Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
‘Low End’ Means Good Enough (lowendmac.com)
106 points by protomyth on June 11, 2017 | hide | past | web | favorite | 97 comments



It's pretty hard to take this article seriously.

The author writes

"I don’t consider Windows good enough. Historically there have been to many ways to compromise a Windows-based computer, and new techniques keep showing up with alarming regularity."

And then later

"I am writing this on my newest computer, a Late 2008 Aluminum MacBook running OS X 10.11 El Capitan"

If you're going to knock Windows on a lack of security, at the very least do as much as you can do to protect yourself on a Mac. Note the long list of security fixes in the latest version of MacOS https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222


I honestly don't get who upvotes articles like this one. Company supporters? Bots?

I mean, this is front page for several hours now and it's embarrassingly low quality. The only reason it triggered a conversation is because it's highly inconsistent.


I'd hazard a guess that most HN readers are early adopters. This is a perspective from the opposite. If you're making a software product there's a very good chance that 20-60% of your user base is going to come from these self-identified "low end" users. I didn't upvote the OP, but it's valuable to surface this kind of perspective occasionally, if for no reason other than to remind us that the people that consume readers' services may be coming from a different perspective than we do.


Sometimes I favorite threads about bad articles because the threads themselves contain good discussion. I suspect that at least some proportion of undeserved upvotes comes from people favorite-ing the thread without thinking or bothering to unvote.


Yeah, the security track record of post-Vista Windows is far better than OS X.


Only where it doesn't matter. Not in actual affected users.


Anecdotally, I have never had a virus on Mac (that I detected) and neither did any friends, but Windows got infected all the time. This was true going back to Windows 95.


Anecdotally, I've never had a virus on Windows dating back to Win98. But my extended family have had multiple on OSX.

My point is that both are very vulnerable, precautions are what keeps you safe.


>Anecdotally, I've never had a virus on Windows dating back to Win98. But my extended family have had multiple on OSX.

Did they really have viruses (of which for OS X there are very few and far between, to the point of lore) or trojans?


OSX has a more solid track record, but Windows has also undergone a lot of change since the Vista rebuild to address many of it's more trivial exploits.

Anyone remember when you could click Cancel in the login screen and get access to the desktop? Good times. :)


> Anecdotally, I have never had a virus on Mac (that I detected) and neither did any friends, but Windows got infected all the time.

If you're getting infected all the time using Windows, you're doing something stupid. The operating system provides the vulnerabilities, but you might want to reassess how you're using your software.


>If you're getting infected all the time using Windows, you're doing something stupid.

Or, you know, just switch to an OS where you don't.


Where you don't what, exactly? Run software from untrustworthy sources that contains viruses? Okay, but you don't need to change platforms to do that.


Good luck for the average person with Windows, when their laptop might come with spyware, and sometimes even a complete rootkit, directly from the OEM.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/16/06/01/researchers.show.that...

http://www.zdnet.com/article/lenovo-rootkit-ensured-its-soft...

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/now-three-pre-installed-malware...


Eventhough these are bad, they are not viruses and do not fit the anecdote. If you are constantly getting viruses (Note not preinstalled rootkits or other stuff) than you are doing something wrong, I don't think we have to argue about that right?


On a technical level sure there maybe more exploits found for Windows than OSX. I honestly don't know and you haven't provided any sources.

However (1) this isn't realistic since so many issues are found with bloatware installed by vendors which you don't get on a Mac and (2) the severity of the recent mass release of zero-days by Wikileaks has really skewed the landscape.

Microsoft needs to do more to reign in vendors because if a brand new Samsung laptop takes 7 restarts just to update then something is off with the ecosystem.


Which OS did WanaCry effect again? And when has OS X ever had an exploit like that?


> If you're going to knock Windows on a lack of security, at the very least do as much as you can do to protect yourself on a Mac.

If you're behind a firewall and you practice safe computing (adblockers, NoScript, click-to-play Flash and Java or just don't use them at all, don't visit sketchy sites, don't open email from unknown sources, etc.) you can remain just as safe on an older Mac as you can on Windows. Even a 2010 era Mac can still run Sierra and therefore get all the current security updates, just as Windows 10 does.

