MacBook Neo is going to sell like crazy. In the education market, educators, students, aides... nothing close at this price point. With memory and SSD prices so high I don't see how Dell, Asus and others are going to be able to compete. Unless the build quality is significantly worse than a M1 macbook air not sure budget PC makers will be able to compete.
I think the major reason for the aggressive price point of the Neo, and for not raising RAM and SSD upgrade prices in the MBP much, is that Apple is willing to give up some hardware margin to have more devices to sell services to. Unless I am mistaken, services have been key to Apple’s recent revenue growth. This isn’t a bad thing at this point, but could auger poorly if they foolishly chase recurring revenue at the expense of hardware quality (their software quality has already slipped in recent years).
I expect a price increase. They had a bunch of hardware releases planned far in advance of the supply chain disruption. It'd be a bad look for their new products if they raised the prices on all these new devices at the same time; that'd be the primary discussion everywhere.
The smart move would be to release all your cool new toys at the traditional price points (or very nearly the same) and then raise prices a bit down the road. This way your reviews are strictly about the hardware / products rather than the prices. Bump them in two months. It'll be a big story, but it didn't prevent all the glowing reviews that were already published.
I think the Neo, possibly the 'e' phone, might be the only device(s) that doesn't increase. Taking a hit on 8GB of RAM might be tolerable for market gains when they're charging a kidney and a lung for higher-end devices.
> Apple is willing to give up some hardware margin
Did they give up a large chunk of margin, or have they been able to offset some of the higher costs of commodity chips by replacing high margin components with their own in house designs?
Designing and manufacturing your own components (CPU/GPU, Cellular modem, WiFi/Bluetooth, etc.) isn't free, but it's cheaper than paying someone else a markup at Apple's scale.
Most of the services revenue is stuff you don’t have a choice not paying.
The Google default deal? That’s a massive chunk of services. App Store junk fees? The other massive part of it. The rest of their services are a much smaller part.
>If you have 32GB Macs, and you had them 7 years ago already, you're not even remotely close to the target market for it.
that market is already saturated with a zillion decent-spec chromebook style machines. The only reason the Neo market is even slightly different is to cater to crowds that want the apple offerings for OS and fashion/reputation.
The market we're talking about has no real reason to care what kind of chip is in the thing. They just want YouTube/Discord/Zoom/EduWebsites to work right.
>that market is already saturated with a zillion decent-spec chromebook style machines.
Yeah, come back in a year when we have sales numbers for the Neo and tell me how saturated it is.
>The only reason the Neo market is even slightly different is to cater to crowds that want the apple offerings for OS and fashion/reputation.
No, the real main reason is that the "zillion decent-spec chromebook style machines" are half-arsed and/or less powered and with worse build quality depending on the model. The "OS and fashion/reputation" are a bonus.
The interesting/unique thing about Apple's offering at this price point is the build quality, not the spec.
If you're a school IT department buying these in volume, you want something that actually lasts more than a year before pieces of plastic begin chipping off, hinges start wearing out, etc. And you want something that's easy to clean / sanitize sticky little kid fingerprints off of, and also to undo e.g. residue (from kids who thought it'd be a good idea to stick stickers on their take-home laptop) without worrying about either the adhesive or the thinner permanently damaging the chassis.
In both cases, Apple can actually promise this with the Neo, while none of the Chromebook OEMs can for their equivalent offerings at this price point. (The other OEMs can promise it, but only for offerings at higher price-points schools aren't willing to pay.)
Also, Apple can now promise that you can keep a pile of spares and spare parts, and swap parts between them easily, replace consumables like batteries, etc. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbPCGqoBB4Y). Which is essentially table stakes for the education market, but it's good that they've caught up.
While the Neo is a nice notebook, I think you are overestimating it's durability advantages.
> If you're a school IT department buying these in volume, you want something that actually lasts more than a year before pieces of plastic begin chipping off, hinges start wearing out, etc. And you want something that's easy to clean / sanitize sticky little kid fingerprints off of, and also to undo e.g. residue (from kids who thought it'd be a good idea to stick stickers on their take-home laptop) without worrying about either the adhesive or the thinner permanently damaging the chassis.
If you manage to break a plastic cover, that amount of force will certainly also dent, bent and/or dislodge the aluminum cover of the Neo.
I've never seen or heard about plastic chipping off due to normal use (i.e. just wear). In the EU chipping-off plastic due to wear (with normal use) would fall under warranty. I have seen aluminum covers on high-end HP notebooks being bent, dent, etc. For example when transported in a bag, with other things in it, aluminum is more likely to get damaged.
All major brands (Lenovo, HP, Apple, etc.) have at some point had issues with hinges. I think it's even fair to say that Apple isn't known for being particularly forth coming about acknowledging problems with hinges and issuing service advisories to repair those under warranty even when it's a known issue.
> good idea to stick stickers on their take-home laptop) without worrying about either the adhesive or the thinner permanently damaging the chassis.
Getting stickers off plastic covers vs getting stickers of macbook covers doesn't really matter in difficulty. If it is problematic for plastic, it's probably going to problematic for aluminum as well. There are a lot of cleaning agents aluminum doesn't like, which cause white-ish stains in it. You can test that yourself by putting an aluminum breadbox in a dishwasher.
> Also, Apple can now promise that you can keep a pile of spares and spare parts, and swap parts between them easily, replace consumables like batteries, etc.
Right now the Apple self-repair program is, from a financial standpoint, pretty much a gimmick. The costs are so high, you are better of going to the Apple store. Also the swap-able battery is going to be mandatory in the EU so that's something all notebooks will have. Schools usually aren't that interested in starting a repair shop.
This guy [1] that posted about his series of plastic laptops over the years is a telling indictment of what the PC/chromebook value range is about. Hinges easily damage, bits and pieces falling off, can't go from closed to open with one finger, etc. In my region in Australia schools require parents to buy a laptop and the choice is between PC and Mac (Chromebook not allowed); before the Neo getting a Mac would be a budget constraint, especially for their children, but now it is such an easy sensible choice.
Yep. Anyone saying a MacBook of any kind is comparable to the average school Chromebook has clearly never touched a school Chromebook anywhere other than in a Best Buy.
$200 — or even $500 — plastic computers are different in kind (of parts and materials used) to $800+ computers. It's not anything you'd notice when the hardware is new — not the extreme "deck flex" or anything like that — but it becomes clear after 3–6 months of even light use.
Planned obsolescence is real. But, rather than being a result of malicious adulteration, it is the predictable result of aiming for an MSRP (and therefore COGS) where the only viable parts and materials the OEM can get their hands on to meet that price point, have engineering tolerances far below the use-case they’re applying them to. The makers of $500 Chromebooks know they'll break well before buyers expect them to. But with their middling purchasing power and economies of scale, this is the best they can do.
Apple, meanwhile, can hit the same MSRP not by cheaping out on parts, but rather through economies of scale and manufacturing consolidation. Obviously the A18. But also: buy enough high-quality aluminum in bulk, and stamp the same modular chassis parts out for every laptop you make — and those parts start to get cheap enough to use even in a $500 product.
I daily-drive a base level MacBook Air M1 with 8GB RAM for writing docs and some light coding in VIM/VSCode. Never had any issues.
When I need more I offload tasks to a remote VM (usually AWS/GCP).
I can easily afford a top spec Mac but chose this because I want to have a “entry level” device that I don’t mind my kids breaking or getting stolen at public co-working space.
Plenty of people will get MacBook Neo and never hit its limitations.
Most students/educators and many professionals just use the web all day and never need much RAM.
Having said all that, Apple could easily have made it 16GB cleaned up the market place and nobody would be talking about Neo being under spec’d. But Tim Cook has to be a Tim Cook and squeeze every last penny of profit. ;-)
Having said all that, Apple could easily have made it 16GB cleaned up the market place and nobody would be talking about Neo being under spec’d. But Tim Cook has to be a Tim Cook and squeeze every last penny of profit. ;-)
I think this has more to do with binned A18 Pro SoCs which enables Apple to do this with economies of scale. A later version may get the 12GB variant of the A19 Pro SoCs.
I haven't bought an 8GB laptop since probably 2012 when I got a Sony Vaio that they upgrade to 12GB for free because of a delivery delay. I wouldn't buy an 8GB device in 2026, but this device isn't targeted at either of us.
For a lot of people who are looking at sub $800 laptops, the option to get an Apple will probably be enough to convince them. And apart from the limited memory, it really isn't a bad buy.
I also fully expect most budget devices to ship with 8GB of memory until the end of the DDR5 crisis anyway.
Flash has finite write endurance. NVMe swap can burn through it pretty quick. Which is isn't that bad because if it wears out you can replace it... unless the drive is soldered.
Mac SSDs are expected to last 8-10 years, even with high use. though Apple don't publish these values specifically, it's possible to start to extrapolate from the SMART data when it starts showing errors.
A good SSD ought to be able to cope with ~600TBW. My ~4.5-year-old MBP gives the following:
smartctl --all /dev/disk0
...
Data Units Read: 1,134,526,088 [580.8 TB]
Data Units Written: 154,244,108 [78.7 TB]
...
Media and Data Integrity Errors: 0
Error Information Log Entries: 0
...
I'm sure an 8GB RAM machine would use more swap than my 16GB one, but probably not much more, given that mine has had heavy use for development and most people don't use their laptops for anything like that. Even so, that would still put it well within the expectation of 8-10 years, and that's for a $600 laptop.
> I'm sure an 8GB RAM machine would use more swap than my 16GB one, but probably not much more
It's non-linear. If you have a 17GB working set size, a 16GB machine is actively using 1GB of swap, but the 8GB machine is using 9GB. If you have a 14GB working set size, the 16GB machine doesn't need to thrash at all, but the 8GB machine is still doing 6GB.
Meanwhile "SSDs are fast" is the thing that screws you here. Once your actual working set (not just some data in memory the OS can swap out once and leave in swap) exceeds the size of physical memory, the machine has to swap it in and back out continuously. Which you might not notice when the SSD is fast and silent, but now the fact that the SSD will write at 2GB/sec means you can burn through that entire 600TBW in just over three days, and faster drives are even worse.
