whofearsthenight

That covers a small subset of the reason a lot of us set it up the way we have. I mean, if that is working for you, great. But you still have to move a physical device, and the ability to watch media is still limited to the location of said device.

The vast majority of comments here complaining about Mac and macOS specifically seem to stem from really, really not understanding much about them. This comment is unfortunately not any different.

I’ve seen developers working for FAANGs unironically praise the M1 Macbooks as work machines.

The FAANG companies that fight tooth and nail to hire the best people who can basically work wherever they want because of their skill like Macs? Surely, they're the dumb ones.

I have one and the damn thing has an option to change the “modifier key” for the fucking mouse

Originally, and for quite a while (probably early 2000's) Macs shipped with a one button mouse, and there was no concept of a "right-click." Originally, they were pretty dogmatic that the OS should be simple enough that one button was enough. You shouldn't need to hide functionality in a context menu, it should be available through the standard UI. Eventually, that lost out, but they decided they wanted to make context menus* (or other "right-click" actions) a power user feature, rather than a default. So the decided to make it make sense for all of the machines that had always shipped with one button mice, you could hold ctrl and then click an item and you'd get the context menu. For decades now, they support right click, but if you built up years of muscle memory around ctrl+clicking instead, you still can.

like press the meta key

You like the meta key? Probably better thank Apple. Apple has had a "meta" key basically forever, only it's been called "command." I'm old enough to remember when more manufacturers started to add their own meta keys. If you go grab an older keyboard, you'll probably find they also have a "context menu" button, which is basically a "right-click" and you almost def won't find one now.

you want to do basic window manager things

Lots of people in this thread seem to really, really like being able to window snap, which I kind of get but also generally disagree with. macOS (again, going back a thousand years) has a different philosophy when it comes to managing windows. On [MS] Windows, pretty much all software aims for full screen, and users def do the same. Window snapping now means you have a convenient way to see 2 whole things. If you really, really want window snapping similar to how MS does it, there are a hojillion ways to accomplish this with very simple app installs. macOS has instead tried to make it so that you can manage multiple apps/windows easily without full screen, going back to tiny, tiny screens.

But let's talk about "basic window manager things" for a sec. Windows has easily, and I mean easily had the worst window management generally for like 2 decades. Windows 10 and Windows 11 help catch up to things I switched off of Windows and to Linux for in like, 2004. Expose, or "Task View" as it's now called in Windows started in macOS, and was adopted in Linux in the mid 2000's. Not until Windows 10, and not even the first version, do we get that. Ditto for virtual desktops. In Windows, I can press alt-tab and switch between any open app. In macOS, I can press cmd+tab and switch between any open app, but I can also press cmd-` and switch between an app's windows. In Windows, I can minimize windows to the task bar just as I can in macOS. However, I can also just choose to hide all app windows, or hide all windows except the app I'm looking at. And on macOS, I can use hot corners (which Windows barely touches with its "show desktop" hotcorner, sort of) which I can configure however I want. I can throw my mouse in any corner of the screen and get more "basic window manager things" than exist on Windows.

Its keyboard is that weird, unresponsive, flat form factor that makes it a nightmare to actually use as a portable device

If you have one the bad butterfly keyboards, yes. If not, this is nonsense. All laptop keyboards are bad, mac versions (with the very large caveat that the butterfly keyboards were insanely stupid/bad) are generally better.

I get that it’s a relatively powerful computer for the ludicrous amount of battery life it gives you, but that’s purely because it’s an extremely optimized ARM based processor that’s only designed to work with this specific operating system.

How is this supposed to be a negative? If we zoom out a little, this comment might as well be "oh sure, you can get your fancy graphic effects when you use a, what did you call it? graphics processing unit?" And even then, this is still not really accurately understanding why Apple has absolutely dominated CPU in mobile, and then is crushing in the class of laptop/desktop processors it competes in.**

But Apple is practically an antonym for FOSS at this point.

Aside from darwin, the kernel macOS runs on, Webkit, the browser engine that Chrome forked from, or passkeys, the thing that might replace passwords, you're still really wrong.

Beyond those complaints, it’s got good speakers and never produces any heat. Honestly, the only good things about the machines are those hardware elements: the speakers, battery life, and lack of heat.

How about screens? Trackpad? Physical material, etc?

I also have a Thinkpad X1 Carbon, which is physically a worse machine: it gets hot, has a fraction of the battery life, etc.

"I can get vastly less done, and it's going to be more uncomfortable the entire time."

I wonder if the people that really like the M1s like them because it’s the laptop equivalent of an iPhone.

Lots of misunderstanding here, but I'm already a phone book in.

* really, they probably never would have added right clicks, but as more software adopted right click actions, especially cross platform stuff like Adobe software, they pretty much had to.
** they've basically ceded the extreme high end. If you really want the most performant CPU and power\heat aren't a concern, it's not Apple.

