Apple's M1 machines make the switch from Windows to Mac tempting

Currently I am considering a switch from Windows to Mac, mainly because my computer is having trouble rendering complex drawings I created in Affinity Designer. I am impressed by the speed of the Apple's M1 CPUs that I have seen testers rave about in Youtube videos, that it basically far outpaces its competition, while using little electricity and producing a very modest amount of heat.

Up to not too long ago Apple products were at the top of the most expensive list in their class unchallenged. But since the company is in the process of ditching Intel and (to a somewhat lesser extent AMD - gpu's for their Intel based machines) manufacturing their own CPUs (that also take over the role of GPUs), the market seems to be changing quite a bit. The Mac Mini in particular has drawn my interest. It is less expensive than comparable small form factor Windows mini PCs, is much faster, less energy hungry and runs a whole lot cooler, which probably means that the Mac machines will live longer.

Apple Mac Mini M1

This left me with few arguments to continue to use x486 Windows systems. The M1 in conjunction with the Rosetta 2 translation layer in the most recent Big Sur Mac OS - that allows to run software developed for Intel Macs to run on machines powered by the ARM M1 chip faster than they do on Intel Macs that have no need to run programs on top of Rosetta 2 and therefore run even faster.

Intel or AMD mini PCs often are barebone hardware that require the user to buy RAM and storage in addition to the small form factor machines, while the M1 Mac Mini basically can be run straight out of the box. That is, if the user setup does not include more peripherals than the bare minimum, like mouse, keyboard, monitor and external drive to let Mac's Time machine (real time data sync) do its job. It is the only drawback of the Mac Mini and its fellow M1 machines the MacBook Air and Pro, apart from the 720 resolution on the laptops' webcam.

Thunderbolt 4 dock

This lack of ports forces users to purchase Thunderbolt hubs or docks that offer more connectivity options, which of course comes at a price. But some of these hubs and docks maintain the excellent performance of the Apple silicon machines, so there really aren't any features that do not make the M1 machines preferable over their x486 competitors. And since Serif, that makes the programs in the Affinity suit, has optimized their code to run with the M1 CPU, they are said to outperform the programs of the Adobe suit by a rather significant margin.

The only thing that requires attention from those who are considering a switch from Windows machines to Apple silicon, is the transfer of data to the Apple format. But there are programs that support the transition. Also many companies develop programs for both the Windows and Mac platform, so after properly transferring the data, users should be able to continue to work with the Mac versions of those programs like they did when they still used Windows.

For me those are the most programs of the Affinity suit, Blender, Libre Office, the Vivaldi and Chrome browsers. I am considering doing web design in 10web, which is a plug-in in Wordpress, that is claimed to be capable of (almost) flawlessly importing any website (therefore including my own) and making it editable in Wordpress. 10web allows to build and maintain websites on any platform. So also software-wise there is not a lot to waive the switch.

I will make a decision somewhere in the next weeks. I am waiting for the reviews of mini PCs with the AMD 5900 HX chips (rumoured by the Morefine and Minisforum brands) that seem to be on the verge of being marketed. So far however, there are nothings but unevidenced announcements and shady articles. There are also rumours that Apple will market the M1X or M2 somewhere in the near future, which also is a matter to consider, should the near future not be too far away from this period where my Windows rig struggles to render complex files in a decent amount of time. And then there is the alleged SSD data swap problem - mainly with the 8GB RAM version running programs written for Intel Mac - that fuels my wait-and-see demeanor. The Mac Mini's SSD, in Apple's infinite wisdom, being soldered to the motherboard, can potentially turn this issue in to a serious problem.

In addition there is the not so flexible data storage on a Mac over multiple drives that makes me frown. Mac OS decides where data is stored on the two drives that it handles by default. There seem to be workarounds hook up multiple drives, but Windows users have become accustomed to having the freedom to store data by default on any disk in their own network or cloud server that they prefer. The data storage limitation on a Mac compared to Windows isn't necessarily a deal breaker, but certainly an annoyance to get used to for (ex)Windows users. How things can or can not be configured on a Mac can only be figured out adequately however when users actually are working with the Apple hardware.

