After 30 years of Windows... I'm switching to Apple Mac OS

[Halcyon]

A few days ago, I purchased my first ever product from Apple and this wasn't an impulse purchase either. It's taken me months of decision making and homework, and arguably many years of using Windows to come to this decision.

I've posted on a number of threads now, that for the past 8 years or so, Linux has been my daily driver at home (this isn't going to change anytime soon). This is after growing up with MS-DOS and Windows 3.x in the early 1990's, right through to Windows 7 which was the last version of Windows I chose to use for myself.

At work, I use Windows 10/11 because I'm essentially forced to, not because of some silly corporate policies (I'm the CIO/CTO) but because most software applications used in the digital forensics/cybersecurity industry run exclusively on Windows (with some designed for Linux). With the exception of Grayshift's GrayKey (that works via a web browser), all the big names are pretty much all Windows-only; Cellebrite UFED/Physical Analyser, Magnet AXIOM, X-Ways Forensics, etc...

But that specialty workflow aside, most of my (and my employee's) daily requirements rely on a web browser and few office applications. After giving Windows 8/10/11 years of attention, I've come to the conclusion that it's all entirely rubbish and Microsoft have lost the plot. Everything from duplicated settings strewn all around the OS to stupid decisions essentially forcing people to use Microsoft's cloud environment, or excluding certain features unless you pay more, I've had enough. Even the absurdity which is Microsoft 365's back-end and the numerous administrative portals leaves little to be desired.

I've hated on Apple for years, even going as far as calling them "toys" compared to other offerings. For me, iOS is still very much still playing catch-up with Android in some respects, but that's another matter. I'm not about to replace my Pixel 7 any time soon. But Mac OS has become a rather nice balance of what Windows should have been with a nice sprinkling of Linux/BSD. These days it's highly refined and simply "just works". A lot of the annoyances are gone and you're left with what is actually quite an elegant operating system. With the unbeaten battery life of the Apple M1 and M2-based laptops, in a slim form factor, it's hard to pass-up. Whilst Apple's M-series chips won't set the world on fire with multi-threaded performance, for most users, it's still a snappy and smooth experience for most workflows, and dare I say "quite adequate" overall. In the past, some of Apple's design decisions have been outright dumb, with utterly brain-dead placement of ports (or lack of I/O altogether) to high voltage rails running so close to data lines that even relatively minor liquid damage would fry the mainboard. I'm hoping a lot of these mistakes have been ironed out with their current offerings.

At this stage, I won't be replacing my main workstation at work just yet, but it's a strong contender. I'm looking to virtualise our Windows-only forensics workflow leaving the gate open to all kinds of possibilities when it comes to the daily machines used by our staff. If someone wants to use a Mac, they should be able to, without limitations (or Linux or Windows for that matter). I'm of the view that if it means that end-users can do their jobs effectively at the expense of more work for the IT department, then so be it, I can always hire more staff to handle back-end tasks.

For me, this is about being flexible and trying something entirely new, that I haven't done before. I'll come back to you after 3 months with some further thoughts.

I share this because I'm sure there are plenty of others in the same position as me, whether it be just for their personal computing, or for more professional applications. I'd also love to hear from others who made "the switch" before me.

1 Week Update: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/after-30-years-of-windows-im-switching-to-apple-mac-os*/msg4978534/#msg4978534

2 Month Update: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/after-30-years-of-windows-im-switching-to-apple-mac-os*/msg5050360/#msg5050360

[brucehoult]

What took you so long? :-)

My personal journey has gone VAX/VMS -> MacOS -> Linux when RedHat on CD became available (PPro 200, Athlon 700, 1800, 3200) -> OS X when it came out -> OS X on Hackintosh on i7-860 then i7-4790K -> linux on i7-6700K then TR-2990WX to OS X on M1 (still use the TR daily via ssh).