On top of that, the write endurance is proportional to the size of the drive. 600TBW is pretty typical for the better consumer 1TB drives, but a smaller drive gets proportionally less. And then the machines with less RAM are typically also paired with smaller drives.
Most people using these things aren't going to be using more than 8GB on an ongoing basis, and if they do, they'll not be swapping it like mad as you suggest, because it's only on application-switch that it will matter.
As for 600TB in just over 3 days, I want some of what you're smoking.
> Most people using these things aren't going to be using more than 8GB on an ongoing basis, and if they do, they'll not be swapping it like mad as you suggest, because it's only on application-switch that it will matter.
To begin with, a single application can pretty easily use more than 8GB by itself these days.
But suppose you are using multiple applications at once. If one of them actually has a large working set size -- rendering, AI, code compiling, etc. -- and then you run it in the background because it takes a long time (and especially takes a long time when you're swapping), its working set size is stuck in physical memory because it's actively using it even in the background and if it got swapped out it would just have to be swapped right back in again. If that takes 6GB, you now only have 2GB for your OS and whatever application you're running in the foreground. And if it takes 10GB then it doesn't matter if you're even running anything else.
Now, does that mean that everybody is doing this? Of course not. But if that is what you're doing, it's not great that you may not even notice that it's happening and then you end up with a worn out drive which is soldered on for no legitimate reason.
> As for 600TB in just over 3 days, I want some of what you're smoking.
2GB/s is 8200GB/hour is 172.8TB/day. It's the worst case scenario if you max out the drive.
In practice it might get hot and start thermally limiting before then, or be doing both reads and writes and then not be able to sustain that level of write performance, but "about a week" is hardly much better.
Yeah dude, "Rendering, AI, code compiling,..." is not the target market for this device. It's just not.
> 2GB/s is 8200GB/hour is 172.8TB/day. It's the worst case scenario if you max out the drive.
Right, which is completely and utterly unrealistic. As I said, I want what you're smoking.
I have an 8GB M1 mini lying around somewhere (I just moved country) which was my kids computer for several years before he got an MBP this Xmas. He had the sort of load that would be more typical - web-browsing, playing games, writing the occasional thing in Pages, streaming video, etc. etc. If I can find it (I was planning on making it the machine to manage my CNC) I'll look at the SMART output from that. I'm willing to bet it's not going to look much different from the above...
> Yeah dude, "Rendering, AI, code compiling,..." is not the target market for this device. It's just not.
None of the people who want to do those things but can't afford a more expensive machine will ever attempt to do them on the machine they can actually afford then, is that right?
> Right, which is completely and utterly unrealistic.
"Unrealistic" is something that doesn't happen. This is something that happens if you use that machine in a particular way, and there are many people who use machines in that way.
> He had the sort of load that would be more typical - web-browsing, playing games, writing the occasional thing in Pages, streaming video, etc. etc.
Then you would have a sample size of one determined by all kinds of arbitrary factors like whether any of the games had a large enough working set to make it swap, how many hours were spent playing that game instead of another one etc.
The problem is not that it always happens. The problem is that it can happen, and then they needlessly screw you by soldering the drive.
> The problem is not that it always happens. The problem is that it can happen
Ah. So, FUD, then. Gotcha.
“This ridiculously unlikely scenario is something I’m going to hype up and complain about because I don’t like some aspects of this companies business model”.
600 TBW in 3 days. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
I’ve never had an SSD crap out because of read/write cycle exhaustion, and I’ve been using SSD almost exclusively, for over a dozen years. I’ve had plenty of spinning rust ones croak, though. You don’t solder those in, so it’s not really a fair comparison.
I did have one of those dodgy Sandisks, but that was a manufacturing defect.
If you have 24GB of RAM and a 12GB working set then it's fine. Likewise if you have 8GB of RAM and a 4GB working set. But 8GB of RAM and a 12GB working set, not the same thing.
Most flash memory will happily accept writes long after passing the TBW 'limit'. If write endurance would be that much of a problem I'd expect the second hand market to be saturated with 8Gb M1 MacBooks with dead SSDs by now. Since that's obviously not the case I think it's not that bad.
> Most flash memory will happily accept writes long after passing the TBW 'limit'.
That's the problem, isn't it? It does the write, it will read back fine right now, but the flash is worn out and then when you try to read back the data in six months, it's corrupt.
> If write endurance would be that much of a problem I'd expect the second hand market to be saturated with 8Gb M1 MacBooks with dead SSDs by now.
That's assuming it's sufficiently obvious to the typical buyer. You buy the machine with a fresh OS install and only newly written data, everything seems fine. Your 30 day warranty/return period expires, still fine. Then it starts acting weird.
> That's the problem, isn't it? It does the write, it will read back fine right now, but the flash is worn out and then when you try to read back the data in six months, it's corrupt.
SSD firmware does patrol reads and periodically rewrites data blocks. It also does error correction. Cold storage is a known issue with any SSD, but I don't have any insight in how bad this problem is in reality.
Of course it will wear out eventually, but so will the rest of the system components. There's nothing to be gained by making SSDs that last 30 years when the other components fail in 15.
> Then it starts acting weird.
Is that speculation or do you have any facts to back that up?
Well, I am just saying it is not for me, and neither for anyone else who is not a newbie. It for sure is a great first laptop for kids or students (in the humanities).
I don't think I am the one trying to put anyone down here. Just telling you how it is. I stand by every word. I mean, I wouldn't exchange my 7 year (!) old laptop for this. It seems also to be Apple's opinion (Macbook Newbie, I mean Macbook Neo).
That was all x86_64, but even if aarch64 is more memory efficient, it can’t be too drastic, and 8GiB was borderline unusable even 10 years ago.
Nowadays it must be a teeth-grinding tight fit for a browser and couple Electron apps, held together on a prayer next website doesn’t go too crazy with the bells and whistles and wasn’t vibeslopped with utter disregard to any big-Os.
Because look around - same code compiled for x86_64 and aarch64 is not that drastically different in size, save for some special cases (like NumPy). Data structures are going to have even less differences. Then, assets are the same.
I’ve cursorily checked few programs and difference seemed to about 10-20% (with some exceptions), so 8GiB RAM on an aarch64 is like 10GB on x86_64. Significantly nicer, not a life-changing nicer - you’re still very limited.
Edit: Next comment has a very good point about memory and SSD bandwidth increases, allowing faster swap and compressed RAM performance. That’s something I haven’t considered. So maybe it’ll feel closer to a 16GiB old machine or something like that…
Yeah. Also the bandwidth of modern soldered-on Mac SSDs is insane compared to where it was in the Intel era. The performance impact of moving applications in and out of swap should be much lower than it was a few years ago.
> And oh yes, the modern Mac shares those 8GB with the video RAM...
The Unified Memory Architecture is why these Macs are so fast—no wasted cycles moving data between RAM and GPU. And the data is compressed in real-time so less data has to be transferred and there's less ware and tear on the SSD, which is directly to SoC [1].
UMAs aren't made for speed, but for power savings. You are ignoring the fact that a discrete GPU accesses VRAM and caches at much higher bandwidths (and power) than an iGPU does RAM. Shared mem also comes at the cost of keeping it coherent between CPU/GPU. So you can't just look at one part of the system and then claim that UMAs must be faster because there are no data transfers.
And by the way, even on UMAs, the iGPU can still have a dedicated segment of memory not readable by the CPU. Therefore UMA does not imply there won't be data transfers.
That's not really a thing with Apple Silicon. The A series chips and the M series have the same CPU and GPU core designs.
Because you don't need to support Thunderbolt 4/5 controllers, PCIe lanes for NVMe storage, ProRes encode/decode engines (on Pro/Max/Ultra tiers) and multiple external displays in a device like a phone, Apple TV, or a HomePod these features are absent from A series chips.
The A17 Pro corresponds to the M3, the A18/A18 Pro corresponds to the M4 and the A19/A19 Pro corresponds to the M5. Same core design, different implementations.
It's not like Intel where there are many server processors, desktop processors and mobile processors. Apple uses the same core design they scale up or down as needed, for example the S series chips in the Apple Watch. The S9 is a scaled down A13 or A15.
> This is Apple's "Nintendo moment" when they realize they can package old hardware and win on polish and ecosystem.
The A18 Pro isn't even two years old yet; it debuted in iPhone 16 Pro and 16 Pro Max September 2024. What's funny is none of the PC laptops manufactures can match the speed and quality of the Neo.
The benchmarks for the A18 Pro are impressive; its Single Thread Performance beats all mobile processors [1]; remember this processor was created for a phone:
Apple A18 Pro 4,091
Apple M1 8 Core 3200 MHz. 3,675
Apple A15 Bionic 3,579
AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme 3,546
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 230 3,538
Apple A14 Bionic 3,382
Intel Core i5-1235U 3,090
Apple A13 Bionic 2,354
Intel N150 1,902
Intel N100 1,893
AMD Ryzen Embedded R1505G 1,820
Apple have historically moved forward minimum requirements for macOS and apps a bit aggressively. They need to slow that down now if they want us to take the macbook neo seriously.
Good. So many software developers have gotten so lazy with RAM usage in the past few decades. I hope the Neo is a kick in the pants to get everyone in the Apple ecosystem to take memory usage seriously.
> So many software developers have gotten so lazy with RAM usage in the past few decades.
Fewer developers want to write ASM or C, today. Slower to market, slower to roll out features, etc. While that may seem like a good thing, and probably could be, the market doesn't like it.
Developer choose heavy weight frameworks or don't make use of modern features in said frameworks to improve performance. And in some cases, performance can be 'good enough'. If I pretended to be a developer, if my app performs well enough, it's not my problem what else is running on your system. Besides, the OS governs it all regardless.
That said, macOS has a terrible memory leak _somewhere_ that impacts even OOTB apps and this hasn't been corrected for the last two major releases.
You don't need to program in ASM or C to write a memory efficient program. Swift, Go, Rust, C++ and C# are all reasonably memory efficient at the scales we're talking about.
