Asahi Linux 7.1 Progress Report
asahilinux.org
asahilinux.org
Nit: I²S has nothing to do with I²C.
(Most I²S chips also have an I²C interface since I²S only carries raw audio data, no sideband like volume control or clock configuration. But that's a separate interface and can also be SPI rather than I²C. In fact, SPI is more closely related to I²S than I²C is.)
The reason why they both follow the same naming scheme is that Philips Semiconductor (now NXP) made both.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070102004400/http://www.nxp.co...
This is the weal-and-woe of reverse engineering. It's awesome that these machines now have native Vulkan 1.2 drivers, but it took years to get there. There are still unsolved problems 7 years after Apple Silicon hit shelves, and most newer hardware is broadly unsupported. The lesson here is a reiteration of what Linux users have always said - proprietary drivers suck.
Yes, because being non repairable, being non upgradable, having early thermal throttling due to subar cooling, and having a mediocre keyboard is SO much better than anything else that is out there.
I swear, the blatant lies that come out of supposed Mac fans on HN is almost like Apple is astroturfing this forum with shill accounts. Whats next, you are going to tell me that your Macbook is great for local LLM usage because 10 tok/sec while your laptop gets too hot to use on your lap and makes your fingers hot is all that anyone needs?
It definitely is. Apple's mistake with the Intel Macs was refusing to throttle the chips before they hit their T junction temp (~95c). This is why a lot of Wintel machines will max out around 70-80c in sustained load while Macs will fly past those temps.
The same behavior is present in both Intel Macs and Apple Silicon chips - you can very nearly boil water on your Macbook if you push the GPU with sustained load like LLM prefill.
Compute is compute, Apple didn't circumvent physics. It just managed to take chunks of that compute that represents the most average use case, and make it more efficient, in the same way that ASIC mine bitcoins more efficiently than GPUS
As for keyboard, it still sucks. Impossible to clean without taking the thing apart, so if you get any dirt under the keys, its gonna be there for quite some time.
Also the keyboards have improved a lot since the original butterfly design.
How ironic. There is no “blatant lie” in “their hardwares aren’t comparable to MacBook” if you don’t know what aspects they are comparing, but there are in your comment.
You can absolutely compare various chips and laptops to a Mac and end up with a fair comparison.
Comparisons are very subjective, you've got to look at the big picture and not the solipsistic one if you're going to call other people blatant liars.
My workload: web development, video call, running VM.
I basically could not find any laptop comaprable in those aspect AT THE SAME PRICE.
I was a (mostly) happy Asahi Fedora user for a while, but eventually went back to macos (for the battery life). I'm not sure how much better it is, but I actually trust that it will sleep and wake properly when I use its lid.
The prices and ram have been fucked though, long before the latest ram crisis. I have a macbook m1 air, which I bought second hand. I'm looking at maybe upgrading to a second hand m3 or m4 air (with more ram), but honestly the prices are just wrong. Whatever I buy will be too expensive and unable to run decent llm models.
But with fast charging and basically an outlet most everywhere you would actually use your laptop, that ship has sailed.
I am totally a Linux person, but I have to say: I run Alpine with Sway, and my battery life is nothing compared to a Macbook. It's just another world, it doesn't remotely compare.
Like honestly look into it and compare 1 to 1. Your talking points are outdated.
For people who mostly use their browser and a few programs, I understand why they would want to use a Macbook. I mean, I can go for a full weekend without charging it, and I do programming stuff where I compile regularly.
I think the last time I used an RPM-based distro was almost 2 decades ago.
Though their kernel fork is (obviously) open source, so there's nothing stopping you from taking a Debian aarch64 roots, build your own Asahi kernel (or take the build from Fedora), and set up Debian on these machines with Debian yourself. Just requires some elbow grease.
Or, if you find Ubuntu acceptable, there's Ubuntu Asahi: https://ubuntuasahi.org/
EDIT: After some googling I found this wiki article: https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Apple/M1
They’re working hard on upstreaming everything exactly so it’s easier for any distribution to be ported.
A distro is just window dressing and flavor.
https://voidlinux.org/download/#arm%20platforms
It's a regular package of linux in the distro: https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/tree/master/srcp...
Torvalds often crosses that line into outright toxicity. I've written a few kernel patches that I never tried to upstream for that reason.
