Bulky, low res screen, design suggests that it relies heavily on active cooling, looks cheap and plasticy even in the marketing photos. I wouldn't buy this if it was 10x faster than a Macbook Air.
Interestingly, I have opposite preferences. I never had a Macbook Air, and I would not buy one regardless on the price because I don't like the design.
> Bulky
Often a sign of user-replaceable RAM and SSD, which is good. I don't mind if it adds a few millimeters to the thickness.
> low res screen
1920x1080 is enough resolution for a 13" laptop.
> design suggests that it relies heavily on active cooling
I don't want passively cooled computers, I want fast ones. All else being equal, compute performance is proportional to electricity consumption, and heat generated.
>I don't want passively cooled computers, I want fast ones.
Ok, but then why are we even making comparisons with M1 laptops? The M1 is a low TDP chip designed to be used in devices with minimal or no active cooling. Apple will no doubt be bringing out beefier chips for its higher end laptops in due course.
M1 CPU consumes up to 30W of electricity. That’s impossible to do with minimal or no active cooling. Instead of designing good cooling, Apple does aggressive thermal throttling.
The problem is not specific to Apple, many other companies are offering ultra-thin laptops with similar tradeoff.
As a consumer, I don’t like that tradeoff. I’m already paying for a fast CPU. Yet due to the lack of a proper fan assembly (a low-tech and cheap component, compared to CPU) I’m only able to get good performance for brief periods of time. While usually that’s OK, sometimes I want sustained performance for minutes or hours, even on a laptop.
The M1 Macbook Pro has active cooling, if that's important to you as a matter of principle. However, real world tests show that the performance gains from actively cooling the M1 are pretty marginal.
More broadly, it seems that you prioritize performance over everything else when it comes to laptops. Apple doesn't – especially not in its 13" range. What they are providing is a small form factor with crazy good battery life and performance that's more than good enough for most people.
Thermal throttling is not inherently a bad thing – it's a sign of a balanced design. If you have a fixed amount of thermal headroom to play with, then you want a processor that uses more power at peak loads than you can dissipate (so that you can take full advantage of the cooling off periods provided by non-peak usage).
> you prfioritize performance over everything else
More or less. I’m a programmer, and I want computers to compute things.
If I only wanted them to play youtube, I’d get a tablet instead. If I only wanted a laptop to run a word processor, I would look at these MacBooks or equivalent Windows devices.
> If you have a fixed amount of thermal headroom to play with
In case of ultra-thin laptops like macbooks, the primary reason why it’s fixed to just 10-15W is to look good on marketing materials. Technically, it’s easy and cheap to make it fixed to the value several times higher than that. After all, 10 years ago mainstream laptop CPUs were dissipating 35-45W: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Mobile_platform
I'm also a programmer, but don't find performance particularly important once it reaches an acceptable level. I would rather have a thin a light laptop (as would most people, judging by sales).
I should have noted I specialize on desktop and embedded development. I can always find uses of faster CPUs, more cores, and more RAM.
> I would rather have a thin a light laptop
I agree, but to an extent. I don’t have a gamer-targeted laptop because heavy to carry around.
But still, I believe these unupgradable ultra-thin laptops are a bad deal.
They only saving a few millimeters of thickness and ~0.2kg of weight, for a huge performance cost. BTW, I have installed 16GB RAM and 1TB SSD in my reasonably thin (2cm) and reasonably light (1.6kg) 13” laptop.
> as would most people, judging by sales
Judging by sales, most people don’t need a computer at all, they prefer phones and tablets. On the internets, more than half of page views are now from mobile devices.
But there’s no indication from benchmarks that it would have much better performance then the MacBook Pro. Indeed, it would be expected to perform less well on some common tasks - and it has half the battery life. I can’t even find a benchmark comparing that particular laptop to a MacBook Pro. Did you find one somewhere?
There're benchmarks comparing M1 with Zen 2 mobile CPUs such as Ryzen 7 4800U. Based on the results I saw, on average, AMD delivers similar single-threaded performance, and way better multithreaded performance.
Ryzen 7 4800U is very similar to Ryzen 7 Pro 5850U: same core and threads count, same frequency, same 10-25W TDP. The main difference of the new one is Zen 3 microarchitecture instead of Zen 2, and there're quite a few sources comparing Zen 3 to Zen 2.
If you want to be certain, wait for the direct benchmarks.
Also accessible for maintenance; you get the service manual with purchase; they actually bother writing the manual, and the support line isn't half bad.
Hate to break it to ya' but just chucking a chip into a gigantic heatsink of a frame, and relying on one or two USB-C ports to support gigantic networks of peripherals through a powered hub (sold seperately) which has issues running multiple added on monitors because the HDMI over USB-C tends to put off EMI in the 2.4 GHz band is honestly a step backwards compared to the characteristics you complain about. My old MBP would kill it's own network connection trying to drive large smart TV's through it's USB-C ports; and constantly stall handling all the input demands as I'd end up outtyping the capability of the processor to context switch on a typical programmer/scripter workload. Not had an issue one with System76's older school design approach to things like the Serval (whose battery life is abysmal comparatively, but I knew that going in. It's a workstation.)
System76 isn't out to build dispose-a-systems or systems that can only be swapped back through them on warranty. These are systems intended to be user serviced. That means thicker. You have to account for fasteners, less/no glue, stay away from over-using overly brittle plastic bezels that break at the drop of a hat, more room for connectors, so soldering labs aren't required for swapping out or adding RAM/SSD's... More generous tolerances for hand room, ergonomic motherboard and keyboard layouts. I can trust my system more, because I can actually take care of it.
Compared to my old VAIO Z Series, which I love dearly to this day, but which I always crack open with fear and trepidation because of the over-reliance on FPC's, System76 stuff is a breath of fresh air for me. I'd prefer an XFCE derivative desktop over GNOME, but eh. I'll live.
I didn't have to go hunting all over the Net for years for an unofficial community driver that actually gets me passed the most recently updated by manufacturer driver from 2012 for the Nvidia GT 630M/Intel IHD kludge, I don't as a consequence have to run with Driver Signature Enforcement off, and hardly ever update, I don't have to worry about FPC's breaking or put up with software remapping two keys on the keyboard in software because it's easier than risking screwing something up while disassembling the whole bloody laptop to get to the keyboard and mobo so I can reseat the ribbon connector in the hopes of a more solid connection reviving the bloody. No longer functioning keys.
Heck. I ended up able to find my way through troubleshooting their initial setup tool after making my own life more difficult than it needed to be on OS setup bbecause I wanted to understand how the machine worked from boot to userspace.
Something I still have zilch insight into with Macs.
