I was a Microsoft user for over 30 years. However last month I gave all #3000 worth of my Microsoft laptops to charity organizations. Microsoft OS has become too onerous for a number of reasons. I was having to spend more than 50% of my time on patching Microsoft OS vulnerabilities and updates to the OS which would take onerous amounts of my time.
I am interested in the Framework idea however. I am using MacOS exclusively now, because it’s robust, easy to update, and easy to protect from invasion. Converted my entire office to MacOS.
I am wondering if Framework will come out with a similar MacOS laptop soon. I like the modular idea, but not willing to run Windows on anything.
Additional comment: I was a Windows user since the 1980s. My decision to ditch Microsoft OS occurred after many Windows-caused disasters over many years which should have never occurred. I consider Windows an extremely weak OS, and disaster prone, which will never be robust enough to provide adequate security without massive external software support.
Unfortunately, only Apple can decide who can officially use MacOS on their laptops, and they’ve got a long history (20+ years) of not allowing third party Macintoshes.
Considering the Framework laptop is a(n absolutely bangin’) direct competitor with Apple’s machines, it’s not likely they’d license MacOS to it.
You might want to look into Linux-based OSes and/or Hackintoshing.
Not willing to use Linux. I just invested $10000 in Apple computers and software. Linux does not have the support structure I want. However I think the Framework project could license their hardware design to Apple and allow Apple to design some of their own laptops using that same idea.
You’ll never be able to run MacOS on Framework, the XNU Kernel doesn’t have support for 11th Gen Intel processors and you will be unable to run a hackintosh. Your only options are to buy an Apple device or deal with Windows/Linux on Framework.
If Apple wanted to build fully repairable laptops and commit to right to repair they would’ve done it a gazillion years ago. I don’t think it’s expertise that’s holding them back.
Now if you love MacOS so much and is unwilling to countenance using a linux distro then I guess you’ll have to live with what amounts to malfeasance from Apple’s part on the repairability of their hardware.
What a waste of money giving Apple $10000. To think, you could have Googled Red Hat and paid them a yearly fee for support Red Hat Enterprise Linux at US$299 per Workstation and still had all you old PC’s. And now your on the path to a locked ecosystem with very short support time, as Apple is changing from Intel x86 to Apple ARM chips.
For someone who spent so much money buying into the Apple eco-system as you say you have, I find it hard to believe that you don’t understand that only Apple can release hardware to run their operating systems.
I would take Windows over the closed and forced mindset of Apple products any day, but will acknowledge that they are making some pretty impressive hardware these days.
I would agree that for someone who is willing to spend that much on Apple, Linux is probably the very last thing they want to deal with.
Not to burst your bubble either, but Mac OS updates all the time as well. Welcome to the age of computers connected to the internet. Get comfy because updates are going to be a constant regardless of the platform you are using.
I would hope, and expect, that Framework would not be interested in even considering any Apple-based OS (even if it were possible). Apple’s philosophy has moved over the years to be the complete antithesis of user repair and upgradeability. Putting Apple and Framework in the same sentence is a perfect example of an oxymoron.
The closest you could possibly get to MacOS is to run DarwinBSD which is what MacOS is based on and even then you’ll miss out on the proprietary parts of the OS.
Completely agree. It is the exact opposite direction from FrameWork. It doesn’t matter anyway, Apple is moving to the Silicon chips and won’t support anything but their own long term IMO. I’m not sure why you would invest that heavily, Apple has just as many issues with the upgrades, etc… as Microsoft does. Being in security, at least Microsoft releases patches and updates fast enough to keep up with it. I also agree with the RHEL solution provided, with Ansible you can push out updates to your entire fleet in a matter of minutes.
First, Apple OS uses the Unix OS, and has used it for over 40 years. Linux is a relative newcomer, and is a version of Unix which came first. Second, since the hardware is shielded by low-level layer software, which standardizes the machine language instruction set, as a result the Apple OS is much easier to maintain. Microsoft OS still requires tons of updates, sometimes multiple times a month, taking hours to apply sometimes, to maintain security; Apple requires a single update each month, taking about 20 minutes, and mostly to add new features and not to patch security.
Second, Apple software framework was designed by geniuses, Windows OS was developed by a salesmen, Bill Gates who farmed it out to hacks to fill the gaps for him. Gates was great at selling the system to IBM, but he knew little about computers.
Microsoft OS is inherently insecure, and requires hoards of malware detectors to make it through a single day. This is a flaw that Linux and AppleOS do not have. But Linux is open source and has multiple versions. There is no centralized support. And the OS requires getting into details of the OS. I spent years working with those details; I do not want to do that anymore.
This email is getting too long. I’ll continue later when I have time.
I forgot to mention one other thing: the chipset is not a big deal with AppleOS, because it does not run directly on the physical hardware of the computer itself. There is low-level software which creates the Apple operating language, and the Apple OS runs on that. So the coding of the Apple OS remains almost identical with the new chipset. For Apple, chipset doesn’t matter much. Apple is moving to a superior chipset. Microsoft is unable to do the same thing - they are stuck with Intel forever I think.
IMHO there is no way that Apple would licence Mac OS to a company that is a direct competitor. Apple’s whole argument is that only their integrated hardware and software give the best experience. They also like keeping you in their ecosystem to sell more overpriced product that are cheaper to buy a new device vs. repairing the device.
My suggestion would be that he contact Apple to ask them to adopt Framework’s philosophy on user repair, user upgradeability and modularity. I think most people here will know how open Apple is to customer input.