3 ms·
No, I don't think it's only about "more complex websites", "more taxing multimedia" and so on - it's more likely also macOS and Windows bloat and questionable s
by gary17the 3y ago
No, I don't think it's only about "more complex websites", "more taxing multimedia" and so on - it's more likely also macOS and Windows bloat and questionable software quality getting in the way. I recently installed Ubuntu Linux with the LXQt performance-oriented desktop environment on a 10-year-old Intel i7 2600 workstation back from 2011 (16 GB RAM, an Intel HD Graphics 2000 built-in GPU, an Intel SSD with specs archaic by today's standards) and the system is extremely fast and responsive at everything including web browsing, multimedia playback, IDE-based development (e.g., CodeBlocks), app launching, etc. Website content and multimedia rendering alone is not enough to saturate even a 10-year-old CPU/GPU.
- throw47474777j 3y agoI guarantee a new Mac would be faster. There is really nothing to see here.
- gary17the 3y agoYeah, right. If website content and multimedia rendering alone is, demonstrably, not enough to saturate even a 10-year-old CPU/GPU under Linux, then no, it is not possible for "a new Mac" to be even faster at same content and multimedia rendering. It does not make any difference, productivity-wise, whether you render website content and multimedia at 60 fps, or 120 fps, or 240 fps - the eye perceives the same thing. Effectively, whatever you pay for "a new Mac" over the cost of a 10-year old, generic PC workstation is being used exclusively to accelerate macOS.