You may have missed the "retroactively aborted" one.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/6/495
To be fair, he's got much more self-control now.
That implementation is also hilariously bad:
> read things ONE F*CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte
https://github.com/corollari/linusrants/blob/master/table.md
Someone who doesnt see a problem with this is probably one of those toxic people who dont realize they're toxic you mentioned. Nobody wants to be treated how Torvalds treated people.
Also, coming from an orchestral background, I'm well aware of situations where the leader needs to be gruff. A gentle conductor will never get the idiot violists playing in tune. (A harsh one won't either, but at least the violists will be too scared to make any noise.) That said, it's still unacceptable for a conductor to cross the line from gruff to personal attacks.
> Nobody wants to be treated how Torvalds treated people.
Exactly, nobody wants but so many can't stop until treated.
> Stop this "we can break stuff" crap. Who maintains udev? Regressions are not acceptable. I'm not going to change the kernel because udev broke, f*ck it. Seriously. More projects need to realize that regressions are totally and utterly unacceptable. ... That just encourages those package maintainers to be shit maintainers. ... And stop blaming the kernel for user space breakage!...
Hate 0.832673044602
For common sense.
Nobody has to work with him, and you chose not to. You don't contribute your kernel patches because you don't like the guy. And that's fine, and I even agree with your assessment that he's been abrasive.
On the other hand, it's his project. He does get to be dictator of his own project and the philosophies behind it. This is the beauty of open source: unlike proprietary software where money and power is everything, everyone is free to fork the kernel and stop dealing with him. In the open source world there are a long list of forks that have turned out to be more popular than their original projects.
The other beautiful thing about open source in this arrangement is that the people he's being a jerk to are people he has an employer power dynamic over.
If my boss is a jerk to me, yeah, that really sucks, because if I get fired my family doesn't eat. I'm forced to interact with that person, at least for a time.
I wonder if starting a comment by despising the parent is just being gruff or it leans on personal attack...
Regardless, to a newbie potential kernel contributor, that high level of toxicity can be intimidating, and the professional-programmers-only aspect is non-obvious, so it's easy to see why this would discourage hobbyists/free-time programmers from contributing.
example. I don't remember what all system Greg KH is responsible for, but for the sake of argument, lets say USB. You as a new contributor, try to contribute a patch to the USB subsystem. Turns out it is total garbage. For it to get Linus's attention, it has to have gone through review by Greg KH. Linus will light up Greg and only Greg because Greg has been doing this for 20+ years.
Now, do I feel he sometimes goes over board and unprofessional? Yes. But people keep contributing and the thing keeps chugging along.
Asahi founder (plus community community) was heavy with drama and loved to attack and brigade anyone that didn't immediately bow down and listen to demands of their team and social media entourage. This isn't how the most important OS in the world should be led and Torvalds was right to call out that toxic behaviour.
A subsystem maintainer will pick up your patch if it is good, and they will deal with Linus for you. Most subsystems have their own mailing list because you need to visibility.
The process is described pretty well in Documentation/.
As a result, I understand the desire to stick with a particular distribution that we're already familiar with - it's less work, and less having to remember subtle differences in structure. But when there is a time where I'm forced to use a new distro (e.g., when Asahi was first released exclusively as an Arch Linux ARM distro), I never regret the small learning experiences involved :-)
I haven't actually tried to install it yet, though.
There's groundwork that's already been done, as mentioned in the article, which brings some dividends, but, ultimately, there is a new mac every year that comes with a new chip, a plethora of microcontrollers and gpu changes, impossible to keep up with, that is why asahi team is focused more on m1 and m2 models. Even so, to this day both of them have issues with idle power management and alt-dp implementation, preventing many to switch, by the time they will have been ironed out the value of machines would be significantly diminished.
It is a miracle how much so few can do, but in the end, despite ubiquitous media coverage it looks like team's enthusiasm and passion have dwindled to the point that even m1 air will never be ready.
M1 support is pretty usable nowadays, and I would imagine at least a fraction of the work translates to future devices... It's not sunshine and rainbows, but it isn't a project doomed to fail either.
Hopefully, they will manage to get it done someday.
Do you actually use dp alt mode and not HDMI for external displays? What DE/WM are you using your mac with?
My battery certainly last a few hours. I use it as any other laptop I had before and use it daily on trains. So I cannot at all agree with your POV that it's a desktop. The battery is working without problems.
When the new leadership team took over, they announced that they would prioritize upstreaming the existing work over adding support for newer hardware.
Upstreaming their changes into the kernel took time.
Now the announced that they had started work on the M3 in February and things are progressing well.
> On top of the above, we also have PCIe, WiFi, Bluetooth, NVMe, keyboard, trackpad, and other core SoC block drivers working in Linux for M3 series machines. Most of this work has come by way of Yureka, who has been very busy hacking on both m1n1 and Linux with her M3 series machines for a while now. We still have a ways to go before we can start enabling Asahi Installer support for these machines, but progress is rapid so watch this space!
That sounds more like talented people doing meticulous work than doom.
Without taking away from the unutterably awesome achievement of writing custom firmware against a proprietary moving target, I worry about this one specifically. While Apple will hopefully continue the practice of not going out of their way to break third-party OSes, it doesn’t seem unlikely that they will introduce hardware signing for firmware blobs or the data they supply at runtime when programming the hardware; that’s a reasonable security concern for Apple to address. I hope this gamble pays off though!
The Mac partitions are encrypted by default and the system partition is signed and read only.
They first mentioned that efforts to add M3 support were starting in February:
> For quite some time, m1n1 has had basic support for the M3 series machines. What has been missing are Devicetrees for each machine, as well as patches to our Linux kernel drivers to support M3-specific hardware quirks and changes from M2. Our intent was always to get to fleshing this out once our existing patchset became more manageable
it's excellent, and made me reformat and erase Asahi a couple years ago.
https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/xnu/blob/f6217f89...
https://lore.kernel.org/asahi/c13d95d0-911f-48f6-b4ca-8a5e9a...
Will it ultimately be manually loading a build into specific hardware each time, or is there a level of automation that can be done here?
It allows you to do some remote control and automation for kernel loading and debugging where you get a very thin layer in between the real hardware and the kernel, without affecting the hardware I/O behaviour.
Selling hardware with the software that helps them track means more revenue than the same hardware with the software.
iPhone: 50.4%
Mac: 8.1%
iPad: 6.7%
Wearables, home and accessories: 8.6%
Services: 26.2%
I assume that the majority of service revenue is App store revenue.
Other services they provide are iCloud and Apple care
And this is related to MacBooks how exactly?
They still have the Darwin kernel open,but more and more of the open core is moving to closed components, a recipe for what Google started doing to Android. Now that they're no longer the hipster underdog, I don't think they care much about the brand marketing. You already believe they make the best laptops by far, what more marketing do they need?
That said, their AirPods division could be a Fortune 500 on its own.
iPhones are largely locked to their App Store so no risk there. Macs (currently) aren’t locked to the App Store - and I’d guess that Mac App Store usage is middling as a result.
Which is to say, I doubt that a marginal Mac App Store revenue hit from a small proportion of users switching to Linux over MacOS is the driver for not supporting Linux development. I’d guess it’s more about an inflexible company culture and maybe not wanting to extend their area of responsibility and risk.
I don't think the Mac App Store is going to get to iPhone levels of lock-down soon, but Apple thinks in ecosystems, not just in laptops. If you have an iMac, you probably have an iPhone, and you're probably going to buy an iPad should you ever want a tablet.
If they wanted, they could open source all of the drivers necessary to boot an OS as part of their Darwin core, but they choose not to. That actually breaks with their older, more open development style. I guess they just don't see the benefit of being open any longer.
In practice, I expect a paid Linux app store to go down about as well as the Microsoft Store has. Especially now, in the age of vibecoding.
I believe you.
> I already buy from Steam.
I believe this even more.
Tim Cook said it himself: Apple is not a hardware company (https://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-apple-is-not-a-hard...).
As we saw recently, they decided they are, after all, a hardware company, since they decided not to slash their margins...
That's not what you said. Their margins on software and hardware are irrelevant to what they, as a company, make most money off on — which was your original claim on which you are wrong and got called out on.
So annoying when people can't just admit they're wrong and instead gaslight people with their changed narrative.
You do realize that Apple is a public company and one can just go look at their financials like their latest 10-Q [0] right? For the most recent 6 month half (ending March 28 2026) I'm seeing $194 billion for product sales and $61 billion for service sales. The gross margins are certainly higher on services, at 77%, but 40% product margins are nothing to sneeze at either, and the disparity in absolute sales means the absolute dollar gross margins are $77 billion for products vs $46 billion for services.
So I don't see how you can assert that their "big money maker is their app store" from those numbers. Hardware matters a lot, and furthermore Apple sells services (like AppleCare+) that are specific to hardware and thus even a Linux user might still be interested in.
And without their hardware, their services would evaporate. There is a much tighter link there than with many companies. So they're on the hook for continued R&D and capex on that no matter what, you can't really separate that out, and in turn it's always going to be useful to have more volume to amortize it with.
I think primarily it comes down to corporate DNA, which is powerful. There are plenty of Mac hardware, software and service markets in pro/business/enterprise Apple has neglected or abandoned over the years, including ones making oodles of money, not out of any 4D chess but just because it doesn't fit them as an organization.
----
0: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000320193/37f5e9c...
That's just your made up opinion, completely not supported by their financials.
Sell a phone that is good for a few years, or get sell a phone and also get monthly 100% margin payments indefinitely? Given that phones are going to be useful for longer and longer periods, the replacement/upgrade cycle is definitely going to slow. They’re running out of compelling reasons you MUST have the new phone, falling back on dumb shit like making it stupid colors so you can wield it like a $1400 status symbol. It already does all of the camera and video stuff any normal person could ever ask for, which was previously the main way of differentiating smartphones.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the internal mandate/goal is equal services profit to hardware profit. It is a LOT cheaper and easier to vibe code new services than to design and build new features into the best phone in the world that has already been aggressively iterated on for two decades. Additionally, new signups are all profit as the marginal cost of additional subscribers is zero. Apple’s future is in subscriptions, that’s clear.
Are they there now? No. Does almost every single product decision they have made in the last 10 years point to this future? Absolutely. This “sign up pretty please” user-hostile bullshit (which now everywhere in all products, or nudged toward by all products) is the most un-Apple thing that I have ever witnessed in my 30+ years spent watching hawk-eyed at every single product, accessory, product variation, and service they have ever released.
I sometimes wonder if Jobs would have reached the same conclusion and pulled the company into the same direction in service of profitmaxxing vs spending the company’s time and resources producing and selling things that are insanely great. Can you name one Apple service that is insanely great? (iMessage’s uptime comes to mind, but that doesn’t directly generate subscriptions, and certainly doesn’t generate a single shred of the unalloyed glee in customers that was the characteristic phenomenon that originally put Apple on the map for decades.)
(Unrelated to this topic, the closest I get to that feeling anymore mostly gets caused by DJI and Anker.)
The only reason I'd see support for Asahi making sense for Apple is a Firefox situation, keeping the project alive to prove to regulators that there are alternatives.
Why should they when they have macOS already?
> Linux people LOVE laptops, and Apple makes the best laptops by a parsec. It seems like 10x ROI would be a conservative estimate.
How many people who buy Apple silicon laptops do it to run Linux on it? less than 10,000 or 20,000 people?
You should not expect Apple to care about what Linux users want. The closest you are getting from them is being able to boot a custom OS or kernel.
Everything else from the drivers to the secure enclave they do not care.
But if they could, Apple would sweep the market for Linux laptops. Macbook hardware completely outclasses even the high end options.
Almost no-one bought Intel Macs for dual-booting Linux either (Unless you are Linus Torvalds and a tiny amount of people who use Linux on Intel Macs).
> But if they could, Apple would sweep the market for Linux laptops.
Not true. They cannot even run Windows on them.
The entire point of Intel Macs was for running Windows on a Mac which that cohort is just as tiny as the Linux on Intel Mac customers.
Dual booting is generally reserved for those who are highly technical, so I would not expect Apple to care about either customer anyway. So that was tested already and Apple still did not care.
So of course they also do not care about Linux users who have Apple Silicon Macs either.
Linux on the Mac requires only Apple’s initiative, and does not benefit their competitors.
> Not true. They cannot even run Windows on them.
Why does the Linux laptop market care about running Windows?
> Dual booting
I’m not talking about dual booting at all. Before Apple Silicon, if you wanted to buy a laptop to run Linux, the Intel Macbooks have always been a top-tier recommendation.