I've sometimes bought hardware with DOS or Windows pre-installed but it's never stayed longer than needed to verify that the hardware isn't DoA. Well, until my current 6 core Zen2 Thinkpad, bought this time in 2020, which still has Windows 10. I was going to put Linux on it, but WSL2 works ok. I only use Windows itself for web browsing (Chrome). I don't use it much at all. Just when travelling or when I have to sit in a cafe for a couple of hours waiting for a vehicle to be serviced or something like that.

Had to use NT 3.5.1 on PPro200 at one job, with VC++. That was kind of ok. Except for the PVCS. That really sucked. Had to use Server 2003 at another job. It was ok once I turned off the stupid XP UI. And we were using SVN there, which was better.

[Someone]

Whilst Apple's M-series chips won't set the world on fire with multi-threaded performance

Um, thats exactly what they did do. Unless you go for comparisons to massively parallel server/workstation processors using 2-3-4 times the power and/or price?

[brucehoult]

Whilst Apple's M-series chips won't set the world on fire with multi-threaded performance

Um, thats exactly what they did do. Unless you go for comparisons to massively parallel server/workstation processors using 2-3-4 times the power and/or price?

Last time I checked, Apple maxes out at 16 performance cores. [1] That's plenty for most people, and the multi-threaded performance is very good compared to x86 with similar numbers of cores.

Doesn't compete against 32/64/128 core servers of course.

[1] the efficiency cores add about as much performance as hyperthreading on x86 i.e. maybe 15% or 20%. Better than a poke in the sys with a blunt stick, but only just.

[John B]

Mac OS is well polished and sleek, but I only use it for certain software. Other than that, Linux is far more flexible.

The big hurdle for staying with Macs for me is the hardware is expensive, but carries a lot of financial risk when it comes to warranty work, coupled with the difficulty with 3rd party repair. So it's a very unbalanced risk. Not to mention getting a hardware combination that you need for your purposes is difficult unless you accept a huge premium.

Then there's the security aspect of the OS. Some time back there was the issue of a daemon scanning local files in order to upload data to apple servers.

[SiliconWizard]

I don't find Apple's hardware that expensive actually, unless you compare it with entry-level cheap PC crap.

What I don't like much is being tied to very specific hardware, with little to no possibility of any upgrade or modification. But that's something you also rarely get with a PC laptop anyway these days, so I'm more talking about the desktop computers.

So, in terms of desktop computers, Apple machines are expensive, but just look at how much an equivalent PC machine will cost if you use quality parts. Not that much less. The upside is that you get to choose from a very wide selection of parts, and upgradability is also largely better.

[Someone]

Whilst Apple's M-series chips won't set the world on fire with multi-threaded performance

Um, thats exactly what they did do. Unless you go for comparisons to massively parallel server/workstation processors using 2-3-4 times the power and/or price?

Last time I checked, Apple maxes out at 16 performance cores. [1] That's plenty for most people, and the multi-threaded performance is very good compared to x86 with similar numbers of cores.

Doesn't compete against 32/64/128 core servers of course.

[1] the efficiency cores add about as much performance as hyperthreading on x86 i.e. maybe 15% or 20%. Better than a poke in the sys with a blunt stick, but only just.

MacBook Pro with M2 max, vs say Dell Precision with 1370P or 13900H or a HP ZBook with AMD Ryzen 9 7940HS ? You'd need to head up into a 13950HX to "best" the M2 Max and only by a narrow margin (ignoring those power and price costs).

[brucehoult]

The big hurdle for staying with Macs for me is the hardware is expensive, but carries a lot of financial risk when it comes to warranty work, coupled with the difficulty with 3rd party repair. So it's a very unbalanced risk.

I've been buying Mac desktops personally since 1989 (IIcx) and laptops since 1992 (PB100) and with the exception of battery replacement I have *never* had any failures requiring repair, in or out of warranty. I still have Macs built in the mid to late 90s and they work perfectly if I plug them in.

