PC/LAPTOPS
Trending

MacBook Air and MacBook Pro M1 2020 Full Review

I’ve been using the new 2020 MacBook Air for nearly 2 weeks, which Apple delivers with its new processor, the M1. It’s an exciting and new technology that I’m going to write about in detail.

In this article, you won’t encounter comparison tests, 4K video editing, or bullshit to compare portables with desktops. This article will be about average usage, the raison d’être of MacBook Air and MacBook Pro, how the average person uses it, and why the M1 is such a big hit. Spoiler: this machine, the processor, will determine the next 10 years!

X86 and ARM

To understand why Apple’s M1 processor is such development and why it “humiliates” Intel (in this segment), let’s make a “brief” detour in history.

Initially, even at the dawn of personal computers (80-the 90s), Intel was among the first manufacturers to develop processors. The goal was essentially to get the most computational capacity so that computers could display as much information as possible. Very kitchen language translated into processor performs tasks. Count. We ask him for different workloads.

The X86 is an architecture developed by Intel, a so-called CISC system, while ARM is the opposite, a so-called RISC architecture. (Arm is also an abbreviation for “Acorn RISC Machine.”) The difference is that Intel has focused on computing power and speed from the outset and has produced more complex but “stronger” processors. On the other hand, Arm’s goal was to build something as simple, logical, less complicated as possible. As a result, Intel finished tasks faster than ARM, but ARM had a huge advantage that ultimately kept it going, and we still use it to this day: its energy needs. Because the processor worked with a completely different structure and simpler instructions, it essentially used little power. It was a pretty amazing thing in the ’80s. How surprised the manufacturer himself was with this fact when trying out the prototype.

In the early 1990s, developers and manufacturers were able to meet two types of processors. The X86, which was a very faster processor, and arm, which is, of course, extremely energy efficient. What did this turn out to be? The X86 became the desktop processor for computing capacity and ARM for mobiles for lower power consumption and thus battery portability.

Apple switches to Intel.

Initially, Apple used the PowerPC processor family. This was a CPU born out of a collaboration between Apple, IBM, and Motorola, and like ARM, it was built on RISC foundations. Apple’s early computers worked with it for years, but Intel evolved to such an extent that Steve Jobs saw that PowerPC no longer had that great potential. Because of the computing power, switching to a different architecture was necessary since speed is needed and technology evolves. He saw it perfectly well, so 15 years ago, in 2005, at WWDC, he announced that intel processors would now be used in Macs.

Why was that good, and of course, it was wrong? Obviously, it was a whole new world for developers, and they could develop much better applications, giving a lot of workloads to the advanced processor. They weren’t locked up. In addition, the applications of the time on the Intel processor did not run as well as they could have, and they were relatively slow, so many apps had to be re-optimized for the new processor. (This may mean years of work for some applications, although this is not the case.)

Apple begins to develop its own ARM processor.

In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone, which, we now know, fundamentally changed the look and feel of mobiles and the entire mobile industry as a whole. For example, he bankrupted Blackberry and Nokia. Of course, before the company introduced the iPhone, it joined Intel in producing a mobile processor for this device. We’d say it’s easy to do, but no, because we needed a processor that would drive the iPhone OS, which requires a lot of calculations, so the operating system, but in the meantime, it would be nice if the battery could hold up.

Intel didn’t do this, they were too proud to give up their own x86 and produce arm-like energy-saving processors, so Apple turned to other manufacturers. What did we get? 1-day battery life, in 2007, when all other devices lasted up to 1 week, and at the beginning all without features such as MMS used by many people at the time, copy/paste, and much more. That’s when it makes sense why the company was in a challenging situation with the iPhone at the time– and why battery life eventually dropped to 1 day to this day when it comes to smartphones.

The years passed, and Apple began acquiring processor development companies based on the ARM architecture, and in 2008 it also bought a license to develop it. They knew very well the potential of ARM, and with the first-generation iPad, they introduced the A4 processor in 2010, which they had already developed. Here we have not even seen the development apple will make in the next 10 years when it introduced the M1 in 2020, which is essentially an ARM-based desktop processor.

 

X86 and ARM

To understand why Apple’s M1 processor is such development and why it “humiliates” Intel (in this segment), let’s make a “brief” detour in history.

Initially, even at the dawn of personal computers (80-the 90s), Intel was among the first manufacturers to develop processors. The goal was essentially to get the most computational capacity so that computers could display as much information as possible. Very kitchen language translated into processor performs tasks. Count. We ask him for different workloads.

The X86 is an architecture developed by Intel, a so-called CISC system, while ARM is the opposite, a so-called RISC architecture. (Arm is also an abbreviation for “Acorn RISC Machine.”) The difference is that Intel has focused on computing power and speed from the outset and has produced more complex but “stronger” processors. On the other hand, Arm’s goal was to build something as simple, logical, less complicated as possible. As a result, Intel finished tasks faster than ARM, but ARM had a huge advantage that ultimately kept it going, and we still use it to this day: its energy needs. Because the processor worked with a completely different structure and simpler instructions, it essentially used little power. It was a pretty amazing thing in the ’80s. How surprised the manufacturer himself was with this fact when trying out the prototype.

In the early 1990s, developers and manufacturers were able to meet two types of processors. The X86, which was a very faster processor, and arm, which is, of course, extremely energy efficient. What did this turn out to be? The X86 became the desktop processor for computing capacity and ARM for mobiles for lower power consumption and thus battery portability.

Apple switches to Intel.

Initially, Apple used the PowerPC processor family. This was a CPU born out of a collaboration between Apple, IBM, and Motorola, and like ARM, it was built on RISC foundations. Apple’s early computers worked with it for years, but Intel evolved to such an extent that Steve Jobs saw that PowerPC no longer had that great potential. Because of the computing power, switching to a different architecture was necessary since speed is needed and technology evolves. He saw it perfectly well, so 15 years ago, in 2005, at WWDC, he announced that intel processors would now be used in Macs.

Why was that good, and of course, it was wrong? Obviously, it was a whole new world for developers, and they could develop much better applications, giving a lot of workloads to the advanced processor. They weren’t locked up. In addition, the applications of the time on the Intel processor did not run as well as they could have, and they were relatively slow, so many apps had to be re-optimized for the new processor. (This may mean years of work for some applications, although this is not the case.)

Apple processor development over the past 10 years

In 2012, Apple introduced its A6 processor with the iPhone 5, which was already fully designed by them, and was the first sign that Apple was investing heavily in processor development. A year later, in 2013, he unveiled the iPhone 5s, which had an A7 with 64-bit support, which is important because it’s needed to expand memory. That’s essential, and there wasn’t a 64-bit ARM mobile processor at the time, so it essentially changed the industry, but we didn’t know it. We just knew it.

Finally, we came across a rather interesting statement at the usual September event, which appeared to only a few desktop-class architectures. So the A7 would have been essentially already available on desktop computers, but it didn’t have that kind of computing power at the time.

Apple, meanwhile, has doubled the performance of its own processor year after year. And that wasn’t just processor speed. And it was the number of cores, the evolution of graphics cores, size, power usage, and so many other things. The A11, A12 Bionic came along, and finally, in 2018, Apple reached Out to Intel with ARM technology for mobiles, as shown in this figure.

At the end of 2020, Apple unveiled the iPhone 12 and 12 Pro with their A14 self-developed processor, which essentially already depressed Intel processors for desktops. By this time, Intel probably knew something was wrong.

When you start a video export on your desktop with an Intel top processor, then export the same thing to your mobile, and your mobile performs faster, you can see that Apple has put something on the table.

Apple’s M1 processor

The “short” history above clarifies why the M1 is so big and why it will define the next 10 years. The processor of this site is packed with 8 cores and 8 graphics cores, no separate “video card” (GPU), no special cooling, and no power consumption. This explains why MacBook Air and MacBook Pro have 18 to 20 hours of battery life instead of 3 hours on Intel versions and why the machine doesn’t heat up. That’s because ARM technology is inherent in these two things, but now Apple is capable of intel’s speed.