> Note the long list of security fixes in the latest version of MacOS https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222

The list you shared contains updates for much more than just macOS Sierra, there's Apple TV, iTunes for Windows 7, Apple Watch OS, and so on. Microsoft's list contains 876 entries[1], of which approximately 250 apply to Windows 10 x64 alone, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[1] https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletins.aspx


They're both vulnerable. Therefore the author shouldn't criticize Windows for being more vulnerable than Mac, when the Macs he promotes are just as, if not more, vulnerable.


macs are a smaller target. Having more vulnerability in one OS or another is way less a factor vs how many potential target exist for one OS vs another. If a cracker/criminal decides to mass infect, they will choose the bigger "market".

If you are targeted by an individual/funded organization, it doesn't matter which OS you use, because there just needs to be one vuln and you are own'ed.

Therefore, it makes sense to use an OS that has a smaller marketshare. That keeps you safer than anything else.


By that account it is better to use obscure Linux as it is usually harder to find 1 exploit that works on all the distributions, and by that account it would be best to write your own OS.

But in real world, Windows are good enough for a lot of stuff and specifically gaming and office. If kept up2date will be secure enough.

I think talking about security superficially is not really valuable.


> post-Vista Windows is far better than OS X.

> if not more

You could say they're similarly vulnerable, but such emphatic phrasing just makes it sound you (and the GP) are on an agenda.


I'm not saying Windows is more secure than Mac. I'm saying up-to-date Windows is more secure than outdated Mac.


The article refers to El Capitan which is still supported and receiving security updates.


Sorry I don't know much about Mac update schedules, and just took the previous commenter's word that it was outdated, since no one seemed to be claiming otherwise.

But the author also says he runs 10.9 in another partition, and claims to want to run 10.2, although looking closer that appears to be a typo.


there was no point to be made. I wasn't saying that either platform is insecure. Just seems the link wasn't to show anything other than if you care about security, using the latest version of macos is prudent.


Apple publishes security updates for 10.10 and 10.11:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222


What's particularly hilarious is that pre-OSX MacOS, which is the starting point for the article and the site, was a virus infested cesspool of malware.


Viruses? Sometimes, yes. They mostly "peaked" in the mid-90s, though, and declined as more users started downloading software online instead of trading it with friends.

Malware? No, not really. Windows spyware only really started ramping up in the early 2000s, by which point classic Mac OS was already on the way out. I'm not aware of any significant malware for the platform.


> * declined as more users started downloading software online instead of trading it with friends.*

Geez, that's counterintuitive.


Most of the common Mac viruses were executable infectors. They spread (past tense) through software sharing -- running an infected application would infect your system, causing it to spread the infection to any applications you launched.

This lifecycle depended on having some way for those infected executables to get run by uninfected users. That was where personal software trading came into the picture.

Anyways, as more users started downloading software instead of trading it, that cycle broke. The big shareware sites like Info-Mac would only accepted software from authors, not from users, and would run virus scans on anything they published anyways.


No so much, software was generally obtained straight from the vendor's site, often legally. Although piracy existed, there was some sort of honor culture around the Mac.


Most of us Mac users can thank lone wolf developer John Norstad for protecting us:

http://www.norstad.org/disinfectant-retire.txt

Of course hilariously enough he retired Disinfectant after the onslaught of Microsoft macro viruses/malware.


>If you're going to knock Windows on a lack of security, at the very least do as much as you can do to protect yourself on a Mac. Note the long list of security fixes in the latest version of MacOS https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222*

Well, those security fixes don't matter much. There are as many, if not more, for windows for one.

But even more so, what matters is actual number of exploits in the wild. Sure, any OS can be exploited. But in reality, not all are, and Macs have traditionally had far less malware/virus issues (close to zero). Time and again, "OS X viruses" are shown to be just trojan (which you can never get by just practicing software download hygiene). And even at worse, they affect something in the low single digits (or less).

It's not a case of market share either. When Windows had 98% of the market, and Mac OS (pre-OS X) was dwindling to 1-2%, it still had more viruses that it has today with 5-10% of the US market.


10.11 is the latest MacOS version that model supports. (I'm typing this on the same computer, but running Ubuntu MATE.) I assume they are really using 10.11.6.


That's just their opinion though. Most people's opinion on operating system security is wrong anyway.


also on newer machines you get more security features, such as SMAP/SMEP which were introduced in the Broadwell chips (2015 macs?)


One of the interesting developments over the past decade is that computers remain usable for much longer than they used to, unless you are a gamer or need to do heavy programming work.

My 2011 Macbook Pro is still perfectly usable for everything a normal person would want to do with a computer. So is my parents' 2012(?) Mac Mini. I just bumped the RAM up to 8GB on both of those computers and they are just fine for web browsing, word processing, and HD video playback.

I suspect that Apple's problem selling iPads is related to this -- my iPad Air 2 is never noticeably slow doing any task, and I know people with pre-Air iPads who are perfectly happy with them. These are people who have plenty of money to buy a new iPad and would do so if theirs felt slow; they just don't notice any drawbacks to using an older one.


I did most of this year's programming coursework on a garbage HP laptop from 2008. It's not fast, but it's good enough to run Firefox / vi / Eclipse on Lubuntu.

In fact, it's not the computer at all that's making me upgrade - it's the fact that the battery is toast, but I can't get an OEM replacement. I've tried to buy a couple of knockoffs, but they've all been terrible.


Until a month ago my main machine was a 2009 thinkpad. Would still be using it if I hadn't received a 2015 laptop for free.

If it gets the job done buying a newer laptop is just vanity.


I can go back even further. While not useful as a full blown Mac -- i.e. A computer sold by Apple running Mac OS -- my parents still occasionally use my 2006 era Core Duo Mac Mini with 1.5 Gb of RAM. I put Windows 7 on it and they run Office and Chrome on it. It runs surprisingly well. The wifi is crap - 802.11g but it does have Gig-e Ethernet.


> The wifi is crap - 802.11g

Just buy a dual-band 802.11n or 802.11ac USB WiFi adapter, you can buy them for less than $20. [0]

You won't get more than 20MByte/s over USB 2.0, but it should still be a massive improvement over 802.11g.

[0]https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-Archer-T4UH-Wireless-Adapter/...


> I just bumped the RAM up to 8GB on both of those computers and they are just fine for web browsing, word processing, and HD video playback.

My notebook is also from 2012 and still going strong. I just deeply regret getting one with soldered-on RAM and no expansion slot. 4GB is still enough for productivity work, but games could use more.


I doubt my coworkers who are using macmini's would say that they regularly complain about the slow speed


I'm on a 2011 Thinkpad T420, which is similarly still more than powerful enough for everyday use. 320GB traditional HDD, 4GB RAM, still gets 5-6 hours of battery life. Built like the proverbial masonry outhouse.


Wow, I'm on my second battery for my T430s and about to replace it soon. Battery life is < 1 hour, even with a new one I usually wouldn't get more than three hours. :-(


I'm on a T430s too and battery life is still quite good after nearly four years on the first one (I foolishly had it plugged in most of the time which has brought the capacity down to about 80%). I gave it an additional battery in the Ultra Bay that extends overall battery life to over nearly 5 hours of light use under Linux.


Well, I bought it refurbed about a year ago, it's very likely they replaced the battery at some point.


I agree. I think the iPad is the best proof that accusing Apple of programmed obsolence is mostly a conspiracy theory. Hell this article is, too


What? iPad Air 2 is slow as hell in many websites and always when using more than one application. I recently had to buy a laptop just because doing any kind of work was really slow on the Air 2.


I don't know, I'm perfectly happy with my iPad Air 1. It's not as fast as my fancy laptop, but it doesn't have to be. It's a very pleasant web-browsing device.


Might just be running low on storage, which tends to slow things down...


>> From a practicality standpoint, the top choice would be that last generation 2011 17″ MacBook Pro

This is actually a bad idea - the 2011 15/17" MacBook Pros have dying graphics chips, that Apple stoppped repairing at the end of last year.


My wife still uses my 2011 17" MBP. The graphics has been replaced once for free. If it were not for the failing graphics chips, it's definitely 'good enough'.


if you buy one used, they won't replace the graphics for free.

my employer still have "late 2012" MBP with the nvidia-of-death cards as I call them, and apple haven't replaced any of them. Even in 2013.

This whole article is a disservice. You do not need a second machine to write. And even if I needed, i'd use a machine that runs the latest linux with all the security considerations of a modern system, and then I would just install my text editor and nothing else.

This is nothing but a gateway drug for people to join the mac cult. Meh. Not even an expensive mac is any good. let alone a free one. As mac fans always reminds us: you get what you pay for. And free+mac tax = lousy machine.


I'm pretty convinced that a 17" mac book with a semi-modern graphics card would be the best machine on the market.

And I hate Apple.


I echo this - I have a 2011 15" MacBook Pro. I have changed the graphics chip twice. Hoping it doesn't fail again. Apple has replaced them for free.


I use a 1998 "Wallstreet" PowerBook G3 running OS 9.2 and MS Office 98 for word processing, some email, and spreadsheets. No Wi-Fi, so I tether it to another laptop via Ethernet.


