Except the boot process on a non apple PC is open software.
For the most part, it isn’t. The typical laptop you buy from the major manufacturers (Lenovo, HP, Dell) have closed-source firmware. They all end up supporting the open UEFI standard, but the implementation is usually closed source. Having the ability to flash new firmware that is mostly open source but with closed source binary blobs (like coreboot) or fully open source (like libreboot) gets closer to the hardware at startup, but still sits on proprietary implementations.
There’s some movement to open source more and more of this process, but it’s not quite there yet. AMD has the OpenSIL project and has publicly committed to open sourcing a functional firmware for those chips by 2026.
Asahi uses the open source m1n1 bootloader to load a U-boot to load desktop Linux bootloaders like GRUB (which generally expect UEFI compatibility), as described here:
The SecureROM inside the M1 SoC starts up on cold boot, and loads iBoot1 from NOR flash
iBoot1 reads the boot configuration in the internal SSD, validates the system boot policy, and chooses an “OS” to boot – for us, Asahi Linux / m1n1 will look like an OS partition to iBoot1.
iBoot2, which is the “OS loader” and needs to reside in the OS partition being booted to, loads firmware for internal devices, sets up the Apple Device Tree, and boots a Mach-O kernel (or in our case, m1n1).
m1n1 parses the ADT, sets up more devices and makes things Linux-like, sets up an FDT (Flattened Device Tree, the binary devicetree format), then boots U-Boot.
U-Boot, which will have drivers for the internal SSD, reads its configuration and the next stage, and provides UEFI services – including forwarding the devicetree from m1n1.
GRUB, booting as a standard UEFI application from a disk partition, works like GRUB on any PC. This is what allows distributions to manage kernels the way we are used to, with grub-mkconfig and /etc/default/grub and friends.
Finally, the Linux kernel is booted, with the devicetree that was passed all the way from m1n1 providing it with the information it needs to work.
If you compare the role of iBoot (proprietary Apple code) to the closed source firmware in the typical Dell/HP/Acer/Asus/Lenovo booting Linux, you’ll see that it’s basically just line drawing at a slightly later stage, where closed-source code hands off to open-source code. No matter how you slice it, it’s not virtualization, unless you want to take the position that most laptops can only run virtualized OSes.
I think you mean that Apple uses its own memory more effectively then a windows PC does.
No, I mean that when you spec out a base model Macbook Air at $1,199 and compare to similarly specced Windows laptops, whose CPUs/GPUs can deliver comparable performance on benchmarks, and a similar quality display built into the laptop, the Macbook Air is usually cheaper. The Windows laptops tend to become cheaper when you’re comparing Apple to non-Apple at higher memory and storage (roughly 16GB/1TB), but the base model Macbooks do compare favorably on price.
The typical laptop you buy from the major manufacturers (Lenovo, HP, Dell) have closed-source firmware.
FTFY: The typical laptop MOST buy from the major manufacturers (Lenovo, HP, Dell) have closed-source firmware. Though, I totally agree there are some PC suppliers with shitty practises. Where we disagree is that is if the firmware is fixed by the hardware manufacturer, then you have control over everything on the system. It is only when you have control of the base functionality of the system that you can say you are in charge. This may be too literal for you, but I just see that as a trust level you have in the manufacturer not to abuse that control.
17 inch screen (2560X1440) over the 15.3 inch (2880X1864)
16gb memory - 8GB upgrade to 16gb=+£200
1TB SSD over 256GB (upgrade to 1Tb=+£400)
8 full core/16t CPU (AMD5900hx) over an 8 core non hyperx cpu, 4 cores are cheaper variants.
All of the PC components can be upgraded at the cost of the part + labour. Everything on the Apple will cost the same price as a new computer to replace. Mainly because it is all soldered onto the board to make it harder to replace.
This is a £1400 laptop from scan V’s £1500 macbook air currently.
Ah, I see where some of the disconnect is. I’m comparing U.S. prices, where identical Apple hardware is significantly cheaper (that 15" Macbook Air starts at $1300 in the U.S., or £1058).
And I can’t help but notice you’ve chosen a laptop with a worse screen (larger panel with lower resolution). Like I said, once you actually start looking at High DPI screens on laptops you’ll find that Apple’s prices are actually pretty cheap. 15 inch laptops with at least 2600 pixels of horizontal resolution generally start at higher prices. It’s fair to say you don’t need that kind of screen resolution, but the price for a device with those specs is going to be higher.
The CPU benchmarks on that laptop’s CPU are also slightly behind the 15" Macbook Air, too, even held back by not having fans for managing thermals.
There’s a huge market for new computers that have lower prices and lower performance than Apple’s cheapest models. That doesn’t mean that Apple’s cheapest models are a bad price for what they are, as Dell and Lenovo have plenty of models that are roughly around Apple’s price range, unless and until you start adding memory and storage. Thus, the backwards engineered pricing formula is that it’s a pretty low price for the CPU/GPU, and a very high price for the Storage/Memory.
All of the PC components can be upgraded at the cost of the part + labour.
