On 2023-09-30 06:10, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 12:38 a.m., Dorper wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
>> (in article <uf87iv$fg0s$3@dont-email.me>):
>>
>>> On 9/29/23 23:09, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-29 21:01, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> Brand.
>>>>> Also, consumer safety/functionality should usually be prioritized.
>>>>
>>>> Riiiiiiiight.
>>>>
>>>> "Brand" has kept them the best-selling smartphones in the world for 16
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> <smirk>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> People see Apple as the modern, futuristic tech company.
>>> That takes a lot of marketing, genuine success, etc.
>>> But once you have that, you can basically ride the loyalty to success.
>>>
>>> How many genuine innovations has Apple made recently?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_loyalty
>>
>> Like them or not:
>> - The Notch
>> - Removing the headphone jack
>> - The reversible charging port
>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>
>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
>> Thunderbolt,
>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
>> general public.
>
> Fantastic post. There is absolutely no denying that this rings true.
> Most PC and Android users who will point out that their devices get
> certain features before iPhones do neglect to mention that they are
> usually cumbersome, hidden or barely functional. When Apple decides to
> implement the same functionality, it is done in such a way that it
> appears seamless and even the most novice of users are able to take
> advantage of them right away. Also, what they implement sometimes
> appears like the most obvious thing, such as the way that Mac OS now
> hides every window when you click on the desktop or natural scrolling.
>

Remember the introduction of the iPhone and the reactions it got?

'“The iPhone is going to be nothing more than a temporary novelty that
will eventually wear off.” – Gundeep Hora, CoolTechZone Editor-in-Chief,
April 02, 2007'

'“Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone… What Apple risks here is its
reputation as a hot company that can do no wrong. If it’s smart it will
call the iPhone a ‘reference design’ and pass it to some suckers to
build with someone else’s marketing budget. Then it can wash its hands
of any marketplace failures… Otherwise I’d advise people to cover their
eyes. You are not going to like what you’ll see.” – John C. Dvorak,
Bloated Gas Bag, March 28, 2007'

<https://macdailynews.com/2017/06/29/the-silliest-quotes-from-the-early-days-of-the-iphone/>

On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>> On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
>>> Like them or not:
>>> - The Notch
>>> - Removing the headphone jack
>>> - The reversible charging port
>>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>>
>>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
>>> Thunderbolt,
>>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
>>> general public.
>>>
>>
>> To be fair, yes.
>> The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
>> repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
>>
>> Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
>> new model" of devices.
>
> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time, telling
> people that Lightning was better in every possible way.

I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying that.

> They managed to
> spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to USB-C into an
> enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as an example of
> marketing brilliance in university programs.

Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?

On 2023-09-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>
>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
>>> platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
>>> of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind
>>> of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once
>>> this one becomes obsolete.
>>
>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering
>> software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
>> via remote access, is not a great solution.
>
><https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>
> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.

Yes, the OP and others there dispute Steve's claims:

"If you are a Mac user who wants to run Solidworks on your device, you
might be interested in this. I have successfully installed and run
Solidworks 2023 on my Macbook Pro 14" with M1 Pro chip using Parallels
Desktop.

I was hesitant to try it at first, as Solidworks has traditionally only
been available on Windows. However, I decided to give it a shot and was
pleasantly surprised with the results!

The M1 Pro chip is a CPU based on ARM architecture, which means that
running Solidworks, originally designed for x64 architecture, on this
chip is a big deal. Despite the challenges of running Solidworks on an
ARM-based processor, the software worked flawlessly, with no lags or
bugs at all. I was pleasantly surprised with the level of performance
and power efficiency that the M1 Pro chip, which actually should not be
able to run Solidworks, provided while running Solidworks.

If you're considering running Solidworks on a Macbook Pro, I highly
recommend giving it a try with the M1 or M2 Pro/Max chips and Parallels
Desktop. It's really incredible to see this level of performance on a
machine that was not originally designed for Solidworks."

---

"It’s pretty stable. I’ve had it going for pretty close to a year on
both my m1 mba, at the time, and my m1p mbp for at least 6 months. I
could totally use it for my work needs (I work almost exclusively on a
part level. Very little assembly work). I even have solidcam running
pretty acceptably (solidcam. Not Solidworks cam. I have mastercam hle on
it too). My sentiment has remained pretty much unchanged: if I needed to
run sw and didn’t have a computer, I wouldn’t buy a Mac. If I had a Mac
and needed to run Solidworks, I wouldn’t buy a second computer. I’m in
the process of starting a machining business and am really torn on
buying a windows laptop for sw/solidcam (just from an overall speed
standpoint. Intel generates toolpaths much faster)."

---

"I’ve used sw and solidcam on my Mac on the daily since at least the
start of the year. It’s easily as reliable as any windows computer I’ve
ever run it on (more stable than a number of the computers I’ve used in
the past). It’s certainly not as fast as other computers but it has
never once been a reliability issue. I no longer have any intentions of
buying a windows computer for SW/Solidcam.

I have tested nx and nx cam pro. They work just as well but I am not a
fan of NX as a cam program for what I want to do. It’s feature/contour
selection and high speed machining offerings leave a ton to be desired."

---

"with parallels 19, CAD got a HUGE bump in performance (in my
experience). i can say with confidence that it's finally GOOD. i've
ditched my windows laptop due to my macbook's far superior battery life.
i've monitored temperatures, fan noise, and overall performance and i'm
really surprised with how far virtual machines (and for that matter
x86-64 emulation)."

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-09-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
>>>> Like them or not:
>>>> - The Notch
>>>> - Removing the headphone jack
>>>> - The reversible charging port
>>>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>>>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>>>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>>>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>>>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>>>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>>>
>>>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
>>>> Thunderbolt,
>>>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
>>>> general public.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To be fair, yes. The marketing hides that they haven't made
>>> anything NEW, just repackaged an existing thing and made it a
>>> selling point.
>>>
>>> Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
>>> new model" of devices.
>>
>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>
> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
> that.

Don't hold your breath.

>> They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
>> USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as
>> an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
>
> Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?

🤣

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
>> platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
>> of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind
>> of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once
>> this one becomes obsolete.
>
> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering
> software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
> via remote access, is not a great solution.
>
> From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available
> on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access
> these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>
> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
> low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>
> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as
> capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.

Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
they really wanted simply because their university program required
x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in the early 2000s, I
was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I learned that he was a Mac
die-hard since it was released. When I inquired why he finally went for
a PC, I learned that the guy loved walking into a computer store and
buying random programs, but that there was less and less for the Mac
(which was true at the time).

Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
are actually nicer.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
>>>> Like them or not:
>>>> - The Notch
>>>> - Removing the headphone jack
>>>> - The reversible charging port
>>>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>>>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>>>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>>>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>>>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>>>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>>>
>>>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
>>>> Thunderbolt,
>>>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
>>>> general public.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To be fair, yes.
>>> The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
>>> repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
>>>
>>> Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
>>> new model" of devices.
>>
>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>
> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying that.

Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that their
reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of the
accessories purchased for their phones.

>> They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
>> USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as
>> an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
>
> Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?

No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
<https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
>>> platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the
>>> amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the
>>> same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another
>>> PC once this one becomes obsolete.
>>
>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
>> engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual
>> machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>
>>  From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
>> available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers
>> can access these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>
>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
>> low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>
>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>
> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
> they really wanted simply because their university program required
> x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
> eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
> realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
> software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in the early 2000s, I
> was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I learned that he was a Mac
> die-hard since it was released. When I inquired why he finally went for
> a PC, I learned that the guy loved walking into a computer store and
> buying random programs, but that there was less and less for the Mac
> (which was true at the time).
>
> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
> are actually nicer.
>

Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the Mac
as a consumer platform.

Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
software developers would have been questioning whether or not it would
be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.

Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer OS
market.

<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202309>

It's a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
where Macs aren't affordable for large swathes of the population...

<https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america#monthly-200807-202309>

....and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
non-personal usage.

😏

On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
>>>>> Like them or not:
>>>>> - The Notch
>>>>> - Removing the headphone jack
>>>>> - The reversible charging port
>>>>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>>>>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>>>>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>>>>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>>>>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>>>>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>>>>
>>>>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>>>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
>>>>> Thunderbolt,
>>>>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
>>>>> general public.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, yes.
>>>> The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
>>>> repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
>>>>
>>>> Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
>>>> new model" of devices.
>>>
>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>
>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying that.
>
> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that their
> reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of the
> accessories purchased for their phones.

And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.

Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.

Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have
significant investments in Lightning accessories.

>
>>> They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
>>> USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used as
>>> an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
>>
>> Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
>
> No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
> <https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>

Way to miss the point.

On 2023-09-30 2:09 p.m., Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
>>>> x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
>>>> the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
>>>> the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
>>>> another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
>>>
>>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
>>> engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual
>>> machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>>
>>>  From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
>>> available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
>>> computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
>>> access tools."
>>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
>>> as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>>
>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>
>> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
>> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
>> they really wanted simply because their university program required
>> x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2
>> on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
>> realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
>> software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in the early 2000s,
>> I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I learned that he was a
>> Mac die-hard since it was released. When I inquired why he finally
>> went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved walking into a computer
>> store and buying random programs, but that there was less and less for
>> the Mac (which was true at the time).
>>
>> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
>> are actually nicer.
>>
>
> Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the Mac
> as a consumer platform.
>
> Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
> software developers would have been questioning whether or not it would
> be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.
>
> Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer OS
> market.
>
> <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202309>
>
> It's a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
> where Macs aren't affordable for large swathes of the population...
>
> <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america#monthly-200807-202309>
>
> ...and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
> non-personal usage.
>
> 😏

I can say that Mac OS X didn't have the right kind of hardware to run it
at the time. I actually purchased an iBook G3 600 with 128MB RAM back
then. It came with Mac OS X but retained Mac OS 9.2.2 for compatibility
purposes. With the default hardware, Mac OS X was unbearable. Even after
maxing out the RAM to 640MB, it wasn't much better. I was actually
encouraged to just use Mac OS 9.2.2. On the G4 PowerBook I purchased to
replace it (G4 1GHz 1GB RAM), it was mostly fine but nothing special. I
don't think that the operating system got the kind of hardware it
deserved until it switched to the G5 processors.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-09-30 11:16, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 2:09 p.m., Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
>>>>> x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
>>>>> the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
>>>>> the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
>>>>> another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>>>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
>>>> engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a
>>>> virtual machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>>>
>>>>  From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
>>>> available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
>>>> computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
>>>> access tools."
>>>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>>>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
>>>> as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>>>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>>>
>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
>>>> run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
>>>> nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>
>>> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
>>> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
>>> they really wanted simply because their university program required
>>> x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2
>>> on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he
>>> quickly realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just
>>> isn't as much software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in
>>> the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
>>> learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
>>> inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
>>> walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
>>> there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the
>>> PC are actually nicer.
>>>
>>
>> Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the
>> Mac as a consumer platform.
>>
>> Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
>> software developers would have been questioning whether or not it
>> would be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.
>>
>> Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer OS
>> market.
>>
>> <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202309>
>>
>> It's a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
>> where Macs aren't affordable for large swathes of the population...
>>
>> <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america#monthly-200807-202309>
>>
>> ...and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
>> non-personal usage.
>>
>> 😏
>
> I can say that Mac OS X didn't have the right kind of hardware to run it
> at the time. I actually purchased an iBook G3 600 with 128MB RAM back
> then. It came with Mac OS X but retained Mac OS 9.2.2 for compatibility
> purposes. With the default hardware, Mac OS X was unbearable. Even after
> maxing out the RAM to 640MB, it wasn't much better. I was actually
> encouraged to just use Mac OS 9.2.2. On the G4 PowerBook I purchased to
> replace it (G4 1GHz 1GB RAM), it was mostly fine but nothing special. I
> don't think that the operating system got the kind of hardware it
> deserved until it switched to the G5 processors.
>

I think it was probably a combination of the early Mac OS X being far
from optimized AND better processors, but yeah.

All of it left developers hesitant to invest resources in rewriting for
Mac OS X... ...and of course that's why Apple kept the "Classic
Environment" (which also hurt performance of course) as well as the
Carbon API.

On 2023-09-30 2:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 12:54 a.m., candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
>>>>>> Like them or not:
>>>>>> - The Notch
>>>>>> - Removing the headphone jack
>>>>>> - The reversible charging port
>>>>>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>>>>>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>>>>>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>>>>>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>>>>>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>>>>>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>>>>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers,
>>>>>> Thunderbolt,
>>>>>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> general public.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, yes.
>>>>> The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just
>>>>> repackaged an existing thing and made it a selling point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting
>>>>> new model" of devices.
>>>>
>>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>>
>>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>>> that.
>>
>> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
>> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
>
> And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
>
> Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
> parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
>
> Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have
> significant investments in Lightning accessories.

The USB-C claim of being forced.

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/10/26/weve-no-choice-apple-says-iphones-will-switch-over-to-usb-c-chargers-to-comply-with-new-eu-law/?sh=1240b35cbcde>

"We've no choice."

The Apple desire to hold onto Lightning to control the sale of accessories.

<https://screenrant.com/apple-iphone-switch-lightning-usb-c-avoid-why/>

"Apple’s ‘Made For iPhone’ program is just that. A system setup to
promote and sell products made are specifically made for iPhone. It is
understood to be a lucrative business for the company and Kuo was quoted
as saying a switch to USB-C would be “detrimental” to Apple’s MFI
business. "

>>>> They managed to spin the fact that they were _forced_ to migrate to
>>>> USB-C into an enormous positive so effectively that it can be used
>>>> as an example of marketing brilliance in university programs.
>>>
>>> Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
>>
>> No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
>> <https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>
>
> Way to miss the point.
You're the one who originally missed the point by talking about the
iPad when everyone was talking about the iPhone. Apple didn't have a
choice but to use USB-C on the iPad because Lightning can't deliver the
amount of power an iPad would need anyway. Isn't the format limited to
12w? iPads would need way more than that amount to replace laptops for
many tasks the way the company intends for them to.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-09-30 2:23 p.m., Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 11:16, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 2:09 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>>>>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
>>>>>> x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
>>>>>> the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
>>>>>> the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
>>>>>> another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>>>>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
>>>>> engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a
>>>>> virtual machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From University of Colorado (most universities have similar
>>>>> warnings):
>>>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
>>>>> available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
>>>>> computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
>>>>> access tools."
>>>>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>>>>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
>>>>> as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>>>>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
>>>>> run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
>>>>> nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
>>>> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the
>>>> MacBook they really wanted simply because their university program
>>>> required x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his
>>>> MacBook Air M2 on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely
>>>> because he quickly realized that as fantastic as the machine is,
>>>> there just isn't as much software for the Mac as there is for the
>>>> PC. Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3,
>>>> and I learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When
>>>> I inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy
>>>> loved walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but
>>>> that there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the
>>>> PC are actually nicer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the
>>> Mac as a consumer platform.
>>>
>>> Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
>>> software developers would have been questioning whether or not it
>>> would be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.
>>>
>>> Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer
>>> OS market.
>>>
>>> <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide#monthly-200901-202309>
>>>
>>> It's a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
>>> where Macs aren't affordable for large swathes of the population...
>>>
>>> <https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america#monthly-200807-202309>
>>>
>>> ...and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
>>> non-personal usage.
>>>
>>> 😏
>>
>> I can say that Mac OS X didn't have the right kind of hardware to run
>> it at the time. I actually purchased an iBook G3 600 with 128MB RAM
>> back then. It came with Mac OS X but retained Mac OS 9.2.2 for
>> compatibility purposes. With the default hardware, Mac OS X was
>> unbearable. Even after maxing out the RAM to 640MB, it wasn't much
>> better. I was actually encouraged to just use Mac OS 9.2.2. On the G4
>> PowerBook I purchased to replace it (G4 1GHz 1GB RAM), it was mostly
>> fine but nothing special. I don't think that the operating system got
>> the kind of hardware it deserved until it switched to the G5 processors.
>>
>
> I think it was probably a combination of the early Mac OS X being far
> from optimized AND better processors, but yeah.
>
> All of it left developers hesitant to invest resources in rewriting for
> Mac OS X... ...and of course that's why Apple kept the "Classic
> Environment" (which also hurt performance of course) as well as the
> Carbon API.

For what it's worth, Mac OS 9.2.2 ran beautifully on the G3 iBook. Of
course, by the time I got a Mac, the operating system was already being
phased out. I think I would have enjoyed using it in the 90s had I not
been forced into the PC platform.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>
>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>
>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>> that.
>
> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
> the accessories purchased for their phones.

Actually, there's no evidence control has nothing to do with it. It's
just as plausible that Apple simply wanted to get full support for USB-C
accessories lined up and deployed in iOS before transitioning. Keep in
mind there were a shitload of existing Lightning accessories in use that
would require an adapter and potential changes to those accessories to
continue working, which no doubt required careful coordination with
third-party accessory makers.

>> Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
>
> No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone

><https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>.

Not necessarily. That law doesn't go into effect until 2024. And there's
little doubt Apple was already planning the transition of the iPhone to
USB-C long before that law was but a spark in the EU's eyes.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 2:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
>>> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
>>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
>>
>> And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
>>
>> Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
>> parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
>>
>> Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have
>> significant investments in Lightning accessories.
>
> The USB-C claim of being forced.
>
><https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/10/26/weve-no-choice-apple-says-iphones-will-switch-over-to-usb-c-chargers-to-comply-with-new-eu-law/?sh=1240b35cbcde>
>
> "We've no choice."

The law doesn't go into effect until 2024 (the iPhone is already
released), and it's likely Apple was planning to transition the iPhone
and iPhone accessories to USB-C anyway.

> The Apple desire to hold onto Lightning to control the sale of accessories.
>
><https://screenrant.com/apple-iphone-switch-lightning-usb-c-avoid-why/>
>
> "Apple’s ‘Made For iPhone’ program is just that. A system setup to
> promote and sell products made are specifically made for iPhone. It is
> understood to be a lucrative business for the company and Kuo was quoted
> as saying a switch to USB-C would be “detrimental” to Apple’s MFI
> business. "

Yet it's a fact that Apple's MFi business represents an insignificant
portion of its overall profits. You're also purposely ignoring other
more important reasons for the iPhone transition taking longer than
other Apple products.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-09-30 06:36:02 +0000, Dorper said:
> On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
> (in article <uf89pi$n7qd$1@dont-email.me>):
>> On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
>>> Like them or not:
>>> - The Notch
>>> - Removing the headphone jack
>>> - The reversible charging port
>>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>>
>>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt,
>>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
>>> general public.
>>
>> To be fair, yes.
>> The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just repackaged
>> an existing thing and made it a selling point.
>>
>> Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting new
>> model" of devices.
>
> All technology is built upon existing technology.

Apple never said it invented the smart phone, the tablet, the computer,
the portable music player, etc., etc.

Apple creates devices that work better than the existing ones, and then
all the other lazy companies like Samsung and Microsloth simply copy
what Apple does.

On 2023-09-30 17:39:44 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
>>> platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
>>> of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind of
>>> performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once this
>>> one becomes obsolete.
>>
>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering
>> software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
>> via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>
>> From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available
>> on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access
>> these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
>> low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>
>>
>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as
>> capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>
> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
> they really wanted simply because their university program required
> x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
> eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
> realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
> software for the Mac as there is for the PC.

The fact that there is "more" Windoze software doesn't mean anything
when 95% of it is just useless drivel. :-\

With the exception of some games and some specific / custom work or
school apps, you can get every app the average user needs on the Mac.

> Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
> learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
> inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
> walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
> there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).

There were tons of "random apps" easily obtainable, often for free, on
magazine cover disks / discs. I got a free copy of ColorIt! from a
magazine cover disk and I used that as a Photoshop replacement for many
years (it didn't have all the fancy "features" as Photoshop evolved,
but was much easier to use and did everything I needed it to).

> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
> are actually nicer.

That's because the MacOS itself is much "nicer" to use (although Apple
keeps trying to negate that with more and more unnecessary gimmickry).
Windoze is just a continual kludge and mess, not to mention all the
malware issues.

Most people use Windoze for one or two reasons:

1. Work / school forces them to use it.

2. Because Windoze PCs appear to be cheaper when
solely look at the price tag in-store.

On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:

>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>
>
> That's SolidWorks fault.
>
> But...
>
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>
> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.

In a VM (Parallels).

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>
>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>
>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>
> In a VM (Parallels).

And people report it works well.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-09-30 14:00, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>
>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>
>>
>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>
>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>
> In a VM (Parallels).
>

Yup.

So what?

On 2023-09-30 17:06, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 14:00, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>
>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
>>>> run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
>>>> nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>
>>> But...
>>>
>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>
>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>
>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>
>
> Yup.
>
> So what?

It's good thing. But I'd need to see it render a large, complex project
before cheering it completely.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>
>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>
>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>
>>> But...
>>>
>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>
>> In a VM (Parallels).
>
> And people report it works well.

I'd have to see it on a large complex project.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>
>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>
>>>> But...
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>
>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>
>> And people report it works well.
>
> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>

At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.

The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:

A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.

A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.

Pretty much even in I/O

And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the "Max"
version).

On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> But...
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>>
>>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>>
>>> And people report it works well.
>>
>> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
>
> At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
> workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
>
> The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
>
> A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
>
> A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
>
> Pretty much even in I/O
>
> And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the "Max"
> version).

RealView performance was not great.

Quote: "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."

Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far from
ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "

Quote:(ish ...):
"and m1 ultra processors also it's
important to be aware that you will
experience some performance related
issues when running solidworks on a mac
for example occasional graphical
glitches in features such as
transparency and reality this is because
apple does not build these macs with a
graphical driver similar to the nvidia
quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
that solidwork is optimized for you may
also experience other little glitches
such as items temporarily disappearing
when you rotate zoom and pan especially
with dimension text and 3d details ..."

That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
to work at all, it's pretty good.

Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-09-30 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>>>
>>>> And people report it works well.
>>>
>>> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
>>
>> At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
>> workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
>>
>> The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
>>
>> A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
>>
>> A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
>>
>> Pretty much even in I/O
>>
>> And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the
>> "Max" version).
>
> RealView performance was not great.
>
> Quote:  "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."

On a far-from-fastest Mac...

>
> Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
> about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
> solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far from
> ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "

Exactly.

So he compared one of the fastest workstations available with 384GB of
RAM to a MacBook Pro with a first generation Mx processor.

>
> Quote:(ish ...):
> "and m1 ultra processors also it's
> important to be aware that you will
> experience some performance related
> issues when running solidworks on a mac
> for example occasional graphical
> glitches in features such as
> transparency and reality this is because
> apple does not build these macs with a
> graphical driver similar to the nvidia
> quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
> that solidwork is optimized for you may
> also experience other little glitches
> such as items temporarily disappearing
> when you rotate zoom and pan especially
> with dimension text and 3d details ..."
>
> That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
> to work at all, it's pretty good.

Yup. Imagine if you just upgraded to the Mac Studio...

>
> Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...
>

Indeed.

They're already including the Mac as an officially recognized option
with Parallels 17.1.2

<https://www.solidworks.com/support/system-requirements>

And AutoCAD isn't SolidWorks, but it's going native:

"AutoCAD for Mac 2024 and AutoCAD LT for Mac 2024 deliver incredible,
new performance improvements with the ability to run AutoCAD natively on
Apple silicon," says Dania El Hassan, Director of Product Management for
AutoCAD, Autodesk. "It's exciting to see how customers can now take full
advantage of the latest hardware and M-series chips for faster ways to
work."

And of course, the cloud is becoming a more and more viable option:

<https://www.onshape.com/en/>

<https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/28/autocad-mac-2024-apple-silicon/>

On 2023-09-30 18:56, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and
>>>>>>>> can't run
>>>>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
>>>>>>>> nearly
>>>>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>>>>
>>>>> And people report it works well.
>>>>
>>>> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
>>>
>>> At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
>>> workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
>>>
>>> The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
>>>
>>> A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
>>>
>>> A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
>>>
>>> Pretty much even in I/O
>>>
>>> And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the
>>> "Max" version).
>>
>> RealView performance was not great.
>>
>> Quote:  "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."
>
> On a far-from-fastest Mac...
>
>>
>> Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
>> about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
>> solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far
>> from ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "
>
> Exactly.
>
> So he compared one of the fastest workstations available with 384GB of
> RAM to a MacBook Pro with a first generation Mx processor.

Yes - so still to be seen.

>
>>
>> Quote:(ish ...):
>> "and m1 ultra processors also it's
>> important to be aware that you will
>> experience some performance related
>> issues when running solidworks on a mac
>> for example occasional graphical
>> glitches in features such as
>> transparency and reality this is because
>> apple does not build these macs with a
>> graphical driver similar to the nvidia
>> quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
>> that solidwork is optimized for you may
>> also experience other little glitches
>> such as items temporarily disappearing
>> when you rotate zoom and pan especially
>> with dimension text and 3d details ..."
>>
>> That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
>> to work at all, it's pretty good.
>
> Yup. Imagine if you just upgraded to the Mac Studio...

Not too fast - there may be GPU dependencies here that Parallels cannot
overcome technically or license wise...
>>
>> Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> They're already including the Mac as an officially recognized option
> with Parallels 17.1.2
>
> <https://www.solidworks.com/support/system-requirements>
>
> And AutoCAD isn't SolidWorks, but it's going native:
>
> "AutoCAD for Mac 2024 and AutoCAD LT for Mac 2024 deliver incredible,
> new performance improvements with the ability to run AutoCAD natively on
> Apple silicon," says Dania El Hassan, Director of Product Management for
> AutoCAD, Autodesk. "It's exciting to see how customers can now take full
> advantage of the latest hardware and M-series chips for faster ways to
> work."
>
> And of course, the cloud is becoming a more and more viable option:
>
> <https://www.onshape.com/en/>
>
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/28/autocad-mac-2024-apple-silicon/>

Which is nice, but there are entire major corporations and there
collaborators (clients, subs, parts vendors, etc.) who are anchored in
SolidWorks.

I'll defer to the Zen Master.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.