The 2990WX Linux PC I had built for me in April 2019 by a reputable outfit using good quality [1] components required the Corsair Hydro Series H100-110 AIO cooler to be replaced in May 2021 due to pump failure. Probably could have got that fixed under warranty, but the machine and I are on a different continent now.

Not to mention getting a hardware combination that you need for your purposes is difficult unless you accept a huge premium.

This can be true. I just want a fast CPU and a reasonably hefty amount of RAM. On their machines with high end CPUs Apple tends to build in (and therefore make me pay for) vastly higher spec GPUs and fancy high speed I/O than I need.

That's why I built i7-860 and then i7-4790K Hackintoshes. First of all, I made my boxes six months before Apple used those chips -- and when they did use them, it was in the top end 27" iMac in both cases. Lovely machines with truly beautiful displays. But I already had a nice display (at that time, a 30" 2560x1600 Apple display bought used for $600) and no need to pay for a new one each time.

Now I have a Samsung 32" 4k display which is even nicer than the old 30" from 2004. I've used it on several machines already, and I'm sure will use it on several more.

Then there's the security aspect of the OS. Some time back there was the issue of a daemon scanning local files in order to upload data to apple servers.

Can you provide a reference for that? I don't recall it.

[1] as far as I could tell! It cost me US$4,795.84 all up.

[Halcyon]

Whilst Apple's M-series chips won't set the world on fire with multi-threaded performance

Um, thats exactly what they did do. Unless you go for comparisons to massively parallel server/workstation processors using 2-3-4 times the power and/or price?

It depends entirely on the workflow. For performance per watt, they did an amazing job. However if you're after something beyond some basic video editing, you'll need to opt for the M2 Pro's or better (and I certainly wouldn't be trying heavy workloads on their laptops with minimal cooling capacity).

In single-threaded performance, the standard Apple 8-core M2 CPU sits somewhere around the higher-spec Intel i5's and the AMD Ryzen 5/lower-spec Ryzen 9. If you compare the Apple M2 with something like the Intel i5-12600K in multi-threaded applications, the Intel is roughly around 60% faster. The goal of the M2 chips that you find in the MacBook models isn't blazing performance, it's about providing a reasonable experience while maximising battery life. The M2 is far more power efficient. That Intel CPU isn't expensive either, you're looking around the AUD$300 mark.

If you're in the top-end of the market and after maximum performance, you're still going to be reaching for an Intel Xeon, high-end i9 or an AMD EPYC or high-end Ryzen 9 over Apple's current M2 offerings. What the M3 will bring, that's yet to be seen.

Apple's marketing machine is a powerful one. They boast 12x faster than the fastest Intel (but only in the old Intel-based MacBook Air's, not the current Intel line-up). They also claim twice the performance of an Intel i7 in a PC, but that test was using an unspecified i7 with built-in Intel Iris Xe graphics, nothing exactly to write home about there.

Mac OS is well polished and sleek, but I only use it for certain software. Other than that, Linux is far more flexible.

Absolutely, which is why it won't be replacing my Linux desktop machine at home, anytime soon.

I don't find Apple's hardware that expensive actually, unless you compare it with entry-level cheap PC crap.

I paid AUD$2569 for the 15" MacBook Air with M2, 16GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. That's with my university staff discount. The same machine retails for AUD$2799, which to me, is quite an expensive laptop, especially considering there are better performers out there. However raw performance isn't what matters most to me personally. I have other machines for that if I need to process something that needs more grunt. It's a machine I will primarily use for travel, for its portability and long runtime.

The big hurdle for staying with Macs for me is the hardware is expensive, but carries a lot of financial risk when it comes to warranty work, coupled with the difficulty with 3rd party repair. So it's a very unbalanced risk. Not to mention getting a hardware combination that you need for your purposes is difficult unless you accept a huge premium.