Well, that’s becoming less common. Lots of motherboards are now relying on soldered RAM, and a few have started relying on soldered SSDs, too.
I can’t help but notice you’ve chosen a laptop with a worse screen (larger panel with lower resolution).
I would choose a larger screen over that marginal difference in dpi every day of the week. People game on TV screens all the time with lower resolution because it is better.
The CPU benchmarks on that laptop’s CPU are also slightly behind the 15" Macbook Air, too, even held back by not having fans for managing thermals.
You cannot compare an app that runs on two different OS. That is just plain silly. Cinebench only tests one feature of a system. That is the CPU to render a graphic. Apple is built around displaying graphics. A PC is a lot more versatile. There is more to a system than one component. Let’s see you run some raytracing benchmarks on that system.
Well, that’s becoming less common. Lots of motherboards are now relying on soldered RAM
I wouldn’t buy one. You will always find some idiotic willing victim. In the future though ram is moving to the CPU as a package, but that will be done for speed gains. Until then only a bloody fool would buy into this.
An apple system has one major benefit over a PC system - battery life. Other than that I would not recommend one, even then I would give stern warnings over repair costs.
I would choose a larger screen over that marginal difference in dpi every day of the week.
Yes, but you’re not addressing my point that the price for the hardware isn’t actually bad, and that people who complain would often just prefer to buy hardware with lower specs for a lower price.
The simple fact is that if you were to try to build a MacBook killer and try to compete on Apple’s own turf by matching specs, you’d find that the entry level Apple devices are basically the same price as other laptops you could configure with similar specs, because Apple’s baseline/entry level has a pretty powerful CPU/GPU and high resolution displays. So the appropriate response is not that they overcharge for what they give, but that they make choices that are more expensive for the consumer, which is a subtle difference that I’ve been trying to explain throughout this thread.
You cannot compare an app that runs on two different OS.
Why not? Half of the software I use is available on both Linux and MacOS, and frankly a substantial amount of what most people do is in browser anyway. If the software runs better on one device over another, that’s a real world difference that can be measured. If you’d prefer to use Passmark or whatever other benchmark you’d like you use, you’ll still see be able to compare specific CPUs.
you’re not addressing my point that the price for the hardware isn’t actually bad,
I disagree. It is not only that the hardware is cheaper and a lower spec with the exception of the CPU, the design is geared around making upgrades and repairs near impossible or unfeasible. Software has much more support on a Windows OS. Video editing has been bread and butter for many years now, but Windows has caught up due to improvements in hardware and software. In my mind this negates the case for buying a Mac currently, but I can easily see it was a good buy in the past.
The outlier is Macs are good in battery life. Therefore there is a niche market that is an exceptionally good return on your investment.
Why not? Half of the software I use is available on both Linux and MacOS, and frankly a substantial amount of what most people do is in browser anyway. If the software runs better on one device over another, that’s a real world difference that can be measured. If you’d prefer to use Passmark or whatever other benchmark you’d like you use, you’ll still see be able to compare specific CPUs.
Because you cannot use Cinebench unless you are comparing the same system setup. Comparing two OSs is just stupid and cherry picking. Apple has a very trimmed down OS compared to the complexity of Windows. Apple OS dumps the need for legacy code with a closed system designed for specific hardware. Windows still caters for code written for DX CPUs under x86 architecture. This as well as the many other reasons why not. I noticed you ignored my offer of comparing back to back raytracing result, and now fail to even mention it.
You are obviously enamoured by the Apple model, I am not. There really is nothing that you could say that would convince me otherwise. I will wish you good day, and hope you agree to disagree.
For the most part, it isn’t. The typical laptop you buy from the major manufacturers (Lenovo, HP, Dell) have closed-source firmware. They all end up supporting the open UEFI standard, but the implementation is usually closed source. Having the ability to flash new firmware that is mostly open source but with closed source binary blobs (like coreboot) or fully open source (like libreboot) gets closer to the hardware at startup, but still sits on proprietary implementations.
There’s some movement to open source more and more of this process, but it’s not quite there yet. AMD has the OpenSIL project and has publicly committed to open sourcing a functional firmware for those chips by 2026.
Asahi uses the open source m1n1 bootloader to load a U-boot to load desktop Linux bootloaders like GRUB (which generally expect UEFI compatibility), as described here:
If you compare the role of iBoot (proprietary Apple code) to the closed source firmware in the typical Dell/HP/Acer/Asus/Lenovo booting Linux, you’ll see that it’s basically just line drawing at a slightly later stage, where closed-source code hands off to open-source code. No matter how you slice it, it’s not virtualization, unless you want to take the position that most laptops can only run virtualized OSes.
No, I mean that when you spec out a base model Macbook Air at $1,199 and compare to similarly specced Windows laptops, whose CPUs/GPUs can deliver comparable performance on benchmarks, and a similar quality display built into the laptop, the Macbook Air is usually cheaper. The Windows laptops tend to become cheaper when you’re comparing Apple to non-Apple at higher memory and storage (roughly 16GB/1TB), but the base model Macbooks do compare favorably on price.
