothing to do with what I said. For dead batteries, I think what would most matter would be ease of replacement. (Which I'd point out I can do quite easily on a Thinkpad, but that would be getting sucked into your Apple vs. PC debate rather than sticking to my 18hr vs. 11hr point).
+18% performance doesn't save you +18% time, especially not on a laptop, given what laptops are used for. Like if you spend an hour on a Teams call, a faster CPU saves you zero time during that hour.
Maybe we suspend all advances in tech until they're stored up and we can jump in 100% performance increments so they're more significant. If I'm buying a mid to upper range laptop do I want my money to go something I don't care about (18hr battery life) or something I do (better performance). I do more with my laptop than Teams which is why I want one that is more capable. And yes - to +18% performance does save me +18% of my time if it's something that I am stalled on. The shorter the interruptions between doing something and seeing the results of it, the better. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't get why you're so invested in arguing with me when I say 18hr battery life is redundant to most professional people.
Apple will never put a touch screen on their macbooks for fear of cannibalizing the ipad line. I'd buy a macbook/ipad hybrid in a heartbeat but some things aren't meant to be.
On the plus side, it always affords my colleagues a good laugh when I borrow one of their Macs and they see me jabbing my finger at the screen because of muscle memory.
Maybe if you're scoring an overstock deal from an Amazon 3rd-party seller. 32 GB Ryzen AI notebooks aren't even listed by Lenovo now.
American-centric viewpoint.
But not really relevant to my argument anyway.
I think this is a new one, "The Windows OS Thread" derailed into "Apple Hardware Shilling Thread".
Yeah. This ballooned. I'd like to end it there. But I'll respond to any mis-characterisations of what I said.
How about the fact that this week I've been unable to perform Winget updates due to Microsoft due to a failure on Microsoft's CDNs. Some sort of Azure fuck-up. Not quite as public a failure as AWS's last week but annoying nonetheless.
European region still affected yesterday:
Code:
PS C:\> nslookup cdn.winget.microsoft.com
Server: UnKnown
Address: 192.168.1.1
*** UnKnown can't find cdn.winget.microsoft.com: Server failed
PS C:\> nslookup winget.microsoft.com
Server: UnKnown
Address: 192.168.1.1
Name: winget.microsoft.com
PS C:\> nslookup microsoft.com
Server: UnKnown
Address: 192.168.1.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: microsoft.com
Addresses: 2603:1020:201:10::10f
2603:1010:3:3::5b
2603:1030:b:3::152
2603:1030:20e:3::23c
2603:1030:c02:8::14
13.107.213.51
13.107.246.51