The market isn’t large, but it’s a soft power they’re giving up. Walk into a big tech’s office and you’ll no longer see only Macbooks, and it’s not because they have to run Windows.
That wasn't the point for Apple. After pointing out that PowerPC hadn't hit 3GHz (as he had promised two years prior) and that there was no PowerBook G5, Steve Jobs clearly explained the rationale for intel Macs:
> As we look ahead, we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you, and we don't know how to build them with the future PowerPC road map.
Linux Gamers? The arm story for proton still needs work (hopefully the steam frame will help). Nvidia+Microsoft are working on it with that new surface ultra, but verdicts out on whether that will boot Linux or not as its specifically a Microsoft partnership.
General non-dev, non-gaming, non-creative users? I don't think they'd buy a mac specifically for Linux either. That market is much better served by Framework, System76, Tuxedo, Lenovo (thinkpads), etc.
And Apple certainly isn't going to win over any FOSS purists either.
I think the intersection of "I want macbook pro hardware" and "I must run Linux natively on it for my workflow" is a lot smaller than you think.
Outside of the US, macOS is not that popular. Where I grew up, no school had Macs on their computer labs, but they did have Linux. You could have lived your entire life near computers and never been in contact with macOS. I had. The first time I saw macOS was in college in a digital media lab.
I like macOS, but I do prefer Linux.
I can't ask for a Framework, System76 or Tuxedo laptop at work because they don't sell them directly and locally (within my country). They don't want to risk importing these machines, sending them back if they're broken, and not having a local replacement. But since the iPod, Apple has had a meaningful global presence, so of course, I can ask for a Macbook.
For a while we could pick Intel Macbooks and install Linux, and maybe I live in a tiny bubble, but many people I know did just that.
Because Apple cuts support for old MacBooks eventually, even if the hardware still works perfectly. See also my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48745199
I'm mostly OK with Apple's 7-10 years of support, but I also have older Macs that still work fine and that I wish were safe to connect to the internet while running macOS - without relying on various hacks or workarounds.
Apple still pushes updates and security updates to OS versions which are not the latest. So I don't see how they can be blamed much here.
despicable business practices really
the answer is "maybe to some small extent, but not really"
They obviously have a ton of people developing with linux and even asahi, else they wouldn’t been able to make adjustments in their uefi to shape the support of 3rd party OSes exactly how they wanted.
As apple no longer develop their own servers (OS), they even run some internal ”production” system on Linux, on their own hardware.
Every dollar Apple would spend on Linux support, they could instead spend on other improvements which makes their products better for much more important customer groups.
Goodwill among Linux people have very low value, since this is a group who doesn't want to pay for stuff. Such goodwill might even have negative value.
And Apple has aggressively been making new offers for these customer groups. Such as their Creator Studio, which is probably hated among Linux people, but a great offer for normal people who need and want to get real stuff done on the computer.
I don’t agree that Apple makes the best laptops by a parsec. Not anymore, many alternatives are closing the gap. This is aided by the fact that Apple hasn’t touched the MacBook Pro chassis in 5 years, making it quite dated especially with the underutilized, oversized notch and the horrendous menu bar software implementation that plagues the notch as a real problem for me and something that doesn’t just “disappear into the background.” The software solution is to just disappear menu bar items that don’t fit, making them unusable.
Apple is still the gold standard, don’t get me wrong. But I’ve got my Framework 13 Pro preorder in, and the list of compromises compared to a Mac is very short. My existing Framework 13 is already close enough and the Pro appears to fix 100% of the gripes I have with my system.
CNC machined chassis? Check. Haptic trackpad? Check. Graphics performance? Better than the M5 (non-Pro). Battery life? 20 hours of video playback.
And I’ll be getting numerous advantages over a MacBook: cross-compatible modular hardware, upgradable RAM and storage, customizable I/O, low cost DIY repairs, 3:2 screen ratio ideal for coding.
But this is just one laptop. If you explore the windows laptop space, there are a lot of great machines these days. Windows is really the weakest part of the equation, and you can just get rid of that.
I’ve myself eyed the Zephyrus G14 or G16 as a gaming and general purpose system in a MacBook Pro-sized form factor. It’s refined, it feels premium, the OLED display is gorgeous. Apple’s best chips can’t touch the graphics performance of a dedicated Nvidia GPU, so long as a huge amount of VRAM isn’t a requirement for you.
There are also laptops in the Lenovo Yoga line that are extremely compelling against a MacBook Air.
Admittedly, the screen ratio is better with the framework. But prefer the matte screen of the MacBook.
It’s easy to diss Apple alternatives and call them unrefined and all that, but to the right person, there are downsides to a Mac.
For example, the current MacBook Pro models with higher end chips prioritize quietness over heat and get very hot to the touch under heavy workloads.
Unless you are in music production, a little fan noise never hurt anyone, and the idea that windows laptops sound like hair dryers when doing basic tasks like browsing the web is very outdated.
Apple is revered for refinement and quality yet they get some basic ergonomics wrong like the sharp edges near your wrist and the notch blocking the menu bar.
Someone looking that machine who wants strong GPU performance, I’d probably send over to a Zephyrus G16 or something like that, and give up the modularity.
SSD and RAM speed specs aren’t really something that impacts the user experience unless you’re doing local LLM work.
What does impact the user experience, for example, is having access to hundreds of thousands of PC games by not being platform locked. Or maybe your user experience is impacted by having upgradable storage.
This obviously depends on individual needs, and I’m certainly not saying either system is bad. But I am saying that the Apple “experience” is often assumed to be the best when it does have some downsides.
Even the fact that there’s no charge port on the right side of the MacBook Air/Neo is a user experience downside (of course, not every PC laptop has that feature, but you can find them in the same price category as the Air).
I sold my MacBook Pro because I needed 2TB and couldn’t afford it from Apple. Being stuck with 512GB when 2TB drives cost under $200 at the time was stifling.
Then sometimes when I’m on the go I like to play a game or two, but nothing seriously requiring graphics power
SSD speed and RAM speed start mattering when memory pressure is high. And when doing stuff with video and photo editing.
The storage price is indeed steep and now the RAM price as well. I wish I hit the buy button when I had the chance before the price increase.
Yeah, they pretty much lied about that. It is only in a special Windows ultra-power saving mode that heavily throttles background tasks, forces the screen to be 30% lower brightness, heavily downclocks the CPU (50%+ less performance!), etc; The MacBook has to do no such tricks.
You're not gonna see Frameworks that equal the perf-per-watt of Apple until they release a model with a Snapdragon chip.
Frameworks have one benefit that other laptops don't: there's only a few parts. So for example for your Framework speakers you can find an EasyEffects / Pipewire (+bankstown?) tune profile that makes them sound better than 99% of laptops on the market. It's basically the Raspberry Pi effect.
The days of assuming that Apple has the best chip efficiency are coming to an end, especially if the Windows/Qualcomm platform is a workable choice for your needs (maybe someday Linux support will get better).
Apple still has a lead but it’s small enough that it’s not a good reason to choose an Apple system on its own. The M1 MacBook systems got double the battery life of competitors, now 5 years later, Apple systems are at best getting ~10% better battery life than competitors, and some systems like the XPS 14 have Apple beat entirely.
Obviously getting 20 hours in real world productivity use was never realistic, and it’s not realistic on a MacBook Pro, either. I disagree that framework was “basically lying.” They live-streamed the laptop hitting 20 hours, it doesn’t matter that they changed settings to get there. MacBooks have a brightness slider, too. You aren’t getting anywhere close to 20 hours on a MacBook without turning the screen brightness down.
IIRC the MacBook Air/Pro can’t even make it to 20 hours regardless of settings.
The point is that the new framework 13 Pro laptop isn’t a 5-7 hour battery life experience like the previous models. Instead, you can expect 10+ hours depending on what you’re doing it, so it’s a full work day.
Standby time is likely also a major issue, unless Intel suddenly reversed course and decided to support proper sleep again.
Framework specifically has stated that they worked very hard to improve standby time and claim that it’s dramatically better. Being able to use LPDDR5x LP-CAMM2 modules aids in standby time significantly. We’ll find out soon when the first reviewers get their retail units in, probably within a month or so.
For standby time, my current framework 13 has never bothered me. It’s great that Macs have incredible standby but it’s much less of a dealbreaker than I originally thought it would be. I just have sleep to hibernate set up in Linux.
My system sleeps for 2 hours then hibernates afterward. If I am putting my system down for 2 hours I’m likely done using it for the day anyway.
Just take the L, dude.
To clarify for you, “moving the goalposts” means that I changed my definitions over time. You’ll notice that in my comments I never changed my definition of what it means to have good battery life. I know sometimes turns of phrase are easy to misuse so I hope that helps you out.
There’s no winner or loser here. We’re just discussing technology. I’d appreciate if you tried to add conversation value rather than just dissing me personally.
Panther Lake is an impressive chip. The only MacBook Pro that can achieve 20+ hours of battery life at all with any setting is the 16” model that comes with the largest battery capacity allowed on a commercial airplane. It’s really not framework’s achievement, it’s the chip that’s so good, and that’s great for consumers because you can find a lot of competition on the market that has the coveted “all day battery life” without compromising on performance.
The problem is that x86 can (almost) match ARM battery life but at much worse performance, or match the performance at much worse battery life. That's what the statistics don't show you when they show either max performance or max battery life tests.
I repeat it rather often on this site but it's because they're such impressive numbers: an M1 Ultra gets 70% of the performance of an RTX 3090 at 25% of the power envelope, and it beats out a desktop class Core i9 from that era at 30% of the power envelope.
Nvidia, Intel and AMD would commit murder for those kind of perf per watt numbers.
I'm not sure it's fair to ding Framework specifically for not being able to make Linux battery life as good as Windows. Is that actually something they could reasonably fix?
My understanding is that the reason why Linux still struggles in this front is that nobody has put in the hardware-specific optimization work to make it happen. There’s also some friction with how the bulk of Linux dev attention is paid to servers rather than portable consumer hardware.
I am probably not competent to improve linux battery life myself (or at least I certainly don't have the time to get into that). But I can choose to spend my money on hardware and companies that explicitly support Linux, even if they aren't at the very top of the spec sheet. This has the best practical chance of convincing big-money companies and Linux kernel experts to actually spend time and money on this. Meanwhile, buying a Macbook and installing Linux on it is fine, I guess, but also invisible to the corporate world.
I think there's a lot of assumption among the group of people who have stuck with MacBooks since the M1 days that shopping the competition means compromising with a huge performance/battery life/value gap, but that reality that existed in 2020 is much different than the current situation in 2026.
If you are in the market for a MacBook Air for the kinds of things that most people use MacBook Airs for, the average user won't notice that the battery life or performance on a computer equipped with a Panther Lake or Qualcomm chip is different from a MacBook Air at all.
Are these chips exactly the same price/performance ratio of an M5? Maybe not. But, if it's close enough, it's close enough.
That was one thing I never realized I needed until I had it. Having my laptop basically be optional to charge 99% of the time I use it changed my life. I can take it out with 20% left having not charged it in a week and still get a workday out of it. wtaf
The user of a laptop with top tier battery life isn’t tethered to the wall, doesn’t need to care about availability of power outlets, and in many circumstances doesn’t even need to carry a charging cable and brick (or if they do, they can get by on trickle-charging with a tiny 15w phone brick overnight). This kind of laptop is in its own class of ultraportability.
1000s of hours of work for what is just sitting in a drawer in Cupertino. But they won’t.
The ASIC specifications tell you how to operate and program the chips, which is what device drivers need.
Better for Linux would be for Apple to provide open source drivers.
(Linux would also benefit if NVIDIA provided open source drivers, for example.)
The big difference I see is in the chip. The PowerPC arguably had its benefits (vectorization) which made it super attractive for bioinformatics, etc., and a lot of that software was Linux-based. People could either buy a super-computer or a G4 (or a cluster of G4s) and get the work they needed done for a fraction of the cost. MacOS (and OSX) were behind on a lot of this stuff compared to Linux then.
Today from what I see the M3-M5 chips are a big leap forward compared to their competitors, and it just happened to hit at the same time LLMs became popular. I imagine there are some similar, specialized needs with the M[1-5] chips that might benefit from Linux but with OSX's stronger BSD underpinnings it's a different world.
Why? People have been using Orbstack, Lima and Docker long before Apple shipped first-party container tooling. The virtualization support was never ever a problem.
For actual dedicated server usage, macOS itself is the problem. You want to be running Proxmox on baremetal, nobody wants to administer headless macOS machines by-hand.
I think the lawsuit chances are very low because FAANG right now depend way too much on LLM being legal, so they would not want to shoot themselves in the foot.