Review: Two Weeks With the M3 MacBook Air

[throAU]

Someone needs replace all the desktops of Apple systems developers with old TiBooks and lock them in a room until they come out with a MacOS that runs well on that system again.

As cute an ideas as that may seem, it won't result in anything functional.

The web and modern codecs, etc. have moved on. Try using the internet on a vintage 90s machine. It isn't pretty. the supported SSL/TLS doesn't work any more, videos don't work, modern encryption doesn't work, etc.

None of that comes for free, there's a resource cost.

 

[throAU]

I say that as someone who's into retro systems. Not so much Apple, but retro PCs, Amigas, also classic MacOS.

Try browsing the internet with macOS 9.

 

[chucker23n1]

Agree macOS bloat. I had a TiBook many many years ago that ran MacOS 10.3 pretty fast with 512 MB RAM and an HDD not to mention a G4. I mention this because it's mostly the same GUI, OS design, and applications as today.

10.3 lacked a ton of stuff. Safari was literally at 1.0, there was no Spotlight or Time Machine or Siri, none of the Continuity features, no Notifications, no Control Center, no trackpad gestures, and at a lower level, no APFS, no memory compression, no ASLR. You're forgetting how limited it was.

 

[Velli]

10.3 lacked a ton of stuff. Safari was literally at 1.0, there was no Spotlight or Time Machine or Siri, none of the Continuity features, no Notifications, no Control Center, no trackpad gestures, and at a lower level, no APFS, no memory compression, no ASLR. You're forgetting how limited it was.

I also think people have heavily biased memories. I’ve tried using old computers with old software, and I am always surprised how slow it actually was. I think we just remember it as fast, because it was faster than what came before it. Also, in the past we had lots of animations, fades etc to “cover up” that things actually happened slowly, especially on iOS. Maybe not so much on Macs, if you go further back.

 

[chucker23n1]

I also think people have heavily biased memories. I’ve tried using old computers with old software, and I am always surprised how slow it actually was. I think we just remember it as fast, because it was faster than what came before it.

Yeah, I think people don't quite understand how wild it is, for example, that we can perform effects on a large image in real-time. The iPhone camera basically applies multiple functions to it at 60 Hz, so you don't even notice. Each of those used to take minutes in the 1990s, on smaller images.

Also, in the past we had lots of animations, fades etc to “cover up” that things actually happened slowly, especially on iOS. Maybe not so much on Macs, if you go further back.

Yes, things like splash screens were employed to help help distract from "the computer is kinda busy right now".

 

[bzgnyc2]

As cute an ideas as that may seem, it won't result in anything functional.

The web and modern codecs, etc. have moved on. Try using the internet on a vintage 90s machine. It isn't pretty. the supported SSL/TLS doesn't work any more, videos don't work, modern encryption doesn't work, etc.

None of that comes for free, there's a resource cost.

Of course I have no expectations that or something like that will come to pass. Like most things on MacRumors it's just idle chatter.

However, I think you are missing my modest proposal. It's not that we go back to the 90s (actually I was aiming for early 2K and HTTPS was a standard as of 2000) and try to run MacOS 10.3 (or 10.4 or whatever), but rather getting the core OS of modern versions to work efficiently again. Besides direct observations of inefficiencies, we know the OS can be more efficient because the same core OS functions used to run on a fraction of the hardware. If you can make Monterey/Ventura/Sonoma run well on a G4, it will blaze on anything today.

The web is a whole other issue. The same issue has happened to websites. Are the WSJ and NYTimes websites dramatically different in UI and functionality from 20 years ago? Yet these sites that used to work (slowly but usably) over a dialup to a G3/G4 are starting to bog down on my laptop despite the latest browsers and processors<5 years old. And it's not an issue of codecs (the least of our problems -- these are usually well-optimized on anything with native hardware support) or SSL (well-optimized and hardware supported for years now).

 

[bzgnyc2]

10.3 lacked a ton of stuff. Safari was literally at 1.0, there was no Spotlight or Time Machine or Siri, none of the Continuity features, no Notifications, no Control Center, no trackpad gestures, and at a lower level, no APFS, no memory compression, no ASLR. You're forgetting how limited it was.

Okay 10.4 then. It had Time Machine. But that's not the point -- it's that's we ran the same core OS on a fraction of the hardware -- literally orders of magnitude slower hard drives and less memory. By same core OS I mean a UNIX design with a Mach microkernel and a rich UI.

Then things have evolved but they shouldn't be driving orders of magnitude more resource requirements. APFS is good but a new file system doesn't double the size of the kernel. In a properly designed system trackpad gestures don't slow down the Finder.

Most of the other new stuff I don't use but they continue to run in the background chewing up resources. Running background processes on demand has been part of UNIX for over 40 years. Resources aside, keeping disabled services running wastes battery life and unnecessarily increases attack surface area.

And while new features have been added let's not forget about the things that have come out. Since those old versions the UI was flattened but somehow the UI didn't double in speed. All 32-bit Intel support was dropped between Mojave and Catalina, but somehow Catalina takes up more space and is slightly slower? Similarly Classic emulation and Carbon support.

