No matter what you think the specs say, the fact is the software and hardware are so well integrated
it tears strips off "superior spec'd" Windows counterparts in the real world.
This has always been true of Macs.
Having used both lines of machines for many years, if I want raw power and 'specs' I use the PC.
His argument falls short the second you want to use non optimized software - he even touches upon this, but "I understand people need to use programs from other developers, but at some point they need to play catch up". This is rather difficult to take seriously. So you can efficiently do what Apple say you can do, but nothing else? That might work in his line of work, but it doesn't for the rest of the world.
For his use case there is a pairing of software and hardware optimized to work with each other.
In "professional" situations this is not, as I understand it, particularly unusual. And yet the unsuitability of the new MBP for "professional" use cases has been widely assumed on HN. It's interesting to see someone who actually has one of those use cases and has actually used the new MBP, weighing in to say "it works, and here's why". Not least because the level of hardware/software cooperation Apple can muster is a selling point for him, but has been ignored by all the "I'm a touch typist whose workflow consists exclusively of function keys, the touch bar makes this a worthless toy to me" noise coming from HN.
While it is not unusual, it's not what Macbook Pro has been known for since their transition to Intel CPