Computer monitors have been getting a lot better while being cheaper, with no ads or services. You can get a high resresh rate 4K ips for about $200 nowadays. Display tech is just advancing faster than other tech at the moment
How does this work with respect to using a remote? I know something like a Roku remote would work display-wise, but you usually program it to use the signal that the your brand of TV responds to. That way you can use the Roku/whatever remote to turn on the actual TV and control audio. Speaking of, how does audio work for this set up?
HDMI standards allow plugged in devices to control the power state of the TV. e.g. my Apple TV will turn the TV on when I press a button on the aTV remote and will turn the TV off when I turn the Apple TV off.
Audio is a separate challenge, I'm not sure what you'd do there. Do computer monitors have eARC outputs? None of the ones I have do. Again if you had an Apple TV you could pair it with a HomePod (or pair of them) to avoid the issue but that's a niche solution.
Samsung already makes a bunch of "smart monitors", putting there the same software they use on TVs. Not sure about other manufacturers, but would be surprised if they don't catch up soon.
Why is their browser using so much memory?
I'm quite bad at closing tabs since I've switched to vertical and just open new windows instead.
And even with that I don't think I ever broke 10gb on edge except for when I opened many YouTube videos at once and then went through them which kept the tabs loaded
Lost faith from what? On x86 mobile Lunar lake chips are the clear best for battery life at the moment, and mobile arrowlake is competitive with amd's offerings. Only thing they're missing is a Strix halo equivalent but AMD messed that one up and there's like 2 laptops with it.
The new intel node seems to be kinda weaker than tsmc's going by the frequency numbers of the CPUs, but what'll matter the most in a laptop is real battery life anyway
Lunar Lake throttles a lot. It can lose 50% of its performance on battery life. It's not the same as Apple Silicon where the performance is exactly the same plugged in or not.
Lunar Lake is also very slow in ST and MT compared to Apple.
Qualcomm's X Elite 2 SoCs have a much better chance of duplicating the Macbook experience.
Nobody is duplicating the macbook experience because Apple is integrating both hardware and os, while others are fighting Windows, and OEMs being horrible at firmware.
LNL should only power throttle when you go to power saver modes, battery life will suffer when you let it boost high on all cores but you're not getting great battery life when doing heavy all core loads either way. Overall MT should be better on Panther lake with the unified architecture, as afaik LNLs main problem was being too expensive so higher end high core count SKUs were served by mobile arrow lake.
And we're also getting what seems to be a very good iGPU while AMD's iGPUs outside of Strix Halo are barely worth talking about
ST is about the same as AMD. Apple being ahead is nothing out of the ordinary since their ARM switch, as there's the node advantage, what I mentioned with the OS, and just better architecture as they plainly have the best people at the moment working at it
> LNL throttles heavily even on the default profile, not just power saver modes.
This does also show it not changing in other benchmarks, but I don't have a LNL laptop myself to test things myself, just going off of what people I know tested. It's still also balanced so best performance power plan would I assume push it to use its cores normally - on windows laptops I've owned this could be done with a hotkey.
> Lunar Lake uses TSMC N3 for compute tile. There is no node advantage.
LNL is N3B, Apple is on N3E which is a slight improvement for efficency
> Yet, M4 is 42% faster in ST and M5 is 50% faster based on Geekbench 6 ST.
Like I said they simply have a better architecture at the moment, which also more focused on client that GB benchmarks because their use cases are narrower.
If you compare something like optimized SIMD Intel/AMD will come out on top with perf/watt.
And I'm not sure why being behind the market leader would make one lose faith in Intel, their most recent client fuckup was raptor lake instability and I'd say that was handled decently. For now nothing else that'd indicate Windows ARM getting to Apple level battery performance without all of the vertical integration
ETA: looking at things the throttling behaviour seems to be very much OEM dependent, though the tradeoffs will always remain the same
This does also show it not changing in other benchmarks, but I don't have a LNL laptop myself to test things myself, just going off of what people I know tested. It's still also balanced so best performance power plan would I assume push it to use its cores normally - on windows laptops I've owned this could be done with a hotkey.
It literally throttles in every benchmark shown. Some more than others. It throttles even more than the older Intel SoC LNL replaced.
LNL is N3B, Apple is on N3E which is a slight improvement for efficency
Still the same family. The difference is tiny. Not nearly enough to make up the vast difference between LNL and M4. Note that N3B actually has higher density than N3E.
Like I said they simply have a better architecture at the moment, which also more focused on client that GB benchmarks because their use cases are narrower. If you compare something like optimized SIMD Intel/AMD will come out on top with perf/watt.
I did recently see someone compare mpv and vlc on a 8k HDR @ 60fps file with mpv really lagging while vlc doing it fine.
I could confirm the mpv lags but don't have vlc, so not sure if it's just better in that specific case or did something like no actual HDR
This may just be because mpv has higher-quality default settings for scaling and tonemapping. Try mpv with profile=fast, maybe. To properly compare mpv's and VLC's performance you'd need to fully match all settings across both players.
It was with the fast profile using both software and hardware deciding, important detail I forgot was that the video was av1. Don't have the link to it now but it was from jellyfin's test files
From my tests defender has minimal impact on performance even when doing a full scan, except for making some io slower when you're e.g. unpacking new files but NTFS is plenty slow by itself there
Enterprise likes to layer multiple invasive security products though that'll do a lot worse than defender
There aren't because nobody is betting on ai demand to last. Then they'd have a couple billion dollar fab sitting around doing nothing and employees that'd have to be fired.
There already was scaling back for dram and and production post COVID, where I believe nand was being sold close to cost because of oversupply
Value wise when trying to spec out my personal Lenovo laptop on framework, it'd never get anywhere close to being worth it even if I completely made use of the hardware after a future upgrade.
Framework makes sense if you're going in on the sustainability idea, but other than that it's really just an expensive laptop that's not compelling against its competitors
The pricing when I looked was similar. I went with a Lenovo last time because the Framework 16 hadn't quite matured, but premium anything is never going to make financial sense.
Buying and repairing a framework is never going to be cheaper than going through consumable trash laptops, and buying top of the line laptops and trying to use them longer is never going to be cheaper or better than buying medium grade laptops and upgrading more often.
What you're paying for right now is the customization capabilities and the ideology. Upgrading and customizing a single platform with a community, vs. a fixed one-off design that'll be lost next time you upgrade.
If Framework isn't already compelling to you at this time, then you're not the target audience. They might drop in price, but they'll never win a race to the bottom.
> buying top of the line laptops and trying to use them longer is never going to be cheaper or better than buying medium grade laptops and upgrading more often.
I think this is much less general than you make it out to be and has an extremely strong dependency on how you use the thing and of your preference. It makes me think of the boot theory.
Personally, for the type of work I do, I rarely need the latest ludicrously fast CPU. But I use it a lot and love to do so comfortably. To me, that means a great screen, a quiet fan, and a nice keyboard and touchpad.
Buying a mediocre computer and changing it more often means you'll always have a mediocre experience. A case in point: at work we have HP Elitebooks. The brand-new 2025 models I see people receive have worse screens and trackpads than my 2013 MBP. Sure, that box was quite a bit pricier even in nominal terms, but it had the same amount of RAM (16 GB) and SSD (512 GB) as these new computers. I'll also grant that the new ones have a faster CPU but the SSDs are somehow absurdly slow. I haven't seen a single one of these machines last more than 10 years fully functional. My mom still uses that MBP.
But the experience is sub-par. In the period 2013-2015, we never got to experience a nice laptop. For the office work these people do, that 12-year-old Mac would be an all-around better experience.
The HP screens at the time were truly horrendous. They're leagues better now but still poor and clearly worse than the 2013 mac. They are relatively contrasty, but the colors are all weird.
The trackpads have also improved a lot, but there still is some kind of odd lag when you use them [0]. They're horrible enough that many people still prefer carrying a mouse when using them away from their desks, and the mice we're provided aren't some Rolls-Royce ultra-premium affair, just a crappy, laggy Bluetooth Dell.
They also degrade from daily use: the screen hinge loosens so it moves if you look at it wrong, barrel power connectors from older models somehow become unreliable, and USB ports start to get loose (although when new they tend to be extremely tight). USB-C ports tend to become mushy.
Newer models tend to be quieter, but up until a few models ago, the fan would go wild for no reason (I work with many "non tech" people, so they basically use Outlook and browse a few random websites).
Now, if you only ever use your laptop tethered to a big screen and whatnot, and it's basically a very compact and easy-to-cart-around desktop, then sure, I can understand not caring one bit about all this: you never go out in the rain, so you never get wet feet!
---
[0] This is possibly a Windows driver issue, since on my lower-end Elitebook (840 vs 1040) from 2020 running Linux, this doesn't happen.
> I think this is much less general than you make it out to be and has an extremely strong dependency on how you use the thing and of your preference. It makes me think of the boot theory.
The boot theory is different: It is about buying something not crafted with proper materials which will quickly fall apart and cost more in the long run. However, unlike technology, there is no cowhide 2.0 coming out 6 months after, with all leather made the cowhide 1.0 way instantly dropping in value and fading into irrelevancy.
Low-end laptops tend to be build around older SKU's which are no longer of interest but function no worse than they did when launched, and mid-tier laptops tend to be made with current SKU's in the more reasonable binning categories.
At the same time, the replacement rate also means that whatever high-end laptop will soon have its rear handed to it by a mid-tier machine of the next chip generation. While it's outdated within a year or two you of course won't replace it that soon, but that upgrade might stretch your upgrade schedule 50% to justify it - from, say, 4 years to 6. More years of being generations behind.
Keeping a Framework around for longer also only makes sense when considering upgradability.
> A case in point: at work we have HP Elitebooks. The brand-new 2025 models I see people receive have worse screens and trackpads than my 2013 MBP
HP Elitebooks are expensive, high-end machines. The issues you see is because HP, Dell and Lenovo all cater to IT department buying strategies, and therefore all offer a bargain screen option as the machines are bought in bulk and mostly used docked. You'll find that they also have an mid-tier screen option (usually a color-accurate 1080p or 1440p panel), as well as a high-end option (say, 4k OLED touchscreen with wacom digitizer).