What’s going to happen to Intel? It’s an excellent question because they have a fast architecture, but they can’t put an uncoated processor on the table, and they can’t save as much power as Apple’s product. Their future is whether they will be able to innovate as much as Apple over the next 10 years– or whether they will be destined to do so like Nokia and Blackberry because Apple will continue to push 300% improvement over the next 10 years.

MacBook Air M1

We arrived at the MacBook Air M1 test at the time. Let’s be clear about who Apple intended the MacBook Air for and the MacBook Pro with it. For average users. For those who edit text, watch video on their computer, they use YouTube. No, they don’t cut the video in 4K or 8K, they don’t run speed tests, and of course, they don’t compare it to other machines. They’re the average user, and this article is for them. What can the MacBook Air M1 do in 2020?

I’ve been skinning the MacBook Air for almost two weeks now, and I think with the M1, this machine is actually the best price/value laptop in the world. Apple didn’t give us a machine for around 1017 dollars because it’s a costly product with a price of 1458 dollars, but there’s virtually no feature that can or won’t run on it. It’s a real portable little machine, and you could say the obligatory companion for the next 5 years.

Imagine that our favorite family open-plan car that we love and fits everyone in is extremely comfortable to drive and use, which we bought a few years ago because we knew it would serve us for the next X year. Now we have a Tesla engine and the extras that come with it. MacBook Air and M1 are just like that. In addition to the usual size, low weight, silent use, it now offers brutal speeds, huge battery life, and fanless, “voiceless gliding.”

M1 and macOS Big Sur

Thanks to the M1, macOS Big Sur, and its design are immediately contextualized, and this is what the operating system is designed for. The design that was so unusual on the Inmate, completely new to six M1s, is as fast and smooth as using an iPad. We’re just going to open the machine, and we’re going to have the system right away, and we’re ready to go. Each animation is tear-free, scrolling, loading web pages is so fast and free of clotting that we get something completely different from before. And basically, speed tests don’t make any sense here because of the no-brainer system. The quick response feels like we’re holding a brand new iPhone, and I can’t believe it works that way. This is exactly what MacBook Air and MacBook Pro M1 give you.

Battery life and usage

Battery life is one of the most important things for a laptop. Why are we buying a laptop? That’s because it’s portable and serves us all day. The last sentence is funny because I don’t think I’ve seen 5-8 hours of battery life from my MacBook Pro since 2015. So we can’t talk about all-day service, but somewhere we do. My 15″ machine in 2017 served me all day, but I worked an average of 4 hours on battery power. What can the M1 MacBook Air do?

For 16 hours with average use. Okay, sure, the 16 hours are funny, says the user, but I’ll show you something that makes that pretty clear.

I took the computer off the charger yesterday at 10:13. All day, not continuously, but I opened and used it. I worked on it, in the afternoon, for example, constantly. For me, the average usage means editing text, using Excel tables, YouTube, Safari, and switching Facebook and iMessage messages. Nothing extra. The Air buyer will use it for just that. As you can see, the battery was at 45% when the picture was taken. I took the picture just after 9:00 p.m., so I took it almost 12 hours after the morning departure. It was still 45%, even though I used many hours all day.

(iStat Menus doesn’t recognize the battery properly yet, don’t be surprised.)

I started this article at dawn yesterday, and the battery dropped 10% in two hours. What do I use at this time of year? Almost 10-15 Safari tabs are open because the article runs YouTube videos, pages that use the processor in the background. Word, Excel, and Spotify are running, which also eats up time, and Twitter app Spark email client, which queries mail continuously. I also put a DAC on the machine- because I listen to music with headphones at dawn, so it also uses energy. You can see that in 2 hours, the battery has decreased by 10%. Obviously, he won’t last 20 hours, even with that kind of use, but let’s say I’m comfortable for 18 hours. I’m writing this article on MacBook Pro M1, so the battery life here is nearly 2 hours more than on Air, which would take 16 hours based on that. Whatever you take, a full day’s work is more than enough.

MacBook Air M1 battery life if you only watch video

What if we travel by MacBook air, say on a long flight, or for example, to Miskolc for 3.5 hours with MÁV, during which time we can be in London, and then we did not even count the delay of a half-1 hour. So far, an Intel machine has lasted a maximum of 3-4 hours, so we’ve barely watched a movie and the plane’s run out, but I’ve also tested Air’s video capability, which I’ve once again adapted to the average user who downloads a story to the kid in the car, maybe they’re filming it on the plane without internet, and so on…

For the test, I chose the classic 2.5-hour Pulp Fiction. I halved the brightness, but I left Wi-Fi on, but the movie was running. I chose (stone me) a movie downloaded for playback (in the absence of the internet, because there is not always internet everywhere), and I used an IINA player that has not yet been optimized for M1. Besides, I used a perfectly average resolution for the movie, and I didn’t want to bother with 4K here because the kid’s not going to watch the stories in the back of the car. So based on that, after 2.5 hours, I got a 90% battery, and iStat Menus spent 15 hours. It was a real amount of time left on the MacBook Air at the time, so we’ve got 17 and a half hours to film. This means up to 20 hours for a MacBook Pro.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy extended version in a total of 629 minutes, broken down into parts:

  • Part 1: 3:12:22 – 192:22
  • Part 2: 3:26:00 – 206:00
  • Part 3: 3:51:35 – 231:35

629 minutes, nearly 10 hours per hour. If we take a break between the parts, we can still watch it on the flight to America with a battery charge, although this may be in 2021 because of the current situation. 😳🤷🏻 ♂️

Warming up, do you need the fan?

As you may have read in the first part of this article, the X86 architecture was actually a better choice on Apple’s part because it had much more computing capacity in recent years. The processor performed many more calculations on several threads, consuming more power and generating more heat. Even at 10-20% processor power, the temperature could rise to such a level that the fan had to turn it on. Virtually the Intel machine can whizz continuously, which can be confusing for many people, especially when watching movies, foremost. But it also made it difficult to get out of bed when the bottom of the machine melted on our feet. It’s terribly annoying. In contrast, M1 does not essentially produce heat, or at least not as much.

Neither the iPad nor the iPhone has active cooling. Even though they also have a processor, they can perform brutal tasks quickly. Of course, they can heat up, but basically, they have minimal cooling drainage in a very tiny house. By contrast, the Air M1’s processor has good heat dissipation and minimal heat production in a huge house. The machine is basically cold, no matter what we do with it. It can’t warm up, and we can’t even feel it. We can run almost any task on it, maybe, I repeat, maybe it’ll be lukewarm. So no wonder he didn’t get active cooling. The users for whom it was intended will never run something on them that would require the processor to be choked back at all due to warming.

I write this article, for example, from bed at dawn, and my partner sleeps next to me. He woke up on the keyboard on the old machine, and the fan robbing didn’t help him sleep. Now he’s taking such a good nap that it’s a pleasure to watch. 🥰

App support, Apple Silicon, Rosetta 2

As I mentioned, switching between architectures is not a good thing, as developers need to re-optimize their applications. Simply put, intel’s processor is optimized, and the multi-calculation app can’t work well on arm one computing processor at a time (which, let’s say, isn’t true in 2020), so the ARM-optimized app can’t run faster on X86 architectures. So, really, all apps need to be rewritten by ARM on Apple Silicon so that they really have the right wounds and energy consumption.

However, it is impossible to release hardware that cannot start an Excel because it is not translated into the M1 or Apple Silicon processor. For this, Apple created a translation app called Rosetta 2. This should be installed if you run an app designed for Intel X86, and with this, the M1 processor can run “old” applications in the background. Of course, the average user doesn’t even notice this, it’s like using an Intel machine, but there’s a service working in the background.

What does that mean?

Not much, but not much. On the one hand, the app, which is not spent on Apple Silicon, will take up more power and run slower. While the former is an important consideration, the second is not because the 8-core processor will run applications nicely without clotting. This is best seen when something isn’t optimized for the processor when you need a long, processor-intensive calculation, but Rosetta 2 performs extremely well based on that. You don’t even notice that an Intel app is running in the background.

However, because of this architecture difference, individual applications may run incorrectly with Rosetta 2. I mean, the app starts, say, but some of its features don’t work, or it may look flawed, there may be graphical problems, and so on… I’ve come across something like this, but overall, I was able to live with it. Which are used by the average user, are usually updated by developers, or are already running in a bet so that the update will be available soon.

Faulty peripheral or additional aid

This is perhaps a bigger problem, and the average user may find that the M1’s predecessors have actually been used in the iPhone, iPad so far. I don’t really test erratic peripherals, monitors, accessories, converters, especially older products with iPhone and iPad because it wasn’t supported on iOS. And the M1 is a brand new thing, so while most add-ons work properly, we can run into many problems, especially when working on an external monitor.

This is the kind of problem users have encountered with several types of USB-C docks and converters. Apple will obviously fix this slowly, but for now, unsupported devices are virtually useless.

1st generation – is it worth buying?

It is often said that a first-generation product is not worth buying. This is basically true. For example, there are now many motherboard bugs, Face ID errors, and other serious problems with iPhone Xs because this is the first time we’ve got a new design, a new motherboard, and a face ID that doesn’t exist. Before, and so on… The iPhone XS is a much better choice in this regard. The question is, is it worth buying the M1 MacBook Air and Pro versions when it comes to a 1st generation chip?

I’d say no at first, but secondly, the answer is yes when I think about it. That’s because the whole machine has actually proven itself in the last few years. This Air and Pro look, next-generation keyboard, display, and motherboard have been seamless for the past 3 years. So, only part of the motherboard, and the processor itself, may be defective, which, yes, can occur. Still, the chances are relatively small after Apple has been using it in iPads and iPhones for several years. 😊

AppleCare+ recommended for your PC

Nevertheless, I recommend AppleCare+ for all products, because we can’t fault that. Even if you pour the machine, for example, if you pour the machine, the company will replace the defective part for 3 years: yes, for Macs, AppleCare+ covers 3 years and not 2, as with iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch.

You should also buy AppleCare+ on your laptop because it also applies to the battery. So if, say, in 2 years the battery drops to 83-86%, it will not be replaced by Apple in a guarantee because it is worn out, so it is normal. And we’re not going to like battery life anymore, so we can pay serious money if we want to replace it.

It is also worth noting, since January 1, 2021, the laws that define the warranty and warranty periods are also changing, so it is worth keeping this in mind for a machine of this value.

8 or 16GB of memory?

The next crucial question is to choose 8GB or 16GB of memory when purchasing, as it will not be possible to add it later than this machine. The M1 has very different memory management, and this is helped by the brutal speed of the SSD, which contains the cache. I’ve been thinking a lot about whether it’s worth spending on +8GB of memory, but I’ve concluded that even I don’t. I think the basic 8GB of memory is more than enough– you only need 16GB if you’re really using apps that eat up your memory. 90% of people don’t use it. But it’s worth watching the video below if you’re questioning whether you need the extra memory:

Video Games

Apple makes the machine quite interesting in gaming, as Air has 7 graphics cores and Pro has 8. So there is no dedicated secondary GPU (“video card”), but the processor has so many graphics cores, which is amazing. What does that mean for games? HEAVEN AND EARTH. If you look exclusively at the 13-machine family, the new M1 processor eats Intel’s built-in GPU for breakfast, so we get 10x better performance for games, which, let’s just say, is not surprising. On the other hand, with a 16″ machine, you can’t beat the most powerful GPU, but it’s in your corner. What does that mean? It means that I think it’s essentially better to buy the M1 for half price than the 16-inch, top-of-the-line version, which costs £1.1m, even for graphics card applications.

In this video, the colleague tests the built-in graphics processors of 13-machine machines, clearly showing that the Intel machine is nowhere near. In addition, 90% of games are not optimized for the new Apple Silicon processor. So basically, if you switch from a 13″ Intel machine to an M1, the graphics performance difference will be astonishing, while for 15″ and 16″, you get roughly the same change, maybe slightly better for older machines. Nevertheless, there is not as much heat production, and the fan hums because of it, and it runs perfectly from the battery.

I also tested Word Of Warcraft on MacBook Air, which works with 7 graphics cores and no fan. I achieved better graphics and FPS numbers in light years than the 2017 15″ CTO MacBook Pro with Radeon Pro 560 GPU. All this time, I was able to play it for five hours on battery power, which is amazing.

Wi-Fi 6 support

Wi-Fi 6 support adds an absorbing formula to the whole thing with the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro. I honestly do not want to go deeper into this because it is extremely cumbersome and depends on many things, in essence, what Wi-Fi signal, connection, GHz we use. Briefly and concisely, the M1 Retina MacBook Pro and MacBook Air have a better Wi-Fi chips. In kitchen language, this means that wi-fi 6, i.e., 802.11ax connectivity, requires less power. We get better, faster data traffic not only at 5GHz but also at 2.4GHz, which is extremely important.

Nowadays, 2.4GHz is extremely saturated, especially in the city center or other densely populated areas. Everyone usually uses this, from Yoji’s mother to Géza’s dad and even Feri’s café. For this reason, it is practically impossible to achieve a better result in this range. Even if you have an Internet connection with any bandwidth, the 2.4GHz Wi-Fi band will be extremely saturated. You won’t be able to extend a tenth of the theoretical bandwidth.

Let’s see what standards there are for Wi-Fi:

  • IEEE 802.11a/b/g (2.4GHz only)
  • IEEE 802.11n (2.4GHz and 5GHz)
  • IEEE 802.11ac (5GHz only)
  • IEEE 802.11ax (2.4GHz and 5GHz) (Wi-Fi 6)

I don’t go into other Wi-Fi settings, just the basic stuff above. From the list above, it should be understood that if 2.4GHz is saturated, our only solution is to move to 5GHz, which raises several problems. While the 2.4GHz range has an excellent range, 5GHz goes almost exclusively within the room. So effectively, if you want to use the Internet quickly and safely, you should use the 5GHz range. Still, if you have a single central router (Wi-Fi AP) all over the apartment and are separated from at least one wall in every other room, you will only have good internet speed in the living room.

This is where the 802.11n, 802.11ac, and 802.11ax standards come in, and the problem with the ac standard is improved by ax, i.e., Wi-Fi 6. The ac is better than n Wi-Fi, but it can only work at 5GHz, meaning it only provides good speeds in the living room. Although 2.4GHz is better for more distant access, it will provide lower bandwidth, and we have not been able to improve this until now, almost just because we do not use it. In contrast, Wi-Fi 6, the ax standard, is capable of speed improvement at 2.4GHz. Why is that interesting? I’ll show you the numbers.

I currently have an Internet subscription of 120Mbit in Hungary, which should be the Internet of the average Hungarian household, Géza, Ferié, and Aunt Marika. The above speed test was carried out at 2.4GHz. The 120Mbit Internet cannot be outstretched in practice in the 2.4GHz range. Even that subscription is a lot because the router cannot serve the client due to interference due to the already mentioned saturation. However, at 2.4GHz, wi-fi 6, i.e., with the ax standard, I sell almost double that in the same place:

Ergo is essentially the same saturated network that I can get better results on because wi-fi 6 has many advantages. Essentially, I think that’s all the average user needs to know about Wi-Fi 6.

In addition, the 2×2 MU-MIMO is interesting, which is the number of antennas in the machine in the kitchen language. As shown above, on the left, the M1 MacBook Pro reaches 1200 Mbps (Tx rate, theoretical maximum) on Wi-Fi 6 at 5GHz, while the same can reach theoretical speeds of 1300 Mbps in a 3×3 MU-MIMO machine (15×s Retina MacBook Pro). In the third image, we can see that 2×2 MU-MIMO, the number of antennas less, essentially results in worse Wi-Fi speeds on ac than on ax standard. Of course, this may be true in the future, and then on the 16″ 3×3 MU-MIMO M1 laptop. The ax is capable of better speeds in any case if a router and the client support it, in this case, the laptop.

What is the conclusion for Wi-Fi 6 and an M1? It’s a good idea to buy a Wi-Fi 6 router for your home because it’s a way to take advantage of the machine’s capabilities at 5GHz and 2.4GHz. Of course, whether the average user needs it, it’s up to everyone to decide for themselves. I tested the above tests with a TP-Link router, which was the AX5400 type. I think it’s a Wi-Fi 6 router with an excellent price/value, but I’m on my way to the Wi-Fi 6 AP of the UniFi system. There will be a much more detailed article on this later. 😏

iOS apps

One of the, if not the biggest, advantages of the M1 processor is running iOS applications. Why is this important? Just take a few simple problems. For example, banking apps are often more convenient than using them on the web or poking around on mobile. Then there’s HBO, Vodafone TV, Netflix, which we’d use a lot easier through an app if we had a desktop than, say, a “dumb” browser.

There would be no problem with this anyway, but companies immediately “took out” their apps, so we can’t download them to macOS. There is an alternative solution, but they usually do not work for understandable reasons either. However, there are plenty of advantages to M1 being able to run apps developed for ARM that run on iOS as well. You don’t have to rewrite them, just optimize them for that resolution and give them keyboard or mouse support, and you can go up to the App Store. This is essentially a favor for developers, as it is much easier for them to port their apps, and it will be good for us to have the web apps gone. Finally, we will get a much better experience (of course, there is an exception for everything).

This is time, of course, so we haven’t really won much right now, but in the future, there will be plenty of native apps available on our desktops and laptops.

If you’re switching to M1 MacBook Air or MacBook Pro now.

Most users have been using their machines for several years, and Macs have become so expensive in recent years because of the exchange rate and Apple prices that we don’t really replace them. I haven’t changed machines since 2017, and I wouldn’t have done it this year, even though a few generations have already appeared. Anyone who switches from a much older machine, such as the 2012-2015 machines still running the latest operating system, will encounter many new features. Here I am thinking of the quality of the built-in camera and microphone and the speakers, the new keyboard, and the numerous software support, such as entering with the Apple Watch or Apple Pay. So with the M1, an older Apple user gets a lot more in terms of speed, battery life, and looks, which can be an extra point when switching machines.

MacBook Air or MacBook Pro?

Last but not least, one of the most important issues. Is it worth buying a MacBook Pro? Do we need the Pro instead of Air? What is the difference between the two devices? Basically, the deviation is very minimal, but in some cases, it is worth choosing Pro.

If we only buy the Pro because of the speed, I don’t think that makes sense. Simply with air average tasks, but even in extreme situations, it brings smoothly what the Pro. It can be up to 10%, which can be written in favor of the Pro. And I don’t think that’s worth a 407 dollars surcharge.

What’s important, though, is battery life. The amazing 16-18 hours of use on the MacBook Pro can be up to 20 hours, which is why I chose the Pro version. I’m worth more than anything. In addition, the brightness of the Pro is a little better than in the case of Air, and since I use the machine at maximum brightness all the time, it mattered to me as well. Last but not least, the Pro has a fan and +1 GPU core. None of this is significant because the machine is still barely heating up, and the average user cannot spin the fan or take advantage of the machine’s performance at all. Of course, if someone cuts an 8K video on a laptop that wasn’t designed for it in the first place, as in the test video below, then yes, the Pro will be the front-runner. Otherwise, the Air will be excellent, which is also easier.

Conclusion

This test wasn’t short, and maybe we weren’t the first to do it. I tried to mention things, applications, life situations that those who buy this machine encounter. It’s been one of the longest tests in 12 years, and it’s the hardest because we haven’t had a jump this big in the Mac world in 10 years. I hope it has been useful for those who want to switch and order this machine next year and enjoy using it.

I think the 2020 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models are worth switching to without question. We cannot talk about bad value for money, poor construction, faulty system, or overpricing. I think this machine simply shows the future, how Apple envisions the next 10 years. We’re not going to buy it for a year, and it’s not going to let us down, probably in the future. Pro users might wait a little more because of any bugs that might pop up, but I think the average user buys it without question. Virtually every Mac has a faster M1, which gives you a portable machine and brutal battery life.

The M1 MacBook Air test device was borrowed by iSTYLE for the test duration (thank you!), and the M1 MacBook Pro was it is own.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button