I love the G3 PowerBooks! I drove a Pismo upgraded with the G4 card, maxed memory, and a CardBus Wi-Fi card for N150 speeds in OS X; I dual booted 9.2 and 10.4 Tiger.

I built that machine from three broken PowerBooks in 2006 and used it daily until my ex-wife took it in the divorce back in 2010 (she hated Macs but she knew it would hurt me to take it). Otherwise I'd probably still be using it for basic tasks like distraction-free writing or classic Mac games.


Why not just use the other laptop?


Probably widescreen with a flimsy keyboard, while older laptops are more likely to be 4:3 with a nicer keyboard.

Or maybe to avoid getting distracted by all the stuff available on newer computers (going to guess much of the internet is not easily accessible from Mac OS 9.2).

Or maybe just cuz it's cool.


It's probably Windows or some shit.


I liked the keyboards (and the amount of space available for resting your wrists) on those.


My SO is still using a 13" early-2011 MBP, recently upgraded with an SSD and 16GB of RAM, and running the latest OSX release. With only it's original 4GB of ram it was constantly swapping on more recent releases of OSX, which was pretty painful, but it operates just fine now. A brand new 13" MBP would have longer battery life, weigh less, and have a High-DPI display, but wouldn't really be any faster in day-to-day use (and it wouldn't even support more RAM!). I was pretty surprised by how little computers had improved in the last six years.


I just picked up a 2011-era Air for a client. Honestly, after installing a new battery, it barely felt any different than what is available today.


That's my daily driver. It's amazing. I looked at About This Mac recently and was shocked that it's 6 years old! I could've sworn I had bought something newer. Time flies on a good machine.


I'm more of a PC guy, but I have to admit, I really liked it. Good screen, great keyboard and touchpad. Good battery life once I swapping in a new pack.

(Significant minus for those stupid non-standard screws, though.)

I could easily see using one as my daily use machine if I was in a more mac-centric environment without feeling like I was missing anything at all.


I thought the nostalgia of the cult of mac from the early 00's was long and dead... but I guess old habits die hard. I wonder what it will be like when the next generation talks about browser versions because to me that's basically the future. Most of the applications I use vary a tiny bit from mac to windows. Gmail, Sublime, Adobe Illustrator, Dropbox... the applications seem to match closer in parity whilst the OS's that host them get more different.

Also his mention of Windows security is a little tired.


For young people today, their computers are their phones.


So I recently switched from a brand new top of the line Ideapad Yoga to an older Thinkpad from 2012. Sure, it's kind of thick. 1.2" thick actually. But it has a 3.8GHz processor that can actually sit at 3.8GHz for a very long time because of the giant fans and fat copper heat pipes, and it has 8GB of ram upgradeable to 16, and a decent solid state drive. It looks like a giant hunking black thing, and I love it. Doesn't look expensive, so it won't get stolen, and it cost me $250, so even if it does it won't be the end of the world.

I think there'll be a minor trend of people keeping the same laptops they have, or buying older laptops to save money, now that improvements have stagnated. Processors are literally getting slower - I challenge you to find a laptop today that is faster than my X230T. Sure, manufacturers might claim a higher clock speed, but with modern horrible thermal management they can only sit there for brief amounts of time. The X230T can literally sit all day at 3.8GHz, and fairly quietly too.

Sure you can go 0.6GHz faster, with the Alienware 18 with a 4.4GHz processor, but that costs six thousand dollars, is as thick as six laptops stacked on top of each other, and is twenty two inches measured diagonally. Oh yeah, and people found that because of heat problems the processor wasn't able to reach the clock speeds claimed. This review [0] shows that it only got to 3.2GHz, which is substantially slower than my $250 laptop. Oh yeah, and that laptop easily goes over 100F on the outside of the case in normal use, so not only will your legs be crushed by the 12 pound 22" monstrosity they'll also be burned if you dare put it on your lap.

[0] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Alienware-18-Notebook.1...


I got an equivalent Haswell processor on my 13inch and have never ever experienced CPU throttling even while gaming.

It's very very rare for non-ultrabooks to throttle and usually when it happens is because some manufacturers intend it for whatever marketing reasons and not due to heat really building up.

You likely wouldn't benefit from a 7700 in a laptop in real life tasks but to suggest that all new laptops with high end processors throttle enough that your old one ends up performing better is an outlandish exaggeration.