I am not suggesting we bring back Classic or Carbon. The point is the software has expanded to fill all available hardware (and them some relative to the low-end). If you give all the developers M3 Ultras, they won't even notice things don't run well on computers a few years old until after it ships by which time the product managers will have the working on the next great new feature. However, if I buy an M3 processor I want that power for my applications not to run a bloated OS.

 

[bzgnyc2]

I also think people have heavily biased memories. I’ve tried using old computers with old software, and I am always surprised how slow it actually was. I think we just remember it as fast, because it was faster than what came before it. Also, in the past we had lots of animations, fades etc to “cover up” that things actually happened slowly, especially on iOS. Maybe not so much on Macs, if you go further back.

In many cases probably. I am sure my G4 wasn't quite as fast as I remember but it also didn't take 100 seconds to open Applications either. But a modern SSD is like 100x faster than the HDD of those years and somehow the latest OS are instant at doing the same thing. They lack the snappy...

And in recent cases I can tell you I am comparing a MacBook Air 2020 (16GB) running Catalina versus the same running Monterey (dual boot) and against a Mac Mini 2018 (8GB) running Mojave. While a rigorous speed/resource comparison of Mojave, Catalina, Monterey, etc on the Mac Mini will have to wait, I can say Catalina feels slower than Mojave despite the latter running on older hardware and Monterey feels slower than Catalina running on identical hardware (i.e. Mojave>Catalina>Monterey). And I am not talking about fancy stuff. Just the basics.

 

[bzgnyc2]

Yeah, I think people don't quite understand how wild it is, for example, that we can perform effects on a large image in real-time. The iPhone camera basically applies multiple functions to it at 60 Hz, so you don't even notice. Each of those used to take minutes in the 1990s, on smaller images.



Yes, things like splash screens were employed to help help distract from "the computer is kinda busy right now".

No doubt the hardware improvements have been great. When I first got my Mac Mini 2018 years ago to replace my Mac Mini 2009, the first thing I noticed was how much faster it transcoded audio files. And those 9 years included Intel's go nowhere years.

And now I am able to process data on my Mac Mini that used to take big servers. Part of that is software though. I am experimenting with DuckDB on my home computer for handling large datasets and it is like orders of magnitude faster for some things than traditional databases. As a pre-1.0 software it still has holes but it goes to show what smart programming can do.

 

[chucker23n1]

Of course I have no expectations that or something like that will come to pass. Like most things on MacRumors it's just idle chatter.

However, I think you are missing my modest proposal. It's not that we go back to the 90s (actually I was aiming for early 2K and HTTPS was a standard as of 2000)

Sure, but TLS 1.3 wasn't out until 2018.

getting the core OS of modern versions to work efficiently again. Besides direct observations of inefficiencies, we know the OS can be more efficient because the same core OS functions used to run on a fraction of the hardware.

We don't know that at all.

This same argument keeps coming up. Yes, OSes used to require less disk space, less RAM, fewer CPU resources. But you wouldn't want to run an older OS. It was lacking lots of capabilities modern ones do.

macOS Sonoma doesn't require more resources because software engineers have gotten collectively stupider than twenty years ago, but because it does more. We can quibble over individual things it does (for example, the security precautions before launching an app have perhaps gone overboard), but to take it as a whole and just argue "remember when it was more efficient" ignores why Mac OS X 10.3 Panther was one way, and macOS 14 Sonoma is another way.

If you can make Monterey/Ventura/Sonoma run well on a G4,

Well, you can't. You can make Panther run well on a G4, and perhaps you can take some of Sonoma and run that, but Sonoma as a whole isn't going to run at acceptable performance on such a machine.

Are the WSJ and NYTimes websites dramatically different in UI and functionality from 20 years ago?

Yes, actually. CSS abilities were far more limited, video playback required Flash or QuickTime, lots of interactivity was impractical.

Okay 10.4 then. It had Time Machine.

10.5 did, but sure.

But that's not the point -- it's that's we ran the same core OS on a fraction of the hardware

No, we didn't, though. 10.3's Darwin had far fewer capabilities than 14.0's Darwin does.

By same core OS I mean a UNIX design with a Mach microkernel and a rich UI.

If you reduce it to that, you might as well argue, "well, they both have RAM and disk storage, so why can't it be the way a Macintosh II was?". NeXTstep in 1989 had "a UNIX design with a Mach microkernel and a rich UI".

Most of the other new stuff I don't use

Use Panther for a week, and you'll realize just how many things you're missing.

 

[Boing123]

As MKBHD said..

Most everyone who would buy an Air is better off buying an M2 or M1 at a discount

The gouging and incrementalism has reached the point that a mainstream Youtuber is flat out saying ..."just buy the previous one.."

Nice work Tim

If certain HW is good enough or already OP vs real world requirements, what is wrong with the notion of allowing people the choice?

Apple has maintained M2 SKU’s on their store and the M3 is there for those who want it.

There is also a refurb store where you can buy devices with warranty.

No gauging, no evil doing… I think the issue of most is that they would obviously still want the latest and greatest.

 

[ric22]

If certain HW is good enough or already OP vs real world requirements, what is wrong with the notion of allowing people the choice?

Apple has maintained M2 SKU’s on their store and the M3 is there for those who want it.

There is also a refurb store where you can buy devices with warranty.

No gauging, no evil doing… I think the issue of most is that they would obviously still want the latest and greatest.

For many, M1 16/512 > M3 8/256

 

[Boing123]

For many, M1 16/512 > M3 8/256

Ok then, vote with your wallet.

 

[Torty]

For many, M1 16/512 > M3 8/256

Depends on use case. M1 also means only 2 more big MacOS updates.

 

[ric22]

Ok then, vote with your wallet.

"For many"

 

[ric22]

Depends on use case.

Yeah, that's why I said "for many" rather than for everyone.

M1 also means only 2 more big MacOS updates.

That's just speculation. I very highly doubt you're right.

 

[Mainsail]

Yeah, that's why I said "for many" rather than for everyone.


That's just speculation. I very highly doubt you're right.

Not sure how many more OS updates M1 will get, but I think it is safe to assume that the M3 will get 2 additional OS updates compared to the M1. It is up to each individual to decide if that is important to them.

 

[Torty]

Yeah, that's why I said "for many" rather than for everyone.


That's just speculation. I very highly doubt you're right.

Hope you are right. Yes speculation but based on latest iphone, iPad and mbp data which all got 5 big updates.

 

[dumastudetto]

Yeah, that's why I said "for many" rather than for everyone.


That's just speculation. I very highly doubt you're right.

I think there's a very good chance he is right. I expect to see a lot of AI stuff held off from the M1 series starting this year, before they discontinue support for macOS upgrades in a couple of years. AI is the perfect opportunity for Apple to start driving early adopters of M1 to update to the latest and greatest hardware revisions.

 

[ric22]

I think there's a very good chance he is right. I expect to see a lot of AI stuff held off from the M1 series starting this year, before they discontinue support for macOS upgrades in a couple of years. AI is the perfect opportunity for Apple to start driving early adopters of M1 to update to the latest and greatest hardware revisions.

With all the will in the world the on device AI stuff isn't coming to M1 chips, nor any Macs with only 8GB either probably...

 

[dumastudetto]

With all the will in the world the on device AI stuff isn't coming to M1 chips, nor any Macs with only 8GB either probably...

Exactly. So as AI quickly becomes a core part of the overarching macOS experience, we can expect M1 chips to be cut off from upgrades. It is a good thing. I always look at these moments as great opportunities to upgrade to current hardware. I'm sure many Apple customers will feel the same when they see what AI can do for them.

I think 8GB wont be a factor. 8GB will be good for another several years IMO in base configs. It'll be the processor lacking the advances in on-chip AI that will lock older devices out.

 

[ric22]

Exactly. So as AI quickly becomes a core part of the overarching macOS experience, we can expect M1 chips to be cut off from upgrades. It is a good thing. I always look at these moments as great opportunities to upgrade to current hardware. I'm sure many Apple customers will feel the same when they see what AI can do for them.

I think 8GB wont be a factor. 8GB will be good for another several years IMO in base configs. It'll be the processor lacking the advances in on-chip AI that will lock older devices out.

Anything under about 64GB RAM will heavily limit the speed of on device AI- try running basic LLMs on your M1 Mac. I have, out of morbid curiosity.

 

[Mainsail]

I once got some good advice when I was a young man; "Don't try to solve all of tomorrow's problems today". For me, it would be very difficult to try to factor AI into a buying decision today based on possible technical requirements for apps and OS that Apple has not even developed. BTW - Apple OS compatibility is never determined by the RAM specs. It is purely determined by the model and year, with no reference to the RAM selected.

So, I will just continue to enjoy using my base M2 MBA to get things done everyday, and my advice to others; buy the computer that meets your needs based on what you know them to be not on what others tell you they might be. If the base M3 MBA meets all of your needs, then search for one of these great deals and go for it. If you need to add RAM or storage, bite the bullet and do it. If you need to save $100-$150, consider the M2 with the understanding that the M3 will probably get one or two more year of OS updates. Only you can decide if the additional OS updates are important to you.

 

[Supermallet]

Exactly. So as AI quickly becomes a core part of the overarching macOS experience, we can expect M1 chips to be cut off from upgrades. It is a good thing. I always look at these moments as great opportunities to upgrade to current hardware. I'm sure many Apple customers will feel the same when they see what AI can do for them.

I think 8GB wont be a factor. 8GB will be good for another several years IMO in base configs. It'll be the processor lacking the advances in on-chip AI that will lock older devices out.

This isn’t the first time Apple has made OS features available on the latest model, they do it all the time with iPhones. I’m sure a few people will decide to upgrade just to get support for on device AI, but most won’t even notice. I certainly don’t think it will drive purchases for the vast majority of people who are happy with their current computer and the only thing missing is onboard AI.

 

[Boing123]

"For many"

Your point being??