Usually you just have to actually look at memory usage and trim the obvious fat. But so many developers these days treat memory as an infinite resource, and don't have a clue how to use profiling tools to even investigate memory usage. That and, maybe stop shipping a copy of Chrome with your application.
I'm hopeful that LLMs will improve the state of application development. Claude can write sloppy code, but it also knows how to write rust and swift, and it knows a lot of tricks for optimisation if you prompt it.
There's 3rd party libraries which know how to interact with spotify. I wonder how many claude code tokens it would take to make a simple, native spotify client. Or discord client. Or client for Teams or Slack.
It's really quite bad. 'Telegram Lite' is using 1.16GB with just a single chat vs Signal using 193MB. Somehow vscode (including their renderers) manages to come in pretty low compared to even Apples native apps.
I’d disable major OS updates and stay on Tahoe, and only upgrade if other Neo owners report it’s ok to do so. Ive been burned by iOS updates that made the phone sluggish enough times.
Not necessarily a reason to avoid the Neo, for the right use case. If I had secondary school kids they’d get one of these, but something to bear in mind.
In the US, cheap ThinkPads like E14 sometimes sell for a bit less when you factor in all typical discounts. They are good machines that run Linux well and can be repaired.
In EU, and I imagine other markets, there's nothing remotely close. I hope this puts some pressure on Lenovo and the rest of manufacturers to be more competitive.
In the EU it costs $200 more so it's more like a low to mid range laptop.
I have a feeling these are aimed at the same sector as the Framework 12, school provided laptops for kids meant to be bought in bulk by institutions. But there they're competing against $150 Chromebooks and neither is even close.
In the EU, you don't need to buy an extended warranty, since existing consumer protection laws require the sort of extended repair coverage Americans have to pay extra for.
Taxes are also included in the EU price, but not the US price.
The lack of reflection indicated by "US prices are so much cheaper! Why are our electronics so expensive?" vs "What do you mean, you can't take it back to the store where you got it for an on-the-spot replacement a year and a half after purchase if it breaks?" has amused me for quite some time. Not that both come from the same person, but don't they ever talk to each other?
Yes but be aware this only goes where Apple is the actual seller. If you buy it in another shop you only have Apple warranty for one year and the shop has to sort out the second one. So buying from Apple directly is better.
I always wondered why nobody's ever tried to reach me about an extended warranty despite it being such a meme. I guess that's why, pretty fucked up ngl.
The Macbook Neo is highly repairable too [1]. Not _quite_ as repairable as some Thinkpads with a 10/10 score, but still pretty respectable at a 6/10 with easily replaceable batteries and stuff.
RAM has no bearing on repairability? And yes, sure stuff is soldered to the motherboard, but everything is basically modular outside of it, you can replace every big part pretty easily, and no glue, even for the battery
The RAM being soldered is a hit against repair ability, you can't expand it or if the ram has issues you can't replace it, you will just be forced to throw out the entire machine. What else is modular here anyways? Can I swap out the CPU, the screen, the keyboard, ports...anything?
Why are the Thinkpads getting 10/10 when the math coprocessor can’t be replaced and the N2 cache is inside the CPU as well?
We culturally decide what parts can or cannot be replaced. Apple solders their RAM on the CPU for performance reasons. It’s coming to PCs at some point, if they ever decide to compete on performance ever again.
> Apple solders their RAM on the CPU for performance reasons. It’s coming to PCs at some point, if they ever decide to compete on performance ever again.
Are you assuming that the PCs do not compete with Macs for performance? People built Hackintoshes that are more powerful than the highest spec Mac Pro - and for cheaper, too
On laptops, which is something between 80-90% of the market for computers, you'd be hard pressed to find a laptop that's competitive with Apple. Can you find a laptop chip that's as good as the M5 Max? Or the M3 Max for that matter.
Laptop PCs are starting to lag behind Apple, just like the fastest Android phones have a hard time competing with three year old iPhones.
Of course on the desktop, you can just pump more power into a disappointing x86 chip to eke out better perf but that market is marginal and Apple basically ignores it. Laptops might not be a problem for you specifically but this situation, where a company has advantages but is inadequate for the needs of the market, is how so many chip manufacturers just disappeared in the 90s.
Soldering RAM isn't for compact size or cost or to keep you from upgrading, it's for speed. Soldered RAM can be physically closer with a faster bus than removable RAM.
Neo's RAM is Package on Package, it is literally soldered on top of the A18.
In fact, Neo's Mainboard is in the same ballpark as a Desktop RAM DIMM, which means replacing the whole Mainboard is in the same as replacing the RAM on a Desktop from an environmental perspective.
PC makers are going to stop some of the artificial segmentation they used on the lower price devices, and that is going to hurt the sales of their higher-end lines. There is no reason they kept pushing 70 percent srgb panels on even the mid tier Thinkpads when the Neo has a good display.
I can't imagine the low end materials actually save that much cost anyway.
There's a tremendous amount of Bill-of-Materials inflation where a part that cost $5 more translates to $50 retail price increase when the actual work and engineering cost is exactly the same. This is one of the terribly annoying facts of product design, the incredible premium you have to pay for good parts that don't actually cost very much at all.
I wonder if it’s less about price and more about supply chains. Are there enough manufacturing capacity to allow every laptop maker to secure enough supply?
In advance of the neo’s release, Apple probably invested billions in ensuring the supply chain was ready.
I'm glad Apple's caring about the education market again – people forget how it (and DTP) sustained Apple through the lean years of the 90s, until they came out with iMac and iBook.
Ironically probably one of my biggest reasons against buying one is it's obvious desirability.
I've already once in my life been in a situation where I can say with certainty the only reason my laptop wasn't stolen is that it wasn't a MacBook(despite having equal or above retail purchase value). I wouldn't be surprised if there's more that I never knew about.
As someone who has been working in IT support for years, for most people a Windows laptop in the $400 range is cheaper if you add on-site IT support, parts replacement, and a longer warranty period. I wonder where Apple stands here.
> Apple is going to cannibalize their own laptop market.
As long as you buy a Mac laptop, Apple is fine with that, regardless of which one. That’s because they know who their customers are.
The Neo is in its own category; the $599/$699 Neo doesn’t compete with a 14-inch MacBook Pro with a M5 Pro, 24GB of RAM, and 1 TB SSD at $1899. If you know you need more RAM and storage than Neo, the M5 Mac Air is $1099. But if you need to stay under $1000, the decision is clear.
If anything, the Neo is more competitive with the entry-level iPad with 128 GB of storage at $349; with Apple's keyboard at $249, the total is $598, $1 less than the entry-level Neo.
For someone who wants a "real" laptop with more flexibility than an iPad, getting the $599 Neo is a no-brainer.
I think this is actually the reason the Neo has 8 GB of RAM (non-upgradable). It’s their anti-cannibalization strategy.
They’re relying on the huge portion of their existing laptop market who self-identifies as “tech-savvy” or “enthusiast” and thinks 8 GB of RAM is a non-starter.
Those folks will keep buying Mac laptops at double (or triple, quadruple, …) the price.
> I think this is actually the reason the Neo has 8 GB of RAM (non-upgradable). It’s their anti-cannibalization strategy.
It has 8 GB of RAM because they wouldn’t be able to hit the price point of $599 with more; their target audience doesn't need more. It's also why the SSD is slower than a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air; it's the only device in the lineup other than the entry-level iPad with a sRGB display; the other devices have P3 Wide Color Displays. No Thunderbolt ports, only supports 1 external display and only at 4K. No Wi-Fi 7.
These are some of the compromises they made to keep the price down. They're also using a binned A18 Pro with 5 GPU cores instead of the 6 core version in the iPhone 16 Pro and Pro Max.
There are lots of potential customer for which a Mac laptop was out of reach; it's a lot more affordable at $49.91 /month for 12 months for the $599 model.
Its display is better than PC laptops in the same price range, but that display is a non-starter for graphic designers, video editors, etc.
> It's also why the SSD is slower than a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air;
It's actually not that much slower, at least if you compare machines with the same amount of storage. The M2 and M3 MacBook Air with 256GB comes in at 1700 MB/s[1], while the Neo with 256GB is... drumroll... 1700 MB/s[2].
Yes, Air and Pro machines with more storage are faster. I have not seen any benchmark of the Neo with 512GB, so maybe it lags behind the Air and Pro there. But I've not seen anyone publish a benchmark which actually demonstrates that.
I should clarify that I was referring to the memory bandwidth. Compared to the 100 GB/s of a M3 MacBook Air, the 60 GB/s of the Neo is 40% slower. My M1 Pro MacBook Pro's memory bandwidth is 200 GB/s; that's 3.33x faster than the Neo.
They are just covering all the market segments. This is for people who didn't want to shell out $1000 for a laptop for their kid, or have another one just to browse the web. Or they have an iphone but not a mac laptop, but now they might want one cause it's even cheaper than a phone. This will be pushed into schools probably as well.
I had a look at one in the Apple Store and think I'll probably stick with the Air for my next laptop. The Neo is cool and that but looks quite cheap and cheerful alongside the Airs.
The smartphone destroyed the iPod. If Apple artificially made the iPhone not capable of playing songs, then people would just buy a Samsung phone (which could play music).
This is really not the right comparison to make. An OS will use memory liberally. Give it more and it'll use more. Give it less and it'll swap to disk. So the real question is how long a given workload takes to complete, or whether you can multi-task without shitting out to/from disk every time you switch windows. "My OS uses X amount of RAM" is an entirely meaningless and irrelevant statement.
> the real question is how long a given workload takes to complete
The memory eaters most people are complaining about are not workloads, but shitty communication apps that keep all those cat pictures from the last 4 months uncompressed in ram...
Browsers use available RAM for cache, but they don't require that much. Firefox officially supports running on Macs down to 512MB of RAM. It will just be slower.
ITs going to sell like crazy not because of specs, but because its apple, and its a cheap. Cause god forbid you pull out a chromebook in a starbucks and be seen as a peasant.
If you know what you are doing and don't want to spend a lot of money, its really not that hard to buy a refurbished thinkpad, swap in more ram, and install your linux disro of choice, for a lower price and get very similar usable performance.
Only if what you want to do fits neatly within the walled garden. I personally like my freedom to tinker, and get great performance, functionality, and stability with Linux.
Aside from gaming, I can do basically everything on Mac that I can on Linux or Windows. That's a hell of a lot more than a Chromebook. Take it from someone who has owned both a Chromebook and a Macbook; suggesting that they are in the same league is silly.
Also, used != new. I'm surprised people need to be reminded of this.
It appears most people - even on Hacker News(!) - are unaware that Chromebooks have a one-click Linux VM (currently Debian Trixie is the default). It is well-integrated into the Chrome desktop/launcher, and any Linux app can even be pinned onto the taskbar, next to your browser. Any Linux package you can `apt get` or `curl | sh` can run on Chromebooks made in the last 5ish years.
Yep, I've been using ChromeOS/ built-in Debian VM for light VS Code, web dev and terminal stuff on a 150 dollar Lenovo ARM Chromebook with 4GB RAM for the last 2 years as my couch PC. I just disabled Android apps because that pushed it over the line.
Gets about 10 hours battery life, touchpad is way better than my $799 Lenovo Ideapad (ChromeOS is weirdly good with even cheap touchpad hardware) and does an incredible job of suspending idle tabs without being noticeable. No rooting, jailbreaking, etc required and unlike my M1 Macbook I can actually install apps without the ridiculous click app->can't open unverified app->settings->security->open anyway->click app second time-> open anyway song and dance.
Would I recommend it as your primary development device? Certainly not, and Neo would be a much better experience for sure but it also costs 4x as much so shrug.
I bought it entirely because I wanted the cheapest modern ARM Chromebook I could find with good battery life since my m1 Macbook is pretty much always tied to a dock and but pleasantly surprised by how much it could actually do beyond just web browsing.
Yes because normal people want to run Linux just like normal people would rather “build such a system quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.”
Normal people won't even know there's a VM in the background, Linux apps launch and behave like any other ChromeOS app. The integration is very well done, and its evident you've never used it, or even seen how it works in practice and youre hallucinating non-existing complexity. All one has to enable a setting, and they can double-click a Linux app flatpak or AppImage to launch it.
My personal laptop is my phone which is a Samsung S25 ultra with Dex that I use with a lapdock.
When I travel and need to do work (i.e coding), I don't even bring my mac because I can do everything on my phone with a VPN. VSCode runs as a local web app, python works. The only thing that doesn't work is pytorch with pip install, but I don't need it for work and I could get it to work easily if I compiled it myself.
The UI is fast, I have twice the ram of the Neo, all my apps in one place, my phone lasts longer because lapdock charges it, and I can easily multitask between work and personal all on one device.
And thats with the "limitation" of android. Before I got that setup, I had a $300 ebay refurbished Thinkpad (don't even remember the model, just one where I could get a ram stick to get it to 32gb), and I ran with #!++ linx and i3wm. It booted up faster than my work macbook, was way more responsive, and I didn't have to jump through MacOS bullshit like permissions and all the other crap when trying to do stuff.
The simple truth is that Macs never were, are not, and never will be worth it for anything. Anytime you try to argue this, you out yourself as an obvious fanboy thats wants his shiny new metal laptop to feel like he as some sort of better tool.
You can do more if you have a lot more RAM. Otherwise you really are that restricted.
In the country I live in, there is no comparable Chromebook spec-wise on par with the Neo at a similar price point. You're basically stuck with 4GB RAM.
Justifying having 8gb as a good amount, while downplaying 4gb as not enough is pretty hilarious. Chromebooks run fine with 4gb of ram, especially if you install linux and use zram+swap.
You can get a regular laptop and have even more ram with Linux. Not sure why you are stuck on the Chromebook.
If Apple continues with the budget Neo brand into a 12 GB iteration, I can see this becoming more realistic (rather than a novelty). That being said, Parallels may need to review its licensing with a budget tier in mind. Few will buy a cheap computer and then pay what Parallels charges for a license (regardless if one-time or subscription).
They need to introduce something below the Standard license targeting the Neo. What I'd personally consider is:
- Standard gets 16 GB vRAM (to perfectly target the base MacBook Air). But leave it at 4-6 vCPUs to not compete with the Pro (still for general computing, not power-users)
- New "Lite" tier with 8 GB vRAM max for the Neo (4 vCPUs). Increasing to 12 GB vRAM if the Neo does.
Then you target a $89 price point one-time-purchase for the "Lite" tier. Essentially three plans, targeting your three major demographics: budget, standard, and pro/power-user.
This isn't a novelty it will crush the low end of the PC market. No one cares if the next iteration will be better with 12GB of ram. The workloads that people say that 8GB can't handle will be ones that the actual users will either wait or tolerate. I've been noticing that people who review the Macbook Neo basically don't get the point [1] and just the headline of this article matters that VMs work and thats a big win. The most ridicuous thing about the laptop is that it appears to be reparable which sort of tells me this is a template similar to the M1 Air of the future laptop designs that Apple will come out with. [2]
> This isn't a novelty it will crush the low end of the PC market.
You took what I said out of context and then replied to something else. Running Parallels on a Neo is a novelty. Parallels is both what the thread is about AND what my reply was expressly about.
Nobody can reasonably read what I wrote, in context, and believe I was referring to the computer itself as a novelty.
I saw the other day people complaining about AI slop being posted on this site by new accounts - which I agree is bad.
Someone suggested that people with 10k karma and/or 10 years subscription to this site should be able to do things (such as auto-ban) to those accounts.
The account that misrepresented your comment and thus acted in bad faith is one of those 10k+ accounts.
To me, this is a data point showing the fallacy of long term subscription and/or karma accrual as evidence of their quality/good faith abilities
I admit now after rereading that I did misrepresent what they said and I should have read their comment more closely and it was a knee jerk reaction and that its my fault.
I take it's repairability slightly differently. That's because it is highly modular, and I think the reason for that is longevity. They put a lot of engineering effort into this thing, and so at this price point that has to pay back over a lot of devices over a long period. This design isn't going to change for many years, but the internals will iterate independently.
Windows doesn't run "just fine" on 4 GiB of RAM. I had a laptop with 6; Windows 10 became barely usable. If you want to run one, small, program at a time I think you'll be ok. Forget about web browsing; you'll get one tab and it'll be slow.
Agreed. Windows 10/11 can run just fine on 4GB of RAM. You just can't run anything inside of Windows 10/11 with 4GB of RAM.
The last version of Windows that felt like 4GB of RAM was performant for me with applications was Windows XP. Not that every computer running the 32-bit edition of Windows XP could even see/utilize a full 4GB of RAM properly, but at least it was fast.
I ran a Windows 7 system with 3GiB as a gaming machine and it was just fine. Windows 7... the last Windows release that was acceptable-ish. Memories...
A lightweight Linux desktop can keep a decent amount of browser tabs (using Firefox; avoid Chrome) on 4GB RAM if you set up compressed RAM properly. It's not foolproof like 8GB would be, but it's absolutely fine for casual use.
2015 laptop, spinning rust. Nevertheless, it was at least somewhat acceptable at purchase, but crapware installed with successive system updates brought it to a standstill. An SSD might've helped, but not by much. I wiped it and put Kubuntu on it to give to my wife, for whom it ran acceptably. She gave it back when she got a shiny new MacBook Air.
A SSD would have made an absolutely massive difference.
Source: I have clients that still have 2nd/3rd gen i5 systems running 3-4 GB of RAM with Windows 10 and they're tolerable solely thanks to SSDs. Swapping that much on a hard drive would just be painful to use.
Nobody should be interactively using a computer post-2018ish (whenever SSDs fell below $1/GB) that's booting and running primary applications off spinning rust. They're perfectly fine for bulk storage drives but anyone waiting for an operating system booting off one has wasted enough of their life in the last year to have paid for the SSD. Companies that wouldn't spend $100 on an upgrade are literally throwing money away paying their employees to wait on a shit computer.
I recently helped a friend ditch Windows for Linux on an 8GB budget laptop he had. It had win11 on it which could barely function with nothing running, kept swapping like crazy to it's anemic eMMC "SSD". Windows can't really run reasonably with 4GB of RAM. It will only technically boot.
> Heck, you can get 8GB Windows laptops with twice the SSD size of the MacBook Neo's for a little over half of the Neo’s price (again, at full MSRP.)
Let's see one of these $300 Windows laptops with 512GB of SSD (in a reasonable format, e.g. not an SD card), a body that isn't disposable, a screen that isn't a dim potato, a CPU that's within 20% of the Neo's performance, and a GPU that isn't embarrassed to be called a GPU.
I think you're misunderstanding, of course they do not exist. People don't get $300 windows laptops for their performance, build quality, or anything similar. Nor do they care about screen brightness, and 256GB is fine for the use case which is running word or some other simple application for as little $$ as possible.
The implication in the comparison is that they’re similar. The similarity between a Neo and a $300 PC is that they can both boot up and run at least one program. That’s about where it ends.
They existed on AliExpress. Chuwis and the likes (though the latest ones are lying about the CPU model). You usually get nvme storage, not the very best of course but it does the job. And IPS display. It's overall ok stuff, but the memory crisis has pushed them above 300 now.. They usually run N150s.
I also got two N100 NUC like boxes with 16GB DDR4, 512GB NVMe for €115 each. Bought them as the memory crisis was starting. One is now my home assistant, the other one runs matrix.
I still use an ancient chuwi for going to the makerspace. It's still got hours of battery.
I went looking, and did find stuff on Amazon, though none were made of an aluminum chasis, and none had the geekbench score anywhere near, and none had the screen brightness.
As I write this, the top Amazon search for "windows laptop" is a
> Lenovo IdeaPad 15.6 inch Business Laptop with Microsoft 365 • 2026 Edition • Intel Core • Wi-Fi 6 • 1.1TB Storage (1TB OneDrive + 128GB SSD) • Windows 11
The person who approved describing its 128GB storage as 1.1TB should be hanged.