The trackpad is a different story entirely. If you're used to a Mac trackpad, things are a bit grim on the PC side. There's some nice ones coming out though.
> They also degrade from daily use: the screen hinge loosens so it moves if you look at it wrong
Everything degrades from daily use. My hinge loosened on my last Mac, the screen damaged itself because the 15" panel did not have the necessary rigidity to main the intended 0.5mm gap to the keyboard keys (confirmed as the second panel did the same), the shitty magsafe port overheated as using pogopins for high power transfer is a terrible idea, all I/O on one side died, and the battery had inflated at least once...
My Dell XPS 13 costing 1/3rd never had any problems, and when replaced it just felt a bit slow and had a somewhat aged battery.
Price is not an indicator of quality or expected reliability, nor is the brand itself a reliable indicator. Use common sense, take a look at the product and avoid the bottom of the bargain bin.
---
Do get a good mouse and keyboard though, it has a much more direct impact on your user experience and a mouse that costs twice as much isn't as much of an issue as a laptop costing twice as much. The keyboard and mouse also lasts longer if kept well.
> I can swap out my mobo for a RISC-V mobo, or ARM.
You can't do that with the 16, only the 13 [0] and you can't upgrade ram on it. Which is kind of the problem in a nutshell. Over time fewer user modifications make sense due to the context of the whole computer as an integrated system.
Or you could just buy a MacBook Air for like $900 (or one of the windows snapdragon machines, but it you care about avoiding Intel I’m assuming you want Linux and doubt the support is as good as asahi on Macs)
I guess that's the issue? I spent nearly $2800 on my current laptop, top of the line specs at the time. I'm just not the kind of person trying to compare down to A $1000 mid-level Mac. I need to use this thing professionally.
In that lens, the config I played with (before ram prices surged) ended up around $2200 and it felt nice knowing I could upgrade the GPU down the line for $400 instead of pondering if I can last another year or 2 before things fall behind. As long as the chassis and screen is solid I can deal with some compromise for that value.
Sub a $2500 MacBook Pro in for air then for your needs. In several years if that new GPU is actually worth an upgrade it will almost certainly need more cooling or have higher power demands than current framework logic boards/chassis can handle.
Even on desktops where constraints are easier, piecemeal hardware upgrades of anything but storage and ram has never been worth it or done much to extend system lifespan.
Macbook air = small keyboard, small screen, limited battery, all parts expensive to service, etc. Try hacking a Mac Mini instead: https://github.com/vk2diy/hackbook-m4-mini
A MacBook Air is just a Mac mini with a keyboard, screen, and battery. You can choose to attach the same peripherals to your MacBook, and have the flexibility of a laptop when you need it. Paying a couple hundred dollar premium for this is a good deal.
Snapdragon support is decent to great these days, and importantly it's all in the mainline kernel tree.
Edit: though it should be said that what I think is good might be a far cry from you think is good. I did use a Thinkpad X13s as my primary work machine for 6 months, though.
Literally just picked up a 13" M4 Air for $750 from Best Buy for my wife. It was spend $500 to replace her older MBA screen or a bit extra for a whole new device.
I mean, this could literally be the last laptop shell, screen, keyboard and power adapter you ever buy. That's a fantastic sustainability story. Not to mention that if it dies you are never at risk of having to replace the whole thing unless it melts in a fire.
It could be… but it won’t be. Internals will be outmoded quickly, and I would be shocked if logic boards from ~5 years from now will still be compatible just as needs evolve (especially around cooling and power delivery)… and this is all before physical wear and tear on screen/keyboard/ports.
I would be very surprised if many frameworks are upgraded ship of Theseus style for decades, or if the total cost of ownership (and even ecological impact, most of the nastiness is going to be the electronic internals, not the metal casing) is lower than for someone buying a more integrated laptop ever 5-6 years.
Hard to say. If people boast about a ThinkPad lasting a decade, I see no reason (post Moores law) that this can't last that long. The only think not obvious on how to replace is the screen and speakers.
But my nearly 10 year old ThinkPad hasn't needed upgrades to last that long, it just has decent build quality. Will the Frameworks last that long?
A good test would be to work out what's the oldest in-use Framework (which should be one of the first, if not there's an build quality issue) and see how many upgrades were needed to keep it functioning compared with similar era machines from other manufacturers.
In the context of the massive amount of throwaway packaging involved in the food supply chain, or every other part of the supply chain for every consumable we use, how big a deal is that? Are electronics uniquely impactful in terms of sustainability versus eg plastic clamshells to transport apples?
The socket io locks in the amount of memory channels. Some pins could be repurposed but that's pretty much a new socket anyway.
They could in theory do on package dram as faster first level memory, but I doubt we'll see that anytime soon on desktop and it probably wouldn't fit under the heat spreader
reply