5 ms·

This will excerbate the problem with electronic waste by shortening the useful life Apple should be more serious about their environmental commitments

by eisa01 3y ago

bushbaba 3y ago
Eh, if you give more Ram developers will just take advantage of it. Realistically perf headroom just gets eaten up on shitty code and abstraction layers. Ever notice how word is always the same slow-ish speeds. Never really faster.
- Osiris 3y ago
  You’re arguing that we should all be using 10-20 year old computers and that computers should never get faster because it makes us write less efficient code? That’s an asinine argument.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    >That’s an asinine argument. Good that that isn't the actual argument made by GP, but just a pretty strawman you managed to think up.
    - matsemann 3y ago
      I'm also unable to read the argument in any other way. If you have a better explanation please provide it.
      - _Algernon_ 3y ago
        The jump from developers will use more RAM on abstraction layers to computers shouldnt get faster was never made by the original comment, and implying it was made is the worst possible reading of the argument made which is against HN guidelines.
        Osiris 3y ago
        That’s not how I read it “IF you give them more RAM… they’ll just use it”. Thus, more RAM is effectively the same as less RAM. Conclusion: no need for more RAM.
    - Osiris 3y ago
      I guess I misinterpreted his argument. How would you word the point he was making, so I can understand it better?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Not only that, it doesn't even work if only Apple does it. Developers will still write the bloated code because it runs on cheap PCs with 16+GB of RAM, and it runs on the pricier Macs that also have 16+GB of RAM, so the only thing it runs poorly on is the more affordable Macs which are a small enough market segment for developers to disregard.
aurareturn 3y ago
The average Mac is in use for far longer than your average upgradeable windows laptop from Walmart/Costco. One strong evidence for this is that macOS market share is actually 20% on desktop/laptops despite Macs selling only about ~8-10% of total PCs worldwide. [0] So yes, on average, Macs are significantly better for the environment. Having less RAM does not mean people replace their Macs more often than Windows computers. If people truly cared about the environment, they'd buy Macs over Windows computers. With that said, could Apple extend the lifespan of Macs even more by making the base RAM higher? Yes. Not going to argue against that. But Macs are already much better than Windows computers in this regard. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide [0] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51020623 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51020623
- ge96 3y ago
  The display man, so good. Using a 2015 i7 mbp still.
- matsemann 3y ago
  Given that this comparison is with quite expensive Macs vs lots of cheap Windows laptops I'm not sure your conclusion makes sense. For the "if people truly cared about the environment" they would probably get the same use out of a similar expensive PC. It's also a bit tone deaf to gatekeep environmentalism behind a $1000++ purchase, especially one that many can't afford.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    >For the "if people truly cared about the environment" they would probably get the same use out of a similar expensive PC. I really don't think so. I used to buy $800 - $900 Windows laptops. They often lasted 2 years before some hinge is broken or the display suddenly gets corrupted or it comes unbearably slow. I had a 2013 base Macbook Air that lasted until 2019. None of my Windows laptops ever lasted that long. The data seems to back up my anecdote experience. Do you get more RAM on a Windows laptop for the same price as a Mac? Yes, usually. But everything else around the Windows laptop is poor.

This will excerbate the problem with electronic waste by shortening the useful life Apple should be more serious about their environmental commitments

by eisa01 3y ago

This will excerbate the problem with electronic waste by shortening the useful life Apple should be more serious about their environmental commitments

bushbaba 3y ago

Eh, if you give more Ram developers will just take advantage of it. Realistically perf headroom just gets eaten up on shitty code and abstraction layers. Ever notice how word is always the same slow-ish speeds. Never really faster.

Osiris 3y ago
You’re arguing that we should all be using 10-20 year old computers and that computers should never get faster because it makes us write less efficient code? That’s an asinine argument.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  >That’s an asinine argument. Good that that isn't the actual argument made by GP, but just a pretty strawman you managed to think up.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    I'm also unable to read the argument in any other way. If you have a better explanation please provide it.
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      The jump from developers will use more RAM on abstraction layers to computers shouldnt get faster was never made by the original comment, and implying it was made is the worst possible reading of the argument made which is against HN guidelines.
      - Osiris 3y ago
        That’s not how I read it “IF you give them more RAM… they’ll just use it”. Thus, more RAM is effectively the same as less RAM. Conclusion: no need for more RAM.
  - Osiris 3y ago
    I guess I misinterpreted his argument. How would you word the point he was making, so I can understand it better?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Not only that, it doesn't even work if only Apple does it. Developers will still write the bloated code because it runs on cheap PCs with 16+GB of RAM, and it runs on the pricier Macs that also have 16+GB of RAM, so the only thing it runs poorly on is the more affordable Macs which are a small enough market segment for developers to disregard.

aurareturn 3y ago

The average Mac is in use for far longer than your average upgradeable windows laptop from Walmart/Costco. One strong evidence for this is that macOS market share is actually 20% on desktop/laptops despite Macs selling only about ~8-10% of total PCs worldwide. [0] So yes, on average, Macs are significantly better for the environment. Having less RAM does not mean people replace their Macs more often than Windows computers. If people truly cared about the environment, they'd buy Macs over Windows computers. With that said, could Apple extend the lifespan of Macs even more by making the base RAM higher? Yes. Not going to argue against that. But Macs are already much better than Windows computers in this regard. [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide [0] https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51020623 https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51020623

ge96 3y ago
The display man, so good. Using a 2015 i7 mbp still.
matsemann 3y ago
Given that this comparison is with quite expensive Macs vs lots of cheap Windows laptops I'm not sure your conclusion makes sense. For the "if people truly cared about the environment" they would probably get the same use out of a similar expensive PC. It's also a bit tone deaf to gatekeep environmentalism behind a $1000++ purchase, especially one that many can't afford.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  >For the "if people truly cared about the environment" they would probably get the same use out of a similar expensive PC. I really don't think so. I used to buy $800 - $900 Windows laptops. They often lasted 2 years before some hinge is broken or the display suddenly gets corrupted or it comes unbearably slow. I had a 2013 base Macbook Air that lasted until 2019. None of my Windows laptops ever lasted that long. The data seems to back up my anecdote experience. Do you get more RAM on a Windows laptop for the same price as a Mac? Yes, usually. But everything else around the Windows laptop is poor.