Then there is the annoyance of the Bluetooth connection dropping at unpredictable intervals, a peculiarity that many Windows machines seem to suffer from as well. It may urge users to set up different types of (wired) connection to their peripherals, which means that more IO-ports are required of which the Mac mini does not have too many. This inconvenience is solvable by adding hardware like docks and hubs, but it will up the budget required to run the Mac mini for many configurations.

It is not enough for a new generation machine to just have speed that allows it to outrun the competition as its main feature. A modern computer needs to have sufficient IO and a guarantee for longevity, since its buyers are basically beta testers that stick out their neck to eliminate the bugs and report on the machine's shortcomings. This is not the way things should be, but that is how it is today, because companies are under constant pressure to upgrade their product line with a high frequency in order to keep up with the competition. But being a not officially appointed beta tester, that companies prefer to call early adapters, involves certain risks, the biggest of which is seeing investments going up in smoke.

The M1 CPU is a first gen chip, a category that typically has bugs that need to be sorted out - not just hardware issues, but also the software that runs on it. But nevertheless, Apple silicon is one of the most promising pieces of hardware to come to the market in a long time that has left its mark in many convincing ways. But perhaps next generations of this type of ARM CPUs will have less bugs and more IO that allows multiple set-ups and extends the machine's lifespan. What stands out are their dominant features of their excellent speed, modest power consumption and reduced heat production that no Windows CPU or GPU can match. So, I'll remain using my struggling Windows set-up as far as possible, to obtain a better insight in to the working of Apple silicon hardware of this generation and possibly the next.

Meanwhile (early 2022) the Mac Studio has been released and it comes at a rather steep price and great operating speed. But traditionally Apple wipes its rear end with the right-to-repair or upgrade right, which is increasingly bugging me, while I have seen no report yet that it has properly solved the aforementioned SSD problem. The Mac OS 11.4 has reduced the problem, but not resolved it. Probably the software caused the problem, but it is somewhat of a red flag for users to buy a refurbished Mac, because there is no way to know what type of work the previous owner did on the machine. Also the buyers of new M1 machines haven't yet seen their worries taken away completely, especially since the main SSD is not replaceable. At about the same time, fully upgradable mini pc's with AMD's 6000 series APU's that include the fast RDNA 2 iGPU engine are beginning to enter the consumer market, while even faster RDNA 3 isn't that far away according to rumours. I expect many of such machines to have one or two M.2 SSD slots, that can be hooked up with a dedicated GPU. I am inclined to go for the upgradable open system approach at this point, in which hardware lifespan doesn't depend on an SSD that is soldered to the motherboard, while these increasingly fast mini pc's come at a reasonable price.

In addition, Qualcomm has boasted that they will release an M1 beater ARM CPU for laptops next year, which may run Windows 11 for ARM at unprecedented pace. Laptop CPU's and APU's tend to find their way into mini pc's, which is what I am waiting for. I realize that this still is beyond the horizon, but as long as my old and patience challenging desktop keeps tugging along I more or less find myself in a position to be able to wait for things to come. And finally, I think Qualcomm is quite capable of putting its money where its mouth is, bearing in mind the fast chips that use modest amounts of energy while remaining relatively cool at the same time, that they built for the mobile industry. Any of these Mac alternatives will give me the opportunity to save money for a dedicated GPU that I am unable to buy along with the mini pc due to budgetary impairment. The rigid Apple company strategy has the potential to bite them in the back, because I think I'm not the only one who was considering to switch to the Mac platform, who has his doubts about the lifespan and non-upgradable M1 (and successors) machines.

Software update craze & subscription model rip off

I watched several Facebook threads of disgruntled users in the QuarkXpress user group and it really is sad to notice the disdain of software companies like Apple, Google Adobe and Quark (not to mention Microsoft) towards their users, many of whom have been loyal for decades. Users who find that the software for which they paid, no longer works, commonly tend to become displeased, but companies that provide software seem to be less bothered by the fact that their products fail to deliver. Such an implausible attitude of course contributes to the user discontent.