Not to mention that the GHz race has been over for some time now and clockspeed isn't all that matters.


Post-Ivy Bridge mobile Intel processors can't maintain the same maximum all-core clock speed as their predecessors. If you're looking for proof, take a look at Intel's marketing materials for the processors: they start marketing the Turbo Boost clock speed as the "Turbo Boost (single core)". That's because the processor won't let you Turbo Boost the entire processor to the maximum clock speed, only one core.

For even more proof, to dissipate power you need a lot of copper and some giant fans. The X230T has a substantial amount of its very thick (1.2") body dedicated to heat pipes, fans, and copper fins. A handful of things I work with are very closely related to heat (Peltier elements, batteries, and motors) so I often look at things with a thermal camera to see how heat is dissipated throughout the laptop. In the X230T I was very impressed: Lenovo's engineers did a fantastic job. The laptop is capable of a substantial amount of heat dissipation. Meanwhile in my previous, fancy, new Yoga Pro laptop with the fanciest processor you can put in it, the thermal management is crap. There's a tiny little fan maybe 5mm thick that sits in a strange place and doesn't seem too effective at anything except making noise. The same goes for every other recent laptop I've seen: most of them seem deadly afraid of making the laptop too heavy or too thick, so they sacrifice heat management.

For the equivalent Haswell processor, maximum TDP is 55 watts vs approximately 40 watts for mine. So your laptop, which is almost undoubtedly thinner and with worse thermal management, has to dissipate almost 50% more heat. And don't go thinking there might be some revolution in heat management that lets yours dissipate more heat in a similar space, because "copper plus fans" has been the formula for the past 30 years. (With the exception of water cooling and peltier elements, which are most certainly not in your laptop.)

Furthermore, if your processor is putting out 55 watts of heat, _more than_ 55 watts have to go in somewhere. So that's also draining your battery. Standard batteries are around 45ish watt hours in recent laptops, so assuming the rest of your laptop (screen, RAM, motherboard, Wifi, hard drive, etc etc) literally drains zero power you'd have less than 45 minutes of battery power at maximum load. Does that sound like something that would freak out a consumer? Yep. So even if the laptop was thermally capable, this maximum power mode is always limited so the consumer doesn't freak out about getting a battery life measured in minutes.

Meanwhile, my Thinkpad, which has a 55 watt hour battery, lasts about an hour and change at maximum power. Did this freak out some people? Maybe. But 2012 Lenovo said "yep, we want to give our consumers maximum power, and if they drain their battery that's their problem." Personally I love it. If I want to limit performance I can just put it in energy saving mode. But most of the time I keep it at maximum, because I like it and in a world with good RAM and a nice SSD the CPU starts to become a bottleneck reasonably often.


Please link to your laptop.


I think it's basically this, but he might have a tablet version.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/IBM-Lenovo-X230-Tablet-Core-i7-3520M...


I wonder what would have been if Apple kept pushing the AppleII line in a much more gradual tech road map.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h4tepFbMso

In my opinion - computers should still have a boot to basic with a simple interface to vga graphics and passable sound. Something like pico-8 but a better editor with VI bindings. :-)

It's a good thing we have the raspberry pi.


That's a software problem, not a hardware problem.

Nothing stops you from creating a 'boot to basic' image from power-on. Whether it would get much traction is another thing. Expectations are rather higher now than they were in the 70's and early 80's.

Even a mouse was a pretty rare peripheral in those days (and would set you back some serious money).


You're looking for a New World PowerMac. If you hold down the right key combination while turning it on, you will land in Open Firmware. While quite different from BASIC, it is a programming environment similar to the olden days.

And is the Rasberry Pi comment a reference to RISC OS, with its ability to access BBC BASIC by pressing F12 and typing a quick command?


Well, we had the awesome IIGS (and the horrible Apple III :^P)


Too bad it was intentionally crippled so as not to create competition for the more expensive (and technically inferior in many ways) Macs of the time.


Can you elaborate? I hadn't heard this before.

I remember the IIgs being a pretty sweet machine.


The main thing I remember being crippled on the IIGS was the CPU clock speed.

The 8-bit guy did a video about this a while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h4tepFbMso


Question. There are several mentions of $gigantic_resolution either providing the same or less display area than $smaller_resolution.

Are there any hacks that can convince macOS (or the older versions of OS X described in this article) not to treat the display as HiDPI? Yeah, I realize the machine will abruptly feel like it needs a magnifying glass to use, but in a pinch (laptop on lap <2ft from eyes) it might work for some (insert standard disclaimers here about eyes being non-replaceable and needing to last the distance).