I've mentioned this before but Australia has pretty powerful consumer laws when it comes to repairs/refunds/replacements of products and Apple have a reputation to uphold. Manufacturer warranty is almost a bit of a moot point here. If you spend a decent amount of money on a high quality machine and it fails just outside the warranty period, by law you could still be entitled to a free repair, or replacement, particularly if the failure was due to design or manufacturing. Apple has been smacked by the Australian Government several times when it came to shoddy quality iPhones etc... and were even forced to place specific wording on their website, particularly when it came to pushing you additional cost for AppleCare. In reality, AppleCare doesn't offer much (if anything at all) that the law doesn't already provide you for free.

[brucehoult]

In single-threaded performance, the standard Apple 8-core M2 CPU sits somewhere around the higher-spec Intel i5's and the AMD Ryzen 5/lower-spec Ryzen 9. If you compare the Apple M2 with something like the Intel i5-12600K in multi-threaded applications, the Intel is roughly around 60% faster.

You're comparing a machine with 4 P cores vs one with 6 P cores!

Try the 10 core M2 Pro, which at least has the same 6 P core configuration as the Intel chip. In an otherwise same-configuration Mac Mini [1] that adds $300. Or for another $300 you can get the 8 P core version, which will definitely be faster than that i5-12600K.

[1] pretty sure the increments are the same in laptops too

[tszaboo]

Good for you. Nobody cares.

[Halcyon]

In single-threaded performance, the standard Apple 8-core M2 CPU sits somewhere around the higher-spec Intel i5's and the AMD Ryzen 5/lower-spec Ryzen 9. If you compare the Apple M2 with something like the Intel i5-12600K in multi-threaded applications, the Intel is roughly around 60% faster.

You're comparing a machine with 4 P cores vs one with 6 P cores!

Try the 10 core M2 Pro, which at least has the same 6 P core configuration as the Intel chip. In an otherwise same-configuration Mac Mini [1] that adds $300. Or for another $300 you can get the 8 P core version, which will definitely be faster than that i5-12600K.

[1] pretty sure the increments are the same in laptops too

Then compare it to something like the i3-13100F. In terms of aggregate performance, they are roughly on-par, with the Intel beating out in some multi-threaded applications. Again, it depends entirely on your workflow.

Whilst the M2 is a good performer, it's not designed to be the fastest. It's designed to be low-power but still bring about decent performance in a thin, lightweight design. There is no one machine that is the best in every category, something has to give and usually it's lower power efficiency or larger physical size and weight.  As I said, the M2 is perfectly adequate for most users, even pushing it hard for short periods it seems to handle fine.

Good for you. Nobody cares.

It seemed like you cared enough to click on the thread and even post a reply.

[Someone]

Whilst Apple's M-series chips won't set the world on fire with multi-threaded performance

Um, thats exactly what they did do. Unless you go for comparisons to massively parallel server/workstation processors using 2-3-4 times the power and/or price?

It depends entirely on the workflow. For performance per watt, they did an amazing job. However if you're after something beyond some basic video editing, you'll need to opt for the M2 Pro's or better (and I certainly wouldn't be trying heavy workloads on their laptops with minimal cooling capacity).

In single-threaded performance, the standard Apple 8-core M2 CPU sits somewhere around the higher-spec Intel i5's and the AMD Ryzen 5/lower-spec Ryzen 9. If you compare the Apple M2 with something like the Intel i5-12600K in multi-threaded applications, the Intel is roughly around 60% faster. The goal of the M2 chips that you find in the MacBook models isn't blazing performance, it's about providing a reasonable experience while maximising battery life. The M2 is far more power efficient. That Intel CPU isn't expensive either, you're looking around the AUD$300 mark.

The M2 spans almost an order of magnitude in performance between the bottom end model and the top end. As bruce notes above you're comparing a mid range part from a competitor to the bottom end M2.