I used Quark up to the 2016 version until it crashed beyond repair. In the past the program has shown great potential, that was so good in fact that I never needed the assistance of their support department. Plus, I like to dive into matters and figure out how to get things to work. But the industry's upgrade frenzy finally got me, which is to be blamed on the fact that an increasing chunk of the upgrading and support requires an on line connection to the companies' servers. When support for a version has been terminated or the software on the server does not work, it simply means there will be no support. Period. 

Force to subscibe and therefore auto-update

The companies' urge to increasingly rapidly upgrade, goes hand in hand with a decreasing inclination to provide proper service and support, because those things add little to their intention to make immediate profits, since they have to continually please their shareholders, whose sole interest is the dividend corporations listed in the stock exchange will pay (or not). To put it differently: They don't give a toss about client satisfaction. It may sound rather crude, but that actually is what it comes down to.

Dealing with this situation is increasingly difficult for the software companies' customers, whose profit / survival money goes out the window when the coercive corporate upgrade craze causes them to be unable to continue their business. Mainly because companies ceased to support usually older versions or properly maintain the upgrade and support software on their servers. 

Adobe's subscription model's main purpose - besides gaining disproportionately huge profits - is to force their entire user base into accepting and paying for their upgrade policy without the need to spend time and money on promoting and selling upgrades for a fee and offering support to customers that run into trouble after upgrading. Do not give clients the option to choose whether or not they want to upgrade, just force them to use whatever upgrade the company feels is necessary and make them pay for it. If they decline this 'offer' simply refuse to let them use the software, which makes them unable to access files they have created earlier with  the software.

Being the market leader in the main stream of the graphic art, publishing and printing industry, allowed Adobe to get away with this user unfriendly strategy. Clients that disagreed with their new approach and turned their back on the behemoth often found themselves in a place void of solutions to their professional problems and an abundance of workarounds necessary to get the job at hand done if they are available at all.

Not long after Adobe forced their users into a mortgage like payment system, its competition began to pick up on the advantages of the more or less concealed aspects of that rip off model, that makes their business a lot easier, while ensuring a more steady and predictable profit, which prevented them from ending up in a nasty dispute with their all powerful shareholders. The fact that it also caused them to land in disagreement with their users does not bother them to the extent that made them willing to change their policy. 

An other detrimental effect of the upscaling of the upgrade pace is the fact that developers have their panties twisted. Doing more work in less time with fewer people is an unfailing recipe for causing stress and discomfort, which commonly results in an increased number of errors or bugs in the software. This in turn makes it hard for clients who use the buggy software to produce decent files within the deadline limits. But as long as shareholders see their bank accounts grow fat, there is little to worry about for the management of software corporations. At least, that is what they think they can afford to assume in the short term.

Assumption is the mother of all evil

In the long run however, the world is an entirely different place. While developers end up gulping Prozac or relocate to an asylum and clients of the software companies go bankrupt, managers simply continue their career in a next project, where they repeat their mistakes for a generous fee. Reproducing blunders is what is generally meant by experience in resumes - the more often a person repeats his or her mistakes, the more experienced (s)he is considered to be. This is how modern market reason works. It is meritocracy interpreted in the most harmful way possible. But since everybody does it, only few notice it is a disastrous perception. 

Because in the end earning money and making profits only is possible when there is production of things that markets need. In order to be able to continue this type of symbiosis the produce has to work properly. If this isn't the case, that market segment will at some point collapse. This implosion will affect those involved in the perpetuation of that particular portion of the trade. Some may be able to venture into different directions, but many will just suffer the consequence of mankind's aversion to admit that caring for all is possible only in a logical setting. Limitless greed does not comply with this universal principle.

Regardless of how affluent one is, how influential, how well educated, well dressed and respected because of ones pretended sincerity and empathy, a carefully concealed greed ridden mindset will ultimately destroy any collaboration that was established, in which the producing portion of the factions involved was kept in the dark about the unbalanced reward method of that system. The sad part of such events is that the system's break down harms those who were held unaware of the deceitful nature of the setup.