FTFY: The typical laptop MOST buy from the major manufacturers (Lenovo, HP, Dell) have closed-source firmware. Though, I totally agree there are some PC suppliers with shitty practises. Where we disagree is that is if the firmware is fixed by the hardware manufacturer, then you have control over everything on the system. It is only when you have control of the base functionality of the system that you can say you are in charge. This may be too literal for you, but I just see that as a trust level you have in the manufacturer not to abuse that control.
As for the comparison I disagree.
This is a £1400 laptop from scan V’s £1500 macbook air currently.
17 inch screen (2560X1440) over the 15.3 inch (2880X1864)
16gb memory - 8GB upgrade to 16gb=+£200
1TB SSD over 256GB (upgrade to 1Tb=+£400)
8 full core/16t CPU (AMD5900hx) over an 8 core non hyperx cpu, 4 cores are cheaper variants.
All of the PC components can be upgraded at the cost of the part + labour. Everything on the Apple will cost the same price as a new computer to replace. Mainly because it is all soldered onto the board to make it harder to replace.
Ah, I see where some of the disconnect is. I’m comparing U.S. prices, where identical Apple hardware is significantly cheaper (that 15" Macbook Air starts at $1300 in the U.S., or £1058).
And I can’t help but notice you’ve chosen a laptop with a worse screen (larger panel with lower resolution). Like I said, once you actually start looking at High DPI screens on laptops you’ll find that Apple’s prices are actually pretty cheap. 15 inch laptops with at least 2600 pixels of horizontal resolution generally start at higher prices. It’s fair to say you don’t need that kind of screen resolution, but the price for a device with those specs is going to be higher.
The CPU benchmarks on that laptop’s CPU are also slightly behind the 15" Macbook Air, too, even held back by not having fans for managing thermals.
There’s a huge market for new computers that have lower prices and lower performance than Apple’s cheapest models. That doesn’t mean that Apple’s cheapest models are a bad price for what they are, as Dell and Lenovo have plenty of models that are roughly around Apple’s price range, unless and until you start adding memory and storage. Thus, the backwards engineered pricing formula is that it’s a pretty low price for the CPU/GPU, and a very high price for the Storage/Memory.
Well, that’s becoming less common. Lots of motherboards are now relying on soldered RAM, and a few have started relying on soldered SSDs, too.
Amazon has this one for $1200. I would still pay the extra for the features over an Applemac.
I would choose a larger screen over that marginal difference in dpi every day of the week. People game on TV screens all the time with lower resolution because it is better.
You cannot compare an app that runs on two different OS. That is just plain silly. Cinebench only tests one feature of a system. That is the CPU to render a graphic. Apple is built around displaying graphics. A PC is a lot more versatile. There is more to a system than one component. Let’s see you run some raytracing benchmarks on that system.
I wouldn’t buy one. You will always find some idiotic willing victim. In the future though ram is moving to the CPU as a package, but that will be done for speed gains. Until then only a bloody fool would buy into this.
An apple system has one major benefit over a PC system - battery life. Other than that I would not recommend one, even then I would give stern warnings over repair costs.
Yes, but you’re not addressing my point that the price for the hardware isn’t actually bad, and that people who complain would often just prefer to buy hardware with lower specs for a lower price.
The simple fact is that if you were to try to build a MacBook killer and try to compete on Apple’s own turf by matching specs, you’d find that the entry level Apple devices are basically the same price as other laptops you could configure with similar specs, because Apple’s baseline/entry level has a pretty powerful CPU/GPU and high resolution displays. So the appropriate response is not that they overcharge for what they give, but that they make choices that are more expensive for the consumer, which is a subtle difference that I’ve been trying to explain throughout this thread.
Why not? Half of the software I use is available on both Linux and MacOS, and frankly a substantial amount of what most people do is in browser anyway. If the software runs better on one device over another, that’s a real world difference that can be measured. If you’d prefer to use Passmark or whatever other benchmark you’d like you use, you’ll still see be able to compare specific CPUs.
I disagree. It is not only that the hardware is cheaper and a lower spec with the exception of the CPU, the design is geared around making upgrades and repairs near impossible or unfeasible. Software has much more support on a Windows OS. Video editing has been bread and butter for many years now, but Windows has caught up due to improvements in hardware and software. In my mind this negates the case for buying a Mac currently, but I can easily see it was a good buy in the past.
The outlier is Macs are good in battery life. Therefore there is a niche market that is an exceptionally good return on your investment.
Because you cannot use Cinebench unless you are comparing the same system setup. Comparing two OSs is just stupid and cherry picking. Apple has a very trimmed down OS compared to the complexity of Windows. Apple OS dumps the need for legacy code with a closed system designed for specific hardware. Windows still caters for code written for DX CPUs under x86 architecture. This as well as the many other reasons why not. I noticed you ignored my offer of comparing back to back raytracing result, and now fail to even mention it.
You are obviously enamoured by the Apple model, I am not. There really is nothing that you could say that would convince me otherwise. I will wish you good day, and hope you agree to disagree.