Sure you bought a laptop with the bottom end M2 thats not bottom end system price. But to compare that to a mid range desktop system and say there is some gap in performance (you called out multithreaded in particular) is completely misleading, more so than apple comparing the old heavily throttled intel processor that apple were replacing in that model line (a better comparison would have been the then current intel chips at the same power/price segment).

M2 Mac mini $1000 AUD geekbench multithread 9702
M2 Pro Mac mini $2000 AUD geekbench multithread 12085
M2 Pro Mac mini $2450 AUD geekbench multithread 14208
...
i5-12700k geekbench multithread 11644
i5-13600K geekbench multithread 14689

A greybox build might come in cheaper for the performance but as brucehoult says above you can mackintosh on that route. The specific workload is of course the end determinant, geekbench synthetic numbers tend to favour apple silicon compared to most real world tasks. But there is no huge gap in performance until you start looking at the 20-30-64 core power monsters, for which there is no apple silicon equivalent.

Whilst the M2 is a good performer, it's not designed to be the fastest. It's designed to be low-power but still bring about decent performance in a thin, lightweight design.

Ignoring that the M2 is a wide span of performance that almost perfectly overlaps with the current desktop class intel processors. M2 Ultra is right in the ballpark of a 13900k

[Bryn]

It must've taken you the full courage to finally make that decision after such a long time thinking about it... would you have made the switch sooner though?

Although for myself, I had been indecisive on switching to macOS for eight years now, really to just get away from Windows and what it had become over the years (even though I'm lucky to have Windows 7 for so long), plus that I'm quite savvy with Macs just by college experience.

[Halcyon]

It must've taken you the full courage to finally make that decision after such a long time thinking about it... would you have made the switch sooner though?

Although for myself, I had been indecisive on switching to macOS for eight years now, really to just get away from Windows and what it had become over the years (even though I'm lucky to have Windows 7 for so long), plus that I'm quite savvy with Macs just by college experience.

I don't know if "courage" is the right word. I think I feel more disappointment in that the OS's that I grew up with and got to know intimately have turned into what is it today. I probably picked the right time for me to switch over to Apple, but don't get me wrong, it's nice and shiny now, but in a few months time I might find it too tedious/annoying/frustrating, who knows. At the moment, I'm experimenting and learning.

Windows 7 lasted me a long time (just like Windows XP did back in the day), but it's just not feasible anymore. Even if you set aside the lack of updates, a lot of software simply won't run on it anymore and it's not really an option in the corporate world (particularly a cybersecurity company).

Whilst Linux is great and I would like to see more Linux workstations at work, it's not a sensible option both from the perspective of the user or our staff who have to maintain them. As I mentioned, Linux will still be my primary machine I do most of my work from at home. Android is still my choice of mobile operating system, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

As I said to my mates who gave me grief (albeit they were nice about it), I'm nothing if not flexible

As for what the future holds for Windows, unless a miracle happens and Microsoft do a complete 180 degree turn, I don't see myself ever going back there and my hopes for having Windows workstations on every desk at work are quickly dwindling as well.

[nigelwright7557]

I tend to use Windows because I have to.
I develop software for Windows and have done since Windows first arrived.
Windows is terrible. I recently tried to add a laptop to my network and had to set settings all over the place.
There should be just one button to add items to the network.
So called improvements to Windows tend to be just changing this for changing things sake.
And quite often the changes are for the worse.

[brucehoult]

M2 Mac mini $1000 AUD geekbench multithread 9702
M2 Pro Mac mini $2000 AUD geekbench multithread 12085
M2 Pro Mac mini $2450 AUD geekbench multithread 14208

Your first machine has 8 GB RAM 256 GB SSD.

The other two both have 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.

Equalising the RAM and SSD brings the first machine to $1600. AUD. Which seems fair, assuming you're not just trying to get the cheapest possible machine.

Each 2 additional P cores costs $400 or $450 AUD (it's $300 USD for each step in the US store)

[Someone]

M2 Mac mini $1000 AUD geekbench multithread 9702
M2 Pro Mac mini $2000 AUD geekbench multithread 12085
M2 Pro Mac mini $2450 AUD geekbench multithread 14208

Your first machine has 8 GB RAM 256 GB SSD.

The other two both have 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.

Equalising the RAM and SSD brings the first machine to $1600. AUD. Which seems fair, assuming you're not just trying to get the cheapest possible machine.

Each 2 additional P cores costs $400 or $450 AUD (it's $300 USD for each step in the US store)

Which is a far better comparison than... [non specific benchmark] of [non specific configuration] of INTEL IS FASTER DUH
 

Computers have multidimensional performance/specifications. Processor speed is one that could be optimised for, just as memory or storage bandwidth, or GPU compute. But Halcyon seems to be stuck complaining about their laptop that adds cost in all sorts of ways other than its lowest end processor available, is somehow poorly comparing to a mid range desktop processor on processing performance. Completely ignoring that there are other options which do offer (much) more processing power and might be a better comparison.

[Halcyon]

I think if it had not been for the battery life of these new Apple machines, I don't think I'd be sold. There are some days where I spend many hours traveling and to have a machine I can access everything from and not having to worry about when I next need to plug in, is a huge advantage. The Dell XPS 13 I had was reasonable (compared to some PCs), but still not nearly enough.

Computers have multidimensional performance/specifications. Processor speed is one that could be optimised for, just as memory or storage bandwidth, or GPU compute. But Halcyon seems to be stuck complaining about their laptop that adds cost in all sorts of ways other than its lowest end processor available, is somehow poorly comparing to a mid range desktop processor on processing performance. Completely ignoring that there are other options which do offer (much) more processing power and might be a better comparison.

On the contrary, this is based on research I've done and Apple's own tests. I haven't had the machine long enough to really be able to see what works (or what doesn't) for me. That's also the clear takeaway, my experience does not reflect yours and vice versa. Cost is less of an important factor for me, but could be for others. Cost is just one consideration when buying or designing a computer.

I haven't "ignored" anything, in fact, the whole reason for this thread is to share with you that I'm flexible enough to consider an entirely new platform. Ask me 10 years ago whether I would have bought a Mac and the answer would have been "no" straight away.

I dare say there are plenty of other people who have recently come to this same decision making process, or might even be considering it now. At the end of the day, a computer is just another tool. I don't have an allegiance to any particular brand. If a product ticks to the most boxes for me, then so be it. I'm not about to go out and buy a machine that aces all the benchmarks for a particular game, because it's entirely irrelevant to me and I'd probably end up with something I wasn't happy with.

It just shits me to tears when people have to jump down other's throat's because they believe their opinion is somehow more important, or more relevant. But welcome to the world of IT. It's been like this longer than I've been alive. This thread is about discussing my experiences with my particular workflow, nothing more. I'm not trying to sell anything, nor convince anyone they should follow in my footsteps. I'm just offering my objective opinion and if it helps just 1 person, then great. Happy days. I'm not going to be getting into a pissing contest with people about whose is bigger/faster/has more girth, if that's you, go buy an Audi and post videos about it on TikTok.

[Someone]

I haven't "ignored" anything,

Yes you have and are adding a very long winded avoidance of the basic point:

Whilst Apple's M-series chips won't set the world on fire with multi-threaded performance

M series, multithreaded performance, your choice of performance and framing.

There is this thing called the M2 Ultra, an M series processor (and the M1 ultra predecessor) which is completely comparable to the top end intel desktop chips of their generation, on multithreaded compute as the metric (without going into task specific hardware cores).

If you want to point and laugh at misleading/optimistic comparisons the other way:

Apple's marketing machine is a powerful one. They boast 12x faster than the fastest Intel (but only in the old Intel-based MacBook Air's, not the current Intel line-up). They also claim twice the performance of an Intel i7 in a PC, but that test was using an unspecified i7 with built-in Intel Iris Xe graphics, nothing exactly to write home about there.

Then you'll be leaving your own equally ridiculous "comparisons" open to criticism.

Apple M2 silicon covers an almost identical performance footprint of the 13th generation intel desktop chips from top to bottom, and hits similar points in performance per $$$ or per watt to the 13th generation laptop chips, AMD similar again. There is no significant lead either way.

[Halcyon]

 

If you would like to start your own thread talking about how wonderful the M2 Ultra is, then be my guest. It's out of scope of this discussion.

[radiogeek381]

I switched from windows (and Linux) to mac os for presentation and media stuff around 2007. But I still do most of my software development on Linux (or in Jupyter on Mac or Linux).

My switch to MacOS was motivated almost entirely by Keynote.  I was chief engineer for a company and found myself on the road doing marketing and sales presentations once the first product was out. Our marketing department showed and convinced me that Keynote produced better presentation material than Powerpoint. They were right. (Even older presentations imported from Powerpoint into Keynote looked better. And libre office wasn't ready for prime-time.)

My 19" MacBook Pro was a good traveler, still fit on an economy class table, and had a nice display. As for cost, it wasn't all that much more than a similarly capable Windows laptop and the price was dwarfed by the cost of the MATLAB license anyway.

Nowadays I don't travel, so my MacOS platform is a mini. It is my "daily driver" + NoMachine to get to the Linux boxes. The primary use at this point is Keynote + iMovie + Audacity + Jupyter to produce instructional materials.

The major disappointment has been the decline in the quality of Apple technical support over the years. When things go well, life is good. But the genius bar is pretty inconvenient when your problem gets moderately complicated. And relying on the "community" through the apple forums generally gets the same kind of responses other OSes get: "It doesn't happen to me" and "I don't know why you would do that, so you shouldn't."

But, on the whole, I'm pretty happy with the MacOS experience.

[Halcyon]

Thanks for sharing your experience radiogeek381.

I think no matter which manufacturer you ultimately pick, you'll probably need to deal with their support at some stage. Most recently I've dealt with Lenovo and Dell. I mean, they are OK, but I feel Lenovo have become too bloated and it seems that no one talks to each other in their organisation anymore. Long gone are the days of the IBM-owned ThinkPads (they were wonderful).

I'm going to reserve all my judgement and opinions on this new Mac (and Mac OS) until I've given it a proper go. Maybe initially after a few weeks, but perhaps even months from now. I don't think you can really get to know a new environment in just a week or two, that would be an unfair.

My only comment so far is that the process from order to getting things up has been seamless.

[DiTBho]

Welcome to Mac-club 

The main reason I switched from Windows to Mac is similar to the mentioned Keynote; in my case it's for Finalcut!

The second reason is that with Apple Silicon the battery can sustain up to 14 hours of moderate work and this is essential when you're on the move. This has nothing to do with the Finalcut, which I usually use in my hotel room or on an airplane when you have the charging socket, but it has a lot to do with my main duties outdoors, where the nearest recharge is at about 100Km.

p.s.
I sold my Lenovo X Carbon/i7 2017.
You are right, new Lenovo laptops have lost their luster 

[thermistor-guy]

...
What I don't like much is being tied to very specific hardware, with little to no possibility of any upgrade or modification. But that's something you also rarely get with a PC laptop anyway these days, so I'm more talking about the desktop computers.
...

The upgrade/mod obstacles are deal breakers for me.

On my home network, I have desktops and laptops bought in 2007 still running fine, with repairs and upgrades keeping them highly useable. Most are running Mint or Debian now.
I buy motherboards, laptops, tablets, and the like with future upgrades in mind. The only appliances I buy are rpis, because they are so cheap. I use them for specific network tasks.

I didn't like Apple's "walled garden" approach in 1990, when I bought my first PC, and I still don't. It's not for me.