That just isn't true. Battery life, for example, is definitely not irrelevant for most users.

osigurdson 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mac battery life is insane - I agree. It is very impressive what they have done. Still, I prefer my ThinkPad running Arch even though it probably has 1/2 the battery life of my Macbook.

▲

raffael_de 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most people sit at their desk with the laptop plugged into the socket and use the battery for meetings or in a cafeteria. Either takes maybe an hour or two, three hours tops.

▲

mystifyingpoi 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So what? Most people don't care about battery, so let's just have a crap battery? That argument would work, if Apple released a super light laptop with a tiny battery, specially made for "most people who sit at their desk".

No, people do care about battery life. That's where Macs excel. (I'm saying this as a Thinkpad user, where getting 6-8hrs of battery is doable, if you don't do anything on the laptop).

▲

raffael_de 4 hours ago | parent [-]

my point is that foregoing a superior OS for reasons that are only relevant on paper is not logical.

	▲	mystifyingpoi 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, there are pros and cons for everything. It also depends on circumstances. I remember in 2012 I'd dim the screen and play with cpufreqd to get maximum time out of a battery, because I had a 3h train ride to my university weekly, with no power sockets most of the time on the train. I barely could do 3h. Today, in age of cheap PD powerbanks and USB-C everywhere, I'd easily take a better OS over battery life.