Also.

The late-2015 21″ iMac is ~$1.5k+, and "has a multi-core Geekbench score of 5623."

Then the late-2011 17″ MacBook Pro which is ~$1.3k checks in with a "9240 Geekbench score".

Is there some datapoint I'm missing here?


>Are there any hacks that can convince macOS (or the older versions of OS X described in this article) not to treat the display as HiDPI? Yeah, I realize the machine will abruptly feel like it needs a magnifying glass to use, but in a pinch (laptop on lap <2ft from eyes) it might work for some (insert standard disclaimers here about eyes being non-replaceable and needing to last the distance).

macOs already supports several resolutions higher than the standard 1/2native which is what Retina uses (half the native pixels at each dimension for twice the resolution).

IIRC, already the "default" resolution on newer MBPr with the touch strip is higher than the 1/2native (that used to be the default on retina laptops).

There are also apps like: https://www.thnkdev.com/QuickRes/ and http://www.madrau.com/ for more flexibility and full-native resolution even.

That said, the full native retina resolution on something like a 15" screen doesn't make any sense to me except for some special circumstances (maybe 4k movie viewing, but doesn't that already use the full resolution?).

>The late-2015 21″ iMac is ~$1.5k+, and "has a multi-core Geekbench score of 5623." Then the late-2011 17″ MacBook Pro which is ~$1.3k checks in with a "9240 Geekbench score". Is there some datapoint I'm missing here?

Yes, one is a GeekBench 3 score, the other is a GeekBench 4 score. Scores of 3 and 4 editions of the GeekBench suite are not comparable.


> Yes, one is a GeekBench 3 score, the other is a GeekBench 4 score. Scores of 3 and 4 editions of the GeekBench suite are not comparable.

Ah, that's what I was missing. Thanks.


>Are there any hacks that can convince macOS (or the older versions of OS X described in this article) not to treat the display as HiDPI?

You can change the display scaling directly in system preferences, I can crank mine all the way up to 1920 x 1200 scale (Late 2016 15"). Beyond that, there's QuickRes: https://www.thnkdev.com/QuickRes/


Another option is RDM, which is free: https://github.com/avibrazil/RDM

(RDM has never had an official home, I don't think, and I don't remember where I got my copy from. Think it was a link from reddit. So I can't comment about this particular version, which I found via Google just now.)


>> Are there any hacks that can convince macOS (or the older versions of OS X described in this article) not to treat the display as HiDPI?

SwitchResX and others allow you to use your Retina Mac at its native resolution


Still running my late 2006 aluminum Core 2 Duo Macbook pro, upgraded, with 10.6.8 snow leopard. Unfortunately it occupies an awkward space between homebrew and the "tigerbrew" fork... Everything tries to compile and often fails because of out of date compilers.

I think I'm trying to run too much locally, so these days I am still getting a lot done using cloud VM's.

A computer like that really helps you write efficient javascript.


>> I can’t get too excited about the 2016 13″ MacBook Pro with 2 Thunderbolt ports. It has a Retina Display, but its 2560 x 1600 pixel display shows no more than my current MacBook’s 1280 x 800 display.

Huh? Out of the box resolution is 1440x900 and maxes out at 1680x1050 (without using a 3rd party application like SwitchResX). Apple used to set the default to 1280x800 but this is no longer the case.


The author doesn't know what he's talking about. Credibility of the website goes down a lot, even though the main idea is good.


It's one mistake for crying out loud. If you're at all interested in a brand new Macbook you aren't going to be considering a laptop from a decade ago, so it also is completely immaterial.


To add to the critiques: the usable space on a 13" retina MacBook pro can be increased in the software to support up to 1680x1050 if I'm not mistaken. Further, there are apps that can extend that up to the native resolution.


Correct. I'm on a 13" mid-2014 mbp scaled to 1680 x 1050.


A IIcx with the full page display, 6.0.8 and Word 5.1 was a great writing environment. In some ways I'd still prefer it to my current Word 2016.


for text anything with a terminal is fine...

If it can do vim and owncloud I'd be golden for text.

I do however work with media, so no, low end is not good at all.


42/60 GB available, so no. It's just a slow POS.


We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines repeatedly. This comment was merely unsubstantive, but others you've posted have been much worse. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise to follow the site rules in the future. But please don't create accounts to break the rules with.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14535697 and marked it off-topic.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: