[GTO]

I took two Macbooks for a spin (the 15" Air & 14" Pro) and was blown away by the performance of the Apple M chips.

- 14 to 18 hour battery life! Realistically. In comparison, my Dell Latitude does 7 hours, while my 2020 Macbook 16" with an Intel chip does 4 hours.

- Great horsepower. Zero or minimal lag with multiple software & browser tabs open.

- Among the best screens (Pro models).

- The best keyboard (typing this from a WinTel Macbook Pro 16)

- Great looks

- Relative simplicity in model range & nomenclature. With Windows, the number of brands (Dell, ASUS, Acer, Lenovo etc) and model names (Zenbook, T15, Galaxy Book & endless other names) just make it so darn confusing. Walk into an Apple store and you simply make the decision based on your budget & preferred screen size.

- Awesome instore experience (Apple Store @ BKC especially)

- Surprisingly, not more expensive if you're looking at the top of the line range. At the entry level, you can buy a 50k Windows laptop and not a Macbook, but a loaded 15" Air or 14" Pro is in the vicinity of premium Windows laptops. I got a quote for an XPS 15" and a Lenovo; they are as expensive as the Macbook Pros, despite the latter offering superior performance & battery life.

-Main downsides of the Macbooks = No BootCamp anymore for Windows OS, soldering of components, crazy upgrade costs (8 GB RAM for 20k - LOL), stupidly bulky charger design (use it and you'll know).

- Other upsides of Macbooks: Zero fan noise (Air) or minimal (M2 Pro), top build quality, A+ trackpad, feels very very premium to use

I L-O-V-E the Windows OS (tried MacOS for a few months, gave up as I am a Windows power user) and also L-O-V-E Apple's hardware. Why is there a scarcity of Windows laptops that can compete with the Apple M chip laptops?

PC makers & Windows really need to come together and make some magic happen.

From: A Window's Fan...

[YD14]

Originally Posted by GTO

- 14 to 18 hour battery life! Realistically. In comparison, my Dell Latitude does 7 hours, while my 2020 Macbook 16" with an Intel chip does 4 hours.

Battery life is one thing that no one other than apple has figured out. It seriously feels like black magic at this point. Even in the lower end of the market (~80k) no one can compete against Apple's M1 macbook. One part of that may have do with Apple's control over each part of hardware and software.

Intel and AMD are competing with each other on performance specs always tested by YouTubers on desktops made for gaming, editing etc. These desktops do not have much power restrictions, so if one of the manufacturer comes with higher performance CPU, the other has to come out fast with their next generation CPU often sacrificing power optimization. The gaming enthusiasts do not care and laptop buyers do not have a choice.

Laptop manufacturers need to pressure Intel and AMD to make separate power optimized CPUs for laptops. I believe (not sure though) Nvidia already has laptop specific variants of some of its GPU. High end laptop manufacturers like HP, Lenovo, Samsung or LG can definitely pull off a partnership with Intel or AMD.

[NPV]

One of the biggest problems with Windows laptops is the amount of unnecessary bloatware that is added by the manufacturers (they are paid by the various vendors to do this) and over time they start affecting the performance of the machine.
Also, the MacOS has it roots in Unix, has a much smaller footprint and is much more performant which also helps with battery usage.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by GTO

- 14 to 18 hour battery life! Realistically. In comparison, my Dell Latitude does 7 hours, while my 2020 Macbook 16" with an Intel chip does 4 hours.

This is primarily due to Intel sleeping at the wheel for last 10 years. Apple's chip team did a great job at scaling up iPad and iPhone CPUs to Laptop level.

This is not going to change for next couple of years.

Beyond that, things will change. What Apple did is not secret sauce, Qualcomm has hired same engineering team that designed chips at Apple and products will be out next year.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023...-snapdragon-x/

https://www.anandtech.com/show/21112...-whats-to-come

In couple of years; most common software would be updated to work well with such chips and initial problems will be sorted out.

[IshaanIan]

Qualcomm is working on solving this issue as soon as next year if reports are to be believed. That said, even if they sort out the chip’s performance and efficiency, the combination of performance, build, display quality and audio quality might still be tough to find in the windows space. Currently each of those factors seems to cost a lac and if one is in the market for a windows laptop that has all 4, one must spend a whopping 4 lacs on something like an HP Zbook studio.

[MotoBlip]

Apple's M series chips are the outcome of vertical integration within a colossal 3 trillion-dollar company. In contrast to AMD or Intel, Apple doesn't have to cater to a broad audience, granting them the flexibility to craft processors aligned with their core design principles, such as low TDP and high efficiency. Unlike semiconductor companies like AMD and Intel, Apple's revenue model extends beyond chip sales; they profit from the entire unit. This allows them to prioritize chip performance over cost, they could incorporate a large silicon slab for more power and efficiency, and compensate the additional incurred costs by overcharging for commodity parts(charging 20k for 8gb, just like you said).

While in theory, Intel or AMD could design a comparable chip, the market size might not justify the substantial R&D costs. Their primary customers are major computer manufacturers like Dell, Asus, and Lenovo, rather than individual consumers and they need to price it so everyone across the board makes profits. The kind of scaling possible with Intel or AMD chips to accommodate wide use cases and configurations(5W - ~300W or more) is just not possible with apple silicon. Also Apple chips are a lot larger(DRAM and NAND is soldered to the substrate), this creates a concomitant issue with motherboards, they would have to feature a larger socket and a few more modifications, further driving up prices. Apple devices, being purpose-built, can afford to make such design choices.
Additionally, there's a prevalent misconception that Microsoft switching to ARM architecture would resolve all issues with x86. However, historical examples suggest otherwise, often worsening the situation.

[poloman]

Work for one of Apple competitors.
The Apple advantage as many mentioned is the vertical integration and optimization at all levels of HW and SW. Intel or AMD does not make PCs it is up to the OEMs and Microsoft to do the system level and OS level optimization. This applies to pricing also. Margins get split in Windows PC. The same story is happening in IOS vs Android.
X86 is not a very power efficient architecture. So there are inherent limitations in achieving higher performance per watt for current set of windows laptops.
Windows PC OEMs are less focused on aesthetics and ergonomics since their margins are already wafer thin.

[shancz]

Originally Posted by GTO

14 to 18 hour battery life!
I L-O-V-E the Windows OS (tried MacOS for a few months, gave up as I am a Windows power user) and also L-O-V-E Apple's hardware.
From: A Window's Fan...

Ditto to all the points and typing from my Wintel MacBook Pro 13" 2015
Even when I bought the Pro, the nearest windows was a Dell XPS which was more expensive.
Like other informed members have already mentioned, its rooted in hardware capabilities and vertical integration of the entire finished product, hence money. So, I am not very hopeful that this gap can be easily or quickly covered by the wintel side.
I am already dreading the time when I have to upgrade.
But I am counting on the idea that the other manufacturers won't be sitting on their hands and accept defeat

Here's a video explaining the same but poloman and MotoBlip have aptly summarised it.
Credits to Providers :

YouTube : Android Authority

[NPV]

Also note that the Apple M chips use the Unified memory architecture where the RAM is actually inbuilt with the Chip, so unlike the x86 architecture you can’t actually upgrade just memory in isolation (for example M1 with 8GB memory is a separate chip than the M1 with 16GB memory). The M series also integrates CPU and GPU, so all these together contribute to their better performance and remains to be seen what the competition does at the hardware level to catch up.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by GTO

- Relative simplicity in model range & nomenclature. With Windows, the number of brands (Dell, ASUS, Acer, Lenovo etc) and model names (Zenbook, T15, Galaxy Book & endless other names) just make it so darn confusing. ....

PC makers & Windows really need to come together and make some magic happen.

This issue is what Intel is trying to solve by the Evo certification. For a OEM to get an Intel Evo certification, the laptop design is engineered and verified by Intel to conform to certain performance standards. Read more here.

ps - No association with Intel. I have to buy a laptop in the near future and came across about Evo certification.

[Dr.AD]

From: A Window's Fan...

Replying as a Window's fan too, I agree with your points. Even as a Windows fan, I recently switched to Mac Mini with Apple M2 Pro chip for my photography (Adobe Lightroom) needs, and I am blown away by how fast and smooth the software runs with M2 Pro compared to my otherwise powerful Windows laptop. In fact, leave alone Mac with M2 pro, my wife's iPad Air with M1 chip and 8GB RAM runs Adobe Lightroom faster and smoother than my windows laptop with 16GB RAM and a powerful processor.

Apple M chips definitely give superior performance, but I think the secret is not in the chip alone.

When I worked in the semiconductor industry for a decade, and was in the middle of this computing architecture battleground, the holy grail was "hardware-software codesign". No matter how good the hardware is, or how good the software is, if they are not made for each other, the net result can be less than perfect. One company designing the hardware and another designing the OS and a third company designing the application software usually results into some performance loss. Many windows laptops even with powerful Intel processors suffer from this. Same is true with some Android phones (not all, but some).

What Apple has achieved with the M1 and M2 chips and their own OS is the perfect realization of that holy grail of "hardware-software codesign". And that is why their newest machines feel so fast. The secret is neither just in the hardware nor just in the OS, but in the design of both, from scratch, keeping optimal combination with each other in mind.

This is also the reason why Apple products with Intel chips were not as impressive as the current M chips. Not that the Intel chips are bad, and not that the Apple OS was bad. Just that they were not made for each other to the level and degree they should have been (and could have been if both were designed by a same company following that "hardware-software codesign" principle).

Similarly, Intel and Microsoft did try to work together and design their systems better together because they knew the value of that codesign. However, given that the two are completely different companies with very different products and customer base (and even different visions), there was a limit to how closely they could optimize their products for each other.

And then for Windows machines, you need Nvidia graphics card. So that is one more independent player and one less point in the "codesign" game.

Apple took it all in their own hands and hit the bulls eye with a complete codesign of processor, graphics and the operating system. They achieved what others were dreaming since last 10 years - a completely optimal codesigned system!

Originally Posted by GTO

Why is there a scarcity of Windows laptops that can compete with the Apple M chip laptops?

There isn't necessarily a scarcity of such Windows laptops. For example, the same Dell XPS you mentioned, if configured with Intel Core i7 (latest generation) and 16GB RAM and Windows 11 is extremely fast and lag-free. There are a few more laptops with similar configuration that are as fast as the Apple M2 machines. But then they become more expensive (as you correctly pointed out) because each part is made by different companies and you are adding up everyone's costs and margins.

Turns out that hardware-software codesign principle does not just give you a great performance, but also allows you to optimize on cost! And that is why it is such a holy grail and Apple is the probably the first company to have achieved it already.

PC makers & Windows really need to come together and make some magic happen.

They have been trying and they will keep trying. But the challenges are myriad because there are so many players and so many companies involved. A few really good products have come out of this which are comparable if not better than Apple products. But again, there are so many more bad products (because of this design mishmash) that you have a high chance of landing up with a slow and laggy product unless you are very careful in choosing the right product.

With Apple, you can just walk into their store and pick anything and you get a great product. With Windows, you may still get a great product but you have to look hard and do a lot of research and find that right product for you out of a sea of bad products.

[dragonfire]

Are you sure?

Yesterday I picked up an ASUS Zenbook 14X OLED with Core i7 13th gen H proc and 16 gigs of RAM at a price cheaper than the cheapest Macbook Air. See the Nanoreview comparison. The ASUS/i7 smokes the hell out of the M1 Air.



Now compare it with the M3 Macbook Pro Max, the greatest of their lineup, that costs 5 times the ASUS/M1 Air. The ASUS/i7 beats the Macbook/M3 Max in performance, pretty close in other factors.



Where the M series chip truly shines is the power efficiency, which is obvious cos it is an SoC based on the ARM Arch. Microsoft does toy with the ARM chips, but Microsoft is too lazy to get developers to port their Apps to the ARM architecture. Remember what happened to the Windows Phone?

[voldemort]

Because Apple has control over hardware (including processor) — atleast their design if not manufacturing — and software.

Note that in your question, you compared "Windows" — an OS — with "Apple M2/M3 laptops" — which is much more than just an OS. That is literally not an apples-to-apples comparison!

Microsoft has to get the hardware manufacturers, chip manufacturers etc to dance well with each other, which is much harder for them to do unlike Apple who has control over the entire thing.

Having said that I haven't used Windows in over a decade, so I really have no idea what the situation really is over there (are there really ads in the UI?).

[zeus_700]

Recently I changed my office laptop from Dell Latitude 9410 to Microsoft Surface. This is actually a downgrade processor wise as Dell had i7 and Surface has i5.

The difference I notice from Dell to Surface is the build quality and the software runs smoothly.

There is a significant difference in the build quality compared to other windows laptop and surface. Its got a minimalist theme running across the laptop. Absolutely no fan noise. Battery seems to be poor. Not like my Dell which used to run for 9 to 10 hours straight on a single charge. Charging is very fast.

If you are an Apple fan and using a windows laptop for official purpose, I suggest you can try the Surface laptop.

There is a broad range of options also in Surface.

[R-Drive]

Another important advantage for Mac users is complete syncing of information and media over our various devices, presuming most use iPhones, iPads, iWatch (the Apple ecosystem). The choice between Windows OS and Mac OS would be subjective based on personal needs and preferences. I have worked on computers right from the old DOS, then with Windows but switched over to Macbook Pro in 2019. Personally, I have no regrets at all on the switch - everything just got more efficient, convenient and reliable!