If I understand your setup, when you decide you want to a new movie you have to download it, pull the hdd over to the machine, transfer it to the hdd, rename, perhaps even transcode, and then put the drive back on the TV.

In the type of setup described above or like mine, I can pull out my phone and using a very simple search all of the file handling and such is taken care of for me. I don't ever have to worry if I have the right filetype for the device I'm on, and I can watch that from any device on my local network, or just about any device that has an internet connection. Also, while I'm watching one thing, several other people can be watching whatever else they want on their devices.

I'm still maining plex, and at least there, they just create a plex account, you grant access to that account, and that's it. Don't even have to open ports. My guess is with JF since there isn't a central account host, you'd probably have expose some ports on your network to be able to login without a VPN.

This is a good point.

eh, everyone should be using some form of cloud backup, with the small exception of like people with extreme privacy needs, and even then you have to get to a fraction of a fraction before the answer isn't encrypted cloud backups.

That said, Win11 basically turning into an ad platform is gross as hell.

I think with quite a lot of software, monthly subs are really the best way to do it, and I think if you look at the history of things software is cheaper than it's ever been. Aside from the obvious things that just cost monthly money to operate (cloud storage, even weather apps don't keep working without servers) the reality is that we expect software to stay up to date and keep getting better. Aside from the fact that prior to sub fees for this type of software, the "one time" purchase cost used to be several orders of magnitude higher, and you would still basically end up "subscribing." Meaning, you didn't just buy Office in '95 for $300-$500 and keep using it until even 2005. MS would change a file format or upgrade a thing or something, and suddenly your $400 Office suite needed an upgrade, so you paid another $400 in '97.

People have never liked paying for software, but I think this is the most equitable, true model of the actual cost. I like it less with the bigger companies, but especially with smaller devs, the software I rely on I'm happy to pay a monthly sub on because I know that's a much more stable model and will encourage the dev to keep the software up to date and releasing new features.

Indeed. There are a ton of categories where repairable is just not a thing. The obvious example is most electronics. If my TV, phone, etc, breaks, I should be able to go to the manufacturers website and at bare minimum find wiring diagrams and buy parts, and more reasonably actual step by step troubleshooting to repair it. Think about how many of these types of devices are in a landfill for something like a burnt capacitor or a dead backlight or just an aged out battery.

Speaking of batteries, I should absolutely be able to walk into a CVS, buy a battery and replace it in 20 minutes or less. And so should even the least techie person I know. I don't think that I necessarily want to go back to hot-swappable batteries like it's a Nokia brick from 1997, but we absolutely should be able to easily replace a battery in basically all electronics sold.

I think, and don't quote me, there have been some changes mostly to the exhaust/tuning side of things to cut emissions. I ride a '17 Bolt r-spec, and pretty much the most common mod is to change the air intake, pipes, and a fuel controller because the stock ones are kinda wimpy for emissions concerns. That said, a cursory search seems to indicate that bikes are terrible. Of course, you have to take into account that bikes produce less emissions, however pound for pound seem to produce significantly worse emissions. FTA:

The [BMW] GS highway CO2 equivalent is a stunning 380 g/mile (17% worse than the RAM truck). They found that a 1993 Honda Shadow VX600 with only 583 ccs spews a whopping 408 g/mile. That is twice as much as a new Honda Civic.

Other studies would suggest the problem is even worse. Global MRV tested out its portable emissions equipment in 2011 comparing 12 motorcycles to 12 cars of varying years — this was featured on an episode of “Mythbusters.”. Motorcycles were almost universally terrible, with motorbikes from the 2000s producing 3,220% more NOx and 8,065% more CO2 than cars of the same era.

Not great. It seems though that based on the article, there are relatively few studies by comparison and that bikes aren't regulated near the degree that cars are. I'll also say that in the above example of a '93 Shadow, that is a carbeurated bike and in that era would have been doing basically nothing to try to curb emissions. Comparatively, a new Honda Civic is going to be fuel injected with a catalytic converter and so forth. The other point of comparison they use is the above BMW 1150 GS, which is cited from a 2008 study, so at newest a 2008 bike, which they compare to a 2020 Dodge Ram. These just aren't particularly useful comparisons because especially in the last 5-10 years, emissions standards especially for cars are ridiculously different than the era of those bikes. I would really be curious to see how something even slightly modern (like, say, my Bolt with the stock tuning/catalytic converter, etc) compares.

EVs are still going to be the wrong answer to the problem. Sure, more efficient than combustable, but still vastly less efficient than good public transport systems, walkable/bikeable cities, etc. If Elon really wanted to save the planet, he'd be building bullet trains.

If they wanted to compete today, they'd fork Android in a similar fashion to how Edge moved to Chromium.

It's very "going up to to your crush to let them know you're over them but they don't even know your name" energy.