Not so much to those of us old enough to remember when the two main personal computing platforms were DOS and MacOS.
And I always used to wonder why they were so crazy about their Apple laptops when all they were using was the terminal. Why couldn't they install Linux on way more powerful hardware at a fraction of the cost.
And now that Microsoft is doing it I see all these comments about Windows being a shell on Linux!
The hypocrisy is sickening.
Honestly, the engineering innovations that Microsoft is showing is head and shoulders above anything that Apple had ever done for developers.
Give credit where its due.
It's less about the power of the hardware, and more about support. A top end 13" Macbook Pro is $2000 for an i7, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD a passable integrated GPU and 2280x1800 resolution.
A Dell xps 13 "developer edition" comes to just shy of $1700 with very very similar specs and a similar build quality, which is the same ballpark. People aren't buying macbooks because they're expensive, they're buying them because the hardware support is (well, was) good, the software is good, they work together, and there's a fallback.
Install any linux distro on a HP laptop for a third of the price, and see how far you get in terms of support.
But it was a nice terminal! On a more serious note: The cost of purchasing an Apple laptop is dwarfed by the cost of selecting a set of hardware that works with Linux. I did switch from Apple to Linux in one of the last iterations and despite using a Thinkpad, the time I sink into making sure that my machine works, does a proper backup that I can restore, ... is higher than the one-time price difference to a nice Apple laptop. Their hardware is good for years, it’s usually working pretty well. It comes with a price tag, true, but so does maintenance for a Linux machine.
Sure, it runs: it boots and displays an image. It’s still much more work to make it work as smooth as an apple laptop.
Running Linux comes with some advantages and obviously the trade off work for me in the current circumstances, but it could also fall the other way.
But the problem is it's hard and they already forked off ReFS and didn't fix anything really with that.
There are some fonts that do not care about hinting though and look bad - especially emoji fonts (smiley icons often look droopy :-P). I wish Windows had some sort of autohinting like FreeType has for such cases. This is mainly an issue with web sites though and i either avoid sites that use such fonts or, if i care about visiting them often, i use a custom font for those sites with Stylus.
Also depends on what you mean with low DPI. For something like a 1440p 27" monitor, i find it is mostly a personal preference, but i'd call that as "mid" DPI than low. My monitor is 1366x768 at 24" and antialiasing looks a bit blurry there, so i prefer the sharp pixels. Although FWIW even on a 1440p 27" monitor i prefer to disable antialiasing and (at least on Linux where it is easier to do so) use bitmap fonts which are designed to be sharp (some bitmap fonts are just conversions of vector fonts and aren't that great looking).
It will only use Linux to run WSL