The CPU also has[0] 31% of the single core and 14% of the CPU Mark rating. The screen has 220 nits (vs 500) brightness, comes with 4GB of RAM, and weighs 30% more. At least it's half price, though.
The shopping situation for Windows laptops is utterly dire.
Neo is powered by a fast and battery-friendly chip. It's definitely not a novelty any more than Chromebooks or Windows 11 notebooks with integrated graphics have been.
Don't underestimate what you can do with the 8 GB RAM. My mid-tier, Intel 2019 Macbook Pro with 32GB RAM suddenly died by the end of 2023. I quickly got a basemodel 256GB/8GB MacMini M2 as a replacement. While initialy supposed to be a temporary replacement until my MBP gets fixed, I ended up using it for another year as my main daily machine for everything, inluding professionally (fullstack software dev).
There was simply no need to upgrade, the MacMini was faster in all regards then my Intel MBP. Out of curiosity of its capability I wanted to see how gaming performs - I ended up playing through all three Tomb Raider reboots (Mac native, but using Rosetta!) at 1080p in high settings. Absolutely amazed how fast it was (mostly driven by the update to M2).
Only one thing ever made me notice the lack of RAM, and that was when I was running the entire test suite of our frontend monorepo. This runs concurrently and fires up multiple virtual browser envs (vitest, jest, jsdom) to run the tests in parallel. Stuttering and low responsiveness during the execution, but would complete in 3-4 minutes - it takes around 1 minutes on my current M4 MBP.
VMWare Fusion is free, even if it is a pain in the butt to download. It also has GPU paravirtualization for Linux/Windows which is the only reason I use a proprietary VMM on macOS these days.
Because I was fed up with parallels subscription model and they make me pay for the upgrade the non-subscription version with every new macOS release, I dropped parallels for UTM. I barely need windows, only every other month or so and often just for some small tasks. UTM is nice, but performance running windows is waaay below parallels. It is free, however, so I won't complain.
The performance story doesn't really make sense as both UTM and Parallels use Apple Hypervisor Kit which pretty much is the hypervisor running Windows. It should be identical.
Classic VM solutions like Virtualbox, VMware, Parallels etc. always come with guest tools and driver packages for the guest that have a massive impact on performance. Just because both solutions use the same hypervisor doesn’t mean they perform equally.
Intent looks interesting but the fact that they have their own credits system turns me off of it. I pay $200/mo for Claude Code and that's enough for me; I wish I could use Intent with that.
http://tart.run works great for running macOS (and Linux) VMs on macOS if you're technical. It's free for non-commercial uses too! (Don't think there's GPU acceleration tho).
There’s something called menu pricing, in order to keep its existing customer base buying their more expensive higher end models there need to be an unjustifiable drop in quality to switch.
The gap in spec is no mistake, if it was appealing enough for existing air-book users to downgrade it would cannibalise their bottomline.
I’m excited that Apple now has a reason to keep MacOS small. Their soon to be top-selling machine has 8GB and they won’t want to make all those millions of Neos unusable by shipping a bloated OS.
I wrote about how Unified Memory, SSD directly attached to the SoC and Apple's use of real-time compression saves memory, reduces power consumption and wear on SSDs [1].
In practice I think this is going to be very specific to your data being good for compression and not already compressed - so not gaming, where textures can fill up the Neo's 8GB very fast depending on the game: Cyberpunk, Robocop, Bioshock and Shadow of the Tomb Raider benchmarks are showing 9 - 10 GB of RAM used at just 720p.
Having completed SotTR on my MacMini M2 8GB, the game plays fluent at 1080p around 40-60fps without any issues. There are youtubers showing Cyberpunk on the Neo on lowest settings running around 50fps. Cyberpunk being somewhat special as it is visually so beautiful, that I would not recommend to complete it on a Neo.
There's a difference between bloated and batteries included. From a development point of view, macOS has native system libraries for things no other platform seems to include native system libraries for. And by "native system libraries" I do not mean downloadable content, dynamic support or anything similar, even if they're first-party. Though having unremovable system apps for every one of Apple's services MAY count as bloated if you don't use them.
From operating system I want a very bare bones experience. I definitely don't want operating system to ship with browser, file manager, terminal emulator, PDF viewer or rich text editor. And I absolutely don't want operating system to ship with chess engine, AI thing and some weird disk search utility which never works but always eats my CPU.
You might argue that some tools like terminal emulator or text editor might be necessary to solve some basic OS issues, but these tools should be extremely simple, like notepad.exe (old one!) or cmd.exe.
Anything other should be distributed in application store or any other way but not as a part of base operating system.
Nor Windows not macOS suits me for that definition, at least their default distributions (I'm pretty sure that it's possible for Apple or Microsoft to build bare bones operating system distribution, but so far they didn't bother and I won't accept some unsupported third party modifications). Linux somewhat suits me, as I can build something with little effort. It'll still contain lots of stuff I have no idea about, but these tend to not show up loudly.
There’s a big difference between unnecessary applications taking up space on your storage device, and unnecessary services running in the background competing for RAM and CPU with the applications you actually want to run.
You've defined every OS that doesn't let you customize what services run, which Windows certainly does. As you strip away certain services, functionality is going to be limited, but the capability is there and has been since NT was released - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxIgY0tQqR4.
You have options on macOS via launchctl, but I'm not sure how low you can go.
Neither give you the same capability as Linux, of course.
As long as you ignore that whole part of the OS was still running 68K code on PPC Macs, it crashed like a drunk driving a semi truck without protected memory and the end user still had to fiddle with the amount of memory an app could use
I miss having snappy menubar lists, at the Apple Store yesterday I noticed on the Neo that the transparencies and iconified menu items with shortcut glyphs are still perceptibly less buttery smooth.
Apple won't give a shit, they'll trash the UX on old/cheap hardware knowing that their fanboys will shame anybody who complains for being too poor to upgrade. They've done it many times before. Ruined font rendering on all macs with standard DPI screens for instance.
Apple is moving into Google's territory, cheap Chromebooks. The right move for Google is to aggressively move forward with their desktop OS and launch their line of laptops. The first pixel laptops had the best keyboards and trackpads ever. Google can nail this if they have the right product person. Apple needs some competition and the legacy PC makers won't cut it. Once again, it has to be Apple vs Google, same as Android vs iOS devices.
What’s actually going to happen is the second they start to lose market share or struggle at all, they will cancel everything Chromebook related and give up.
With that said, I think Chromebook’s still hold a competitive advantage for public school contracts. It doesn’t matter that the Neo is pretty cheap and the best value. Contracts are signed based on what’s cheapest, period.
Also, a big blind spot for a lot of HN: this is going to be big in developing Markets. This is within budget for middle class Latin Americans in a way that even the Air isn’t.
I think this is somewhat ignorant the wide variety of legitimately very decent Windows PC laptops available in the exact same $500-700 price range as the MacBook Neo.
Apple isn’t disrupting the industry here. Don’t buy into early influencer review hype. These reviewers don’t actually look at retail store pricing.
Apple is just making a decision to go downmarket and making many of the same compromises as other cheap laptops, and some odd compromises that are unique to Apple’s machine:
No haptic trackpad, no keyboard backlight, no Touch ID on the cheap model, lower-end screen, very small battery, tiny slow charger included, minimal and performance compromised I/O, below-par RAM, worse speakers/microphones, an old nothing-special processor.
This is the exact same stuff that people have complained about for years with cheap laptops.
The fact that the computer is made of aluminum is really a distraction from these facts.
This idea that it’s Google versus Apple all over again is just not true. Windows is the dominant OS in the laptop space by far. Over 900 billion people in the world play PC games on windows, for example.
If you look at Best Buy street pricing, what Apple has pulled off here is not that impressive.
Let’s say you want the top end Neo model at $699. Spend $100 more at Best Buy and you’ll end up with a Yoga 7 machine with double the RAM, double the storage (1TB), 70Whr battery, and a very capable and efficient AMD Ryzen 7 AI 350 chip that has faster multicore and same or faster graphics performance.
You’ll gain user-replaceable SSD, backlit keyboard, convertible OLED touch screen, digital pen support, more and faster USB ports, microSD slot, HDMI port, fast charger in the box, better speakers, WiFi 7, bigger screen in a more popular 14” size…it’s a better buy that will last years longer for only a slight price increase (or, spend less on the Ryzen 5 AI 340 variant ($680) if you’re okay with compromising GPU performance, which most people in this category are, and you’ll still end up with double the RAM of the Neo and 512GB storage at $20 less than Apple’s non-education store price)
- I don't think you're correct about the gulf in single core performance. On battery, the Cinebench 2024 scores (single core) of the Ryzen 7 AI 350 are 97% of the score you get from an M4 MacBook Air. (Cinebench is a lot better than GeekBench, IMO).
- Screen real estate does not equal resolution. Nobody is going to scale their MacBook Neo's smaller 13" screen down to take advantage of those pixels. I.e., if I have a 10 inch 8K screen that’s not really “more screen real estate” than a 27” 4K screen in practice. So the real question is whether the $500-800 user is a pixel hunter and loves smoother text at the expense of other purchase factors. IMO, macOS has weird resolutions like this because it sucks at scaling (e.g., 27" 4K monitors look worse in macOS than on Windows, which is why Apple goes with 5K)
- Yoga 7 video playback on battery actually beats the Neo at almost 17 hours.
- Yoga 7 office productivity rundown is very close at 10 hours 54 minutes, I don't think anyone is going to be upset at that coming slightly behind the MacBook Air:
You might prefer a different benchmark, but I am correct in the gulf on geekbench. I just looked at their benchmark results. For what it's worth, Geekbench is a lot better than Cinebench IMO, because it's more "real world".
> IMO, macOS has weird resolutions like this because it sucks at scaling
That is not my experience. I have run MacOS on monitors ranging from 43" down to 23", in various resolutions. MacOS looks great to me.
> 2.7 vs 3.1 pounds is insignificant
Well, it's 15% heavier. Whether that's significant is up to the carrier.
That one has a lower pixel density. 162 ppi for the Yoga vs 219 for the Neo. My MacBook Air M3 is 224 and I can't image going much lower, even for OLED. Maybe if I watched more videos.
IMO, macOS' strange scaling exacerbates issues with having PPI at the wrong ratio. macOS looks a lot worse on a 27" 4K monitor versus Windows, and is most ideally displayed at 5K.
I don't think anyone but the pickiest pixel hunters are going to mind the difference, and they'll enjoy the benefits of OLED like vastly improved contrast, HDR capability, and higher peak brightness than the Neo.
In case you need it, this is the next model up with the 350 processor. If you care about graphics performance it has double the cores, and the bigger SSD as I mentioned:
That means a LOT of students who the MacBook Neo appeals to will cross it off their list for the mere fact that they can’t play things like Counter Strike 2/CS:Go on it.
If I was a student today and only had $700 budget for all my equipment I’d probably end up with a previous generation Lenovo LOQ with the RTX 4050 or a current generation Acer Nitro with the RTX 5050. These laptops are thicker and heavier but they get decent battery life on integrated graphics for school work, then when I get back to my dorm I could play popular gaming titles without buying a separate game console.
I’m sure the Neo will sell well and increase Apple’s market share, but this idea that it’s a market-changing disruptive device is an exaggeration. The #1 laptop manufacturer in the world is Lenovo, who sells nearly 3x as many systems as Apple, who is in 4th place.
I think it will actually be quite trivial for manufacturers like Lenovo to respond and make their own similar model.
I'm not sure how you missed that the user you were responding to was poking a little bit of fun at you claiming that "over 900 BILLION" people play games on Windows.
That aside, it is also a bit funny that the Hacker News crowd's grand indictment of Mac gaming always uses the same examples of first person shooters that gained ascendancy when they were young. Meanwhile a teenager in 2026 is more likely to be upset that they can't play Fortnite on it - and that's besides the fact that many of the games that today's teenagers are excited to play (from Roblox to the Hollow Knight series to Baldur's Gate 3 to the recently released Slay the Spire 2 and more) are available on macOS. But one wouldn't know that from listening to people whose impression of both gaming and Macs is stuck firmly in ~2015.
I think it'd be great if they did that, but Google is pretty willing to cut things that aren't working out, whereas for Apple, they are committed to making and selling laptops
> Windows 11 VM requires a minimum of 4GB of RAM to function
You can give it less. It may refuse to install, but even without using any workarounds, you can change the assigned RAM after installing and it will not refuse to boot. The minimum for Windows Server 2025 is 2 GB, and it’s basically the same OS (just with less bloat).
Man, I do wonder what the realistic lifespan of that single NAND chip will be after it gets hammered by constant swapping of running tasks way beyond the capabilities of a 8GB RAM machine.
I have a PC with a 10+ year old 256GB SATA Samsung SSD that's still in top shape, but that's different because that drive has those 256GB split over several NAND chips inside, so wear is spread out and shuffled around by the controller to extend lifespan. But when your entire wearable storage is a single soldered chip, I'm not very optimistic about long term reliability.
There was quite a bit of discussion about that when the M1 first came out, but none of it really seemed to have happened six years later. The target audience isn't in danger of wearing it out and the ones that will push the limits will grow tired of it and sell it in a year or two or move on to the Neo 2, which might have 12gb of ram due to the expected chip.
I still think it's a great machine, but I think all these worries about NAND dying really haven't come to fruition, and probably won't. I have about a hundred plus of various SSD Macs in service and not one has failed in any circumstance aside from a couple of battery issues (never charged and sat in the box for 2 years, and never off the charger).
If swapping was causing SSDs to fail on M1 Macs, we would never see the end of the hysterical articles about "NANDgate". Since we haven't seen any in all these years, it's seems pretty certain it's not happening.
Exactly. If some sort of random Dell model has a failure, you'll never hear about it because there's only a few thousand or so in circulation. But if any Apple product which sells in the tens/hundreds of millions has an issue, you'll hear about it whether you want to or not.
Hysteria would be if all had an issue like the keyboard gate, but this isn't an issue, it's a design limitation for certain uses cases which not everyone has. Some users will wear out faster than others due to usage patterns. If their M1 dies after 6 years of heavy usage, do you think they'll investigate if it was the NAND that died and go online to tell the news, or will they chuck it and buy new one?
NAND is still the same wearable part that regular X64 laptops have, Apple doesn't use some magic industrial grade parts but same dies that Samsung, Micron and SK ship to X64 OEMS, and those are replaceable for a reason, because they eventually fail.
The reality is most 8GB M1 Macs are still working just fine 6 years later. Power users know they need more than 8GB of RAM and will buy a MacBook Air or Pro with 16GB+.
The MacBook neo is for students, grandparents, travel, etc.
Hell, even if it dies after 6 years it was still a better experience than using a $500-600 windows PC and the cost comes out to ~$8/month spread over 6 years.
>The reality is most 8GB M1 Macs are still working just fine 6 years later.
Do you think SSD drives are replaceable for no reason? Just because M1 mac aren't failing left and right doesn't mean their NAND won't fail.
Even though I like the NEO, I can't in good faith buy a machine with soldered wearable parts. That's like buying a car with soldered brake pads because "in 6 years average users don't feel like they need changing".
I still had laptops on my hands from 20 years ago that work fine simply because you can swap their drives with fresh ones. How many M1 mac will still be functional in 20 years?
"How many M1 mac will still be functional in 20 years?"
Probably quite a few, MacBooks have had soldered SSD's for over 10 years now. My 2018 McBook Pro still has a perfectly functioning SSD. I still see people using 2015 and older MacBooks all the time. There is no widespread SSD failure issue after 10+ years of Apple soldering the SSD's.
For most people the SSD's are lasting longer than the useful life of the device.
> Do you think SSD drives are replaceable for no reason?
The number one reason why laptop OEMs primarily use replaceable SSDs is so that they can switch SSD vendors on a monthly basis to whoever is the lowest bidder at the moment. The number two reason is so that they can offer multiple storage capacity options without building different motherboard configs (though in practice, a lot of OEMs never get around to actually selling the alternative configs). Repairability is a very distant third place.
> Do Mac users check and report their SSD wear anywhere?
As a data point: I got a 14" MacBook Pro with a 512 GB SSD the first day it was available in 2021, and I've used it daily since then.
According to the SMART data ("smartctl -x /dev/disk0"), the SSD "percentage used" is 7%, with ~200 TBW. At this rate, the laptop will probably outlive me.
>but that's different because that drive has those 256GB split over several NAND chips inside, so wear is spread out and shuffled around by the controller to extend lifespan. But when your entire wearable storage is a single soldered chip, I'm not very optimistic about long term reliability.
I thought wear leveling worked at the page/block level, not the chip level? On an SSD, if there was a failure of an entire chip, you're still screwed.
You're correct, GP's understanding of how wear leveling works is off by several layers. Counting the number of BGA packages tells you nothing. There are multiple NAND dies per package, multiple planes per die, many blocks per plane, and the size of each erase block is the largest-scale feature that is relevant to wear leveling.
While high-density NAND is definitely worrying from a data retention standpoint, your reasons don't make sense. There has been a decrease in reliability with higher densities, and unless Apple is using SLC (strong doubt) you would expect around the same as any other manufacturer.
The sibling comments mentioning endurance don't tell the complete story either; continuously writing a drive until it shows errors means the cells have become leaky enough that they can't even hold data between each write and verify pass (hours or minutes apart), and while people point to such studies as "proof" that NAND endurance isn't something to worry about, they forget that endurance and retention are inversely related, as with temperature, and this is a statistical effect, so the true specification is more like "X years/months at temperature T after Y cycles with a BER of Z"; each one of those variables can be adjusted to make the others look as good or bad as you want.
from what i seen in "low end" ssds like the "120gb sata sandisk ones" under windows in heavy near constant pagging loads is that they exceed by quite a lot their manufacturer lifetime TBW before actually actually started producing actual filesystem errors.
I can see this could be a weaker spot in the durability of this device, but certainly it still could take a few years of abuse before anything breaks.
an outdated study (2015) but inline with the "low end ssds" i mentioned.
Most flash has average wear out after 300k cycles. Let's say 64GB is used for swap. That's 19200 TB or 19.2 PETABYTES of Swap usage. Let's say you swap 12GB a day, you will burn out that 64GB of Flash Storage in 4.38 years and my guess is that amount of swap usage is extremely high that user would probably replace laptop sooner out of performance frustration.
>Most flash has average wear out after 300k cycles
No it doesn't. Most 1TB drives are rated for around 600 TBW, so enough to overwrite the drive 600 times, nowhere near 300k cycles. If you search for specs of NAND chips used in SSDs, you'll find they're rated for cycles on the order of hundreds to thousands, still nowhere near "300k".
Original mid-90s Toshiba "solid state floppy disk" SLC flash: 1M cycles
2000s SLC flash: 100K cycles
Modern SLC/pSLC flash: 30-60K cycles
2010s MLC flash: 5-10K cycles
Modern QLC flash: 300-500 cycles
...and I won't even get into the details of their retention characteristics, suffice to say they subtly redefined them over the years to make the newer numbers better than they really are.
12GB a day isn't very much. If your working set is larger than the 8GB RAM, you're swapping multiple times per second. It doesn't take very many megabytes per swap to reach 12GB if you're doing that multiple times per second.
apple is basically a services company pretending to be a hardware company.
Its services business runs at roughly 75% gross margin, while hardware sits around 36 to 37%. That tells you where the real money is.
in many ways, all the Apple devices exist to feed the services engine. The hardware pulls people into the ecosystem, and the services generate the profits.
the Neo is probably a bit of a loss leader. Once you factor in manufacturing tooling capex, distribution, shipping, marketing, and all the other costs, Apple is likely not making much on the device itself. But every new Neo buyer who enters the Apple ecosystem will probably spend at least $50 or more on Apple services (icloud, music, movies, apps, etc) over time. (i have several friends who are buying neo as their personal content consumption device, abandoning their current ipads)
my estimate (which is why i'm still holding aapl): Services hits roughly $275-300B by FY2035, representing about 35-40% of Apple's total revenue (up from 26% today), with gross margins staying in the 74-76% range. At that point, Services alone would generate more gross profit than the entire company does today. that is where the real payoff comes from.
As others have said, should be fine to run Linux in a VM. Running natively from boot, the only potential option would be Asahi Linux, but my understanding is that the A18 Pro chip has certain internal attributes which are akin to an M3, and Asahi has only gotten full support in place for the M1/M2 generations. Perhaps once they get M3+ fully working, A18 Pro would also be an option. (I'm also super interested in a Neo running Linux.)
If the A18 Pro has the same ISA as the M-series chips then this may not be so straightforward. I am still hanging on to my 2020 Intel MBP for dear life because it is the only Apple device I own that allows me to run Ubuntu and Windows 11 on a VirtualBox VM.
Would you elaborate what you mean by saying Linux on an M-series chip isn't straightforward? That's not been my experience, I (and lots of other devs) use it every day, Apple supports Linux via [0], and provides the ability to use Rosetta 2 within VMs to run legacy x86 binaries?
Clearly I'm not as knowledgable about this as I thought I was. I already have a Ubuntu x86 VM running on an Intel Mac (inside VirtualBox). Same with Windows 11. Can this tool allow me to run both VMs in an Apple Silicon device in a performant way? Last I checked VirtualBox on Apple Silicon only permits the running of ARM64 guests.
While I have a preference for VirtualBox I'd say I'm hypervisor agnostic. Really any way I can get this to work would be super intriguing to me.
> Can this tool allow me to run both VMs in an Apple Silicon device in a performant way?
I use VMWare Fusion on an M1 Air to run ARM Windows. Windows is then able to run Windows x86-64 executables I believe through it's own Rosetta 2 like implementation. The main limitation is that you cannot use x86-64 drivers.
Similarly, ARM Linux VMs can use Rosetta 2 to run x86-64 binaries with excellent performance. For that I mostly use Rancher or podman which setup the Linux VM automatically and then use it to run Linux ARM containers. I don't recall if I've tried to run x86-64 Linux binaries inside an Linux ARM container. It might be a little trickier to get Rosetta 2 to work. It's been a long time since I tried to run a Linux x86-64 container.
Not until macOS 28., but you're right, it's frustratingly unclear whether the initial deprecation is limited to macOS apps or whether it will also stop working for VMs.
This can be avoided by not upgrading to MacOS 28 right? I'm new to Mac's and the Apple release schedule so I'm not sure how mandatory the annual updates are.
The instruction set is not the issue, the issue is on ARM there's no standardized way like on x86 to talk to specialized hardware, so drivers must be reimplemented with very little documentation.
As long as you're ok with arm64 guests, you can absolutely run both Ubuntu and Win11 VMs on M-series CPUs. Parallels also supports x86 guests via emulation.
How is the performance when emulating the x86 architecture via parallels?
Also is it possible to convert an existing x86 VM to arm64 or do I just have to rebuild all of my software from scratch? I always had the perception that the arm64 versions of Windows & Ubuntu have inferior support both in terms of userland software and device drivers.
Have you confirmed this? I haven't seen anyone concretely describe the boot policy of the Neo yet (it should be an easy enough check for anyone who has one in-hand).
How does it function? Last time I tried was a 2018 Intel MBP and it was a gamble where I would always lose either WiFi (despite the driver being in the installer iso) or the keyboard. I'm aware it's a totally different architecture, but I also seem to remember comments about that one too before I tried.
It's the best linux-on-laptop experience I've had so far (including various Thinkpads). Never had any issues with wifi nor bluetooth (I'm streaming music via bluetooth via spotify via wifi, right now). The only missing feature I personally care about at this point is HDR support. There's no thunderbolt yet, but I don't own any thunderbolt peripherals in the first place.
There is occasional jank, but nothing out of the ordinary.
I'm confused, you weren't talking about what the average user would do, just about what it can? Asahi Linux is pretty good, not sure why that'd be a real issue?
My buddy owns several Firehouse restaurants. There’s a couple windows programs he uses to run his businesses. Not having a way to virtualize windows was a show stopper when the ARM Macs came out.
Same with my father in law who’s a general contractor. He uses some freeware estimate program and an extremely old photoshop he got in the early 2000s.
He also went through 2 crappy Amazon bought chrome books for his wife that could barely function. The Air was too pricey.
Not surprising but good to hear. It seems that there really isn’t anything that runs on a new MackBook Air that you couldn’t run on a NEO. It might not be as fast for some things but it gets the job done.
Ish. It’s better in some ways, like single core and maybe multi, but not by a ton. At the same time I think the M1 may have more raw GPU power, though missing a few fancy features.
Hardware is mostly worse, but that’s to be expected for the price. And nothing terrible, just little cuts all over.
My M1 Air (16GB) is a rocket ship for absolutely anything I have thrown at it. Apple will have to work a lot harder making macOS inefficient before I feel the need to upgrade it.
I’ve been an M1 Air fan since I got mine in 2020 but recently things have become unusable. Playing 4K videos often drops frames, even at 30fps. And I can’t reliably run Notion’s transcription AI on Zoom calls, even though it’s not running locally. I’m going to do an OS reinstall soon to see if that helps, otherwise it will be time to upgrade…
Yeah, honestly not even counting. The only reason I even consider moving is that I dislike Tahoe and I know eventually I won’t be able to stall the update; hardware wise it doesn’t even cross my mind.
I have a current gen MacBook Pro for work configured with stupid amounts of ram and I feel no difference in terms of fluidity at all.
It will have a longer support period than an M1 based on Apple’s history of device releases. This might also mean a longer support period for the 16-series phones than typical, similar to the 4S.
I have mixed feelings about Parallels. On one hand, it's good to be able to run a Windows VM, that generally works and is usable. On the other hand, in my niche that became a lazy vendor's equivalent of "we support MacOS".
a VM host with a windows guest and a total of 8gb of ram?
Yeah you'll get the OS to run, the magic there is making either environment usable.
Might be great for some web dev that needs to see what their work looks like elsewhere -- but even then imagining a modern Windows install w/ AI add-ins, local search caching and update deltas then running firefox or chrome with 4 gb of memory sort of makes me cringe.
Godspeed, I guess. Some of the best works of art were made with very serious constraints, but I don't have that kind of time anymore.
There's a big difference between running native ARM software on ARM and emulating x86 to run Windows. If this Mac was x86, it could have probably run Windows much faster thanks to virtualization
On Apple silicon, Parallels can’t run x64 windows, it is using the ARM version of Windows. The x64 emulation is provided by Windows. Of course this is inefficient, but not everything is automatically 2x slower: any OS code you invoke is not running as x64 emulation, and IO and memory access is not penalized by the emulation (but certainly somewhat from virtualization). I was pleasantly surprised how fast you can run x64 windows apps.
Yeah I wasn't aware that Microsoft allowed that nowadays. Still, it's not ideal anyway, because in my experience Windows apps that are compatible with ARM are 90% either FOSS or portable on other platforms anyway. You use Windows to use x86 apps; if you don't need x86 apps you are generally better not using Windows at all, and if you need them they'll probably run poorly on ARM due to multiple layers of emulation. Wine is still an option, though. They support Rosetta on Mac and FEX/Box64 on Linux, so they may lead to better performance than Parallels
> I was pleasantly surprised how fast you can run x64 windows apps
In general as long as you have a fast enough machine emulation isn't that bad. Apple was doing that already for 68k with PPC and most people didn't noticed due to how massively faster their first PPC computers were. Still, the issue is that here we're not really talking about a high-end CPU aren't we
The M line was derived from the A line in the phones, and the individual cores are generally the same (though not in the same year). Counts, accelerators, other stuff on package/die is custom.
I think it was a fair question too. Even if things should be capable it was always possible the feature would be disabled in hardware or software somehow.
And with iPhones never running VMs as far as I know, we didn’t know if it was capable at all.
Virtualization requires specific hardware support to be performant. There are ways to do complete software emulation of a virtual machine but it would be so slow that nobody would want to use it.
This is them confirming that the CPU has enough virtualization support that they can virtualize rather than emulate the guest OS
Yeah. It's the first production Mac using an A-chip and is a Mac that has had many things cut out for savings. The question is did Apple feature cut required functionality.
Maybe/maybe not (we don't know how identical the A18 chip is to what shipped in the iPhone) - but it does determine that the virtualization stuff that was added to the M1 (in the era of the A14) has now moved over to the A series, at least enough to support macOS.
Speculation I’ve heard from Ben Thompson of Stratechery is this machine is, in part, a way to get value out of iPhone Pro chips that had defects.
The Neo has a 5 core GPU. The iPhone 16 Pro had a 6 core.
So, if he’s correct, these are the same exact chip. Just with a fault in one GPU core or one GPU core disabled if it was good. That lets them use extra chips they already made that would have gone to waste, at least until they run out.
Which would mean they both would have identical abilities, assuming no software lock for segmentation purposes.
It’s all supposition. But it make a lot of business sense.
It is mostly around Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation. From what I can tell, it is an arbitrary restriction for apps published on the App Store. It looks like UTM can be sideloaded without the restriction.
Every thread about Windows on Hacker News includes claims about apps taking 30 seconds to launch, web pages taking 20 seconds to load, simple applications being unusable, and other extreme performance problems. These are puzzling for anyone (like me) who uses Windows at home without all of these extreme performance problems.
That was until I realized how many reports are coming from people talking about their work laptops loaded with endpoint management and security software. Some of those endpoint control solutions are so heavy that the laptop feels like you've traveled back in time 15 years and you're using a mechanical hard drive.
There's an unspoken rule in corporate America, colleges, etc. Laptops MUST be loaded down with terrible software, no exceptions. My last corporate laptop actually had the paid version of winzip in 2025, and it ran with a little tray icon that I couldn't disable or remove. That was in addition to all the other corporate crap I couldn't remove.
Some of this is not _just_ a corporate problem. Why would Winzip have an auto run application and tray application in the first place? Every single app seems to think they need one, and it's a classical tragedy of the commons. Perhaps on a virgin Windows install, your app with autorun and a tray icon will be more responsive. But when 20 other apps pull that same trick, no one wins.
This is actually one of the reasons I'm not excited at the idea of Linux defeating Windows. If it did, corporations would just start crapping up Linux the way they've crapped up Windows.
The reason every developer makes their app open at startup, is because the Windows ecosystem doesn't have a good package manager. So every app needs to be its own package manager and check for updates on a timer. So they need to run all the time so they can run that timer.
In theory the Windows Store will handle updates. In practice, I avoid the Windows Store version of applications. Also, you can't turn off app updating, only pause them for a time.
Our corporate linux machines have exactly the same monitoring software as Windows - even the servers.
The performance is still not even remotely comparable. Could be the hooks are more performant on linux, could be the filesystem, maybe the tools are written more sanely... But loading apps, filesystem operations... Everything is still far faster on the linux dev instance. And I have half the ram allocated to that one.
> If it did, corporations would just start crapping up Linux the way they've crapped up Windows.
They do already, my work laptop runs the corporate spin of Ubuntu, complete with Crowdstrike, which goes absolutely crazy and chews all the CPU whenever I do a Yocto build.
I used to be able to reliably BSOD a work computer by doing a largish git pull inside WSL2, with the culprit seemingly being the McAfee realtime scanner. VirtualBox VMs were fine though. Not confidence-inspiring!
I think there’s a pretty big difference though. Linux is open while windows almost certainly will remain closed so even if corporates start bloating up Linux users can rely on the gpl to give them choice while windows users are stuck
I once worked on a computer for the US Government that felt slow. I counted nine (9) directly competitive and redundant endpoint protection products on it.
Not nine different/only somewhat overlapping pieces of software from companies that were competitors. Nine equivalent products. I guess defender made ten.
I like videogames, maybe more than I should at my age, and I prefer to play them from Steam in Linux through Proton. A couple of months ago I caved in and bought a proper Windows gaming miniPC because a game I want is not stable in Proton.
I use a corporate Windows VDI at work, so the experience is understandably subpar there, but it is still horrible on high.end hardware. Took me half a day just to herd it through update after update, while avoiding linking it to a Microsoft account despite its protests.
It's literally used to run only Steam and Firefox, and it still sucks compared to the ease of install/management of Linux. Ubuntu LTS took me about an hour to set up dual boot, apply updates, install Steam, and every other software and tool I use daily.
Why is Windows 11 still so clunky in 2026? It doesn't feel like the flagship product that many bright minds have improved for three decades. Why are hobbyists and small companies outperforming Microsoft's OS management?
Because Windows isn't really an OS anymore, but a "platform" to deliver advertisements and lock you into Microsoft services. The OS core itself is fairly solid (and has been since Vista/7) but it's all of the crud shoved on top which really ruins everything.
The LTSC IoT releases are easy to find (wink-wink) and don't have 80% of the annoyances, including constant "feature upgrades" - still not Linux, but better than consumer Windows.
No this is not just an enterprise issue. I waited 10 seconds (I counted.) for a Windows Explorer context menu to open the other day. This is on a fully decked out system with an Ultra 9 cpu and a 4090 and 32gb of memory, and basically no apps running. I think I had 2 tabs in Edge? Windows is a shitshow these days.
I just tried to open the context menu in Windows Explorer. It showed up almost as soon as I released the mouse button, and I have a much slower CPU, older video card, and way less RAM then you do. I was also running 12 windows of Firefox with collectively 1000+ tabs (though only about 36 or loaded), Steam, a Unity game, and Microsoft Teams, plus a number of background programs.
If your Explorer context menu is taking more than a split second to load, there's something wrong with your hardware.
There must be something wrong with quite a lot of hardware then. My windows laptop at work took > 20 seconds to open the right-click menu on the desktop.
During the wait the entire desktop background went black along with the icons then it came back. I was actually trying to get to a setting to set the background to a fixed colour instead of an image in the hope of speeding the machine up.
From a UX experience there was zero indication that it was trying to do anything during this time.
Microsoft is responsible for the UX of the ecosystem they create. Things that extend the OS are part of that responsibility. It shouldn't be possible for such a thing to happen. The OS could just show the damn menu after 500ms even if some extension hasn't responded.
A bank I worked at had one so bad that at 9am when everyone was logging in or forcing updates it could take 15 minutes to be usable. And every couple of weeks they'd force update just to change everyone's lock screen to something like "I support pride month"
Corporate spyware is pretty nasty, regardless of platform. When I was at FB, they had something that forced a kernel module that was incompatible with the next big OS release; and I had accidentally disabled the FB spyware scripts. I set /etc/hosts to immutable because I was tired of them fucking with it ... didn't realize that's why things were better for the next 3 months, until I did the major update and I had to fix things from safe mode ... where everything only barely works.
Microsoft also puts a lot of crap into a default install that you may want to disable. Windows 11 with some judicious policy editor settings isn't so awful.
Outside corporate setting, it is also the fact that most windows systems you encounter are installed on cheap machines by people who just care that their word processor works a few times a month. And you were probably forced to fix it.
At the same time, as someone with a well maintained Windows gaming rig, I don't like spending time in the OS these days. Something about transparently doing stuff that puts money in their pocket while inconveniencing me gives me the ick.
And Windows laptops are such a commodity business that prices are incredibly low. So PC makers load ‘em up with junk because they get paid for those deals.
They are more incentivized by that than the few lost sales from people who know better to look for low crud machines.
And on more expensive machines they’d just be leaving money on the table. So they still often ship bundled crud.
Similar to spyware on TVs. Margins are razor thin. They’re going to make them up somewhere.
I've said for decades that from a user perspective, malware scanners and prevention tools are fundamentally indistinguishable from actual malware. They intercept file accesses, block you from doing what you want to do, pop things up all over the place, and make your machine slow aand unreliable.
Oh yeah no... its still terrible even without all the spyware.
First experience of Windows 11, trying to download a file through firefox caused my 18 core 10980xe to have the entire UI freeze for the full time the download was going.
Reverted back to windows 10 immediately and the problem went away.
I’ve helped someone with a rather clean iMac, circa 2019, still supported by Apple. Forget 6 minutes — you can spend a full hour from boot to giving up trying to get anything done.
I think that Apple has gotten so used to having fast storage in their machines that the newer OSes basically don’t work on spinning rust.
I bet this is it. I had a 2018 Mac Mini with a failing drive that moved like frozen molasses, but wasn't throwing obvious errors. Before it failed, it was slow compared to an SSD, but booted up in a reasonable amount of time and ran office apps just fine, just with a little startup lag. It was bad compared to an SDD, but not intolerably slow.
If a Mac is running that slowly, there's probably a hardware issue.
Is there some reasonable way to check whether the Fusion drive is failing? Some quick searches suggest that Apple’s built in tooling doesn’t actually help much.
what? on a semi modern CPU and a SATA / M2 SSD?? My Vista laptop on a spinning drive took that long to boot I am pretty sure. I am flabbergasted if this is true
Geekbench 6 was around ~2600 single-core with the VM overhead for me. That's still punching above single-core power in its class for Windows machines and it makes me giggle.
My corporate spyware laden Surface ARM runs Windows faster than the Macbook Neo, but unlike the Neo can survive a fall onto a concrete floor. (Ask how I know...)
How do you know a Neo cannot survive a fall onto a concrete floor? I think it would take at least ten tests each with a new machine to get some confidence of the impossibility of that.
corporate laptops is the key here. take 2 identical laptops one with and one without the spyware - its night and day in both performance and battery life.
Wouldn't corporate spyware equally burden the NEO? Especially more give the 8GB of RAM vs 16+ on X64 laptops? Chrome, Teams, IDEs, websites etc are equally bloated on both platforms.
A Neo will win a race with a similar speed Windows computer full of bundled crap and security slop.
But it would work the other way around too.
The nice thing about Macs is even if you see a lot of what Apple puts on the computers as useless trash (“Why the hell do I need iBooks?”) it’s not stuff running in the background interfering with everything you do the way bad PC security software bundled on cheap Windows PCs or forced by corporate often does.
I can tell you my last work Mac slowed down noticeably (though not too bad, luckily) the day they decided to put the corporate security crud on it.
The newer security crud we use now seems much better behaved though.
My (former) corpo HP laptop with 16GB RAM had 75% RAM used at idle after a fresh boot with Outlook, Teams and all the copro shit running in the background. So the 8GB NEO CPU will spend its time swapping data from ram to disk versus the 16GB+ ones, given both being filled with corporate spyware and same heavy use cases.
Also it isn't 2-3x faster, stop with the made up nonsense please. Just checked and my 3 year old AMD laptop is on par with the NEO geekbench score I found online (slower in single core but faster in multi core), not 2-3x slower.
This is another myth that needs to die. You can’t just look at Task manager and see that the OS is using extra memory and assume anything else loaded will cause swapping. Thats not how modern OS work.
“Parallels Desktop runs on MacBook Neo in basic usability testing. The Parallels Engineering team has completed initial testing and confirmed that Parallels Desktop installs and virtual machines operate stably on MacBook Neo. Full validation and performance testing is ongoing, and additional compatibility statement will follow if required.”
That's false. The Amiga could run the Mac OS better than any Mac could, even with the same CPU because of the Amiga custom chips. Also, Amigas had faster CPUs available than the Macs did, and the Amiga OS was still multitasking in the background.
People keep claiming this, but my experience is that it's pretty similar. My mom's PC accidentally had only 4GB of RAM for the past 5 years (whoops), and we only noticed it a month ago because the cheap SSD was finally dying due to heavy swapping.
The kernel isn't that relevant compared to all the absolute garbage layered on top. The most efficient kernel is pointless when you have copilot and a UI built in React sucking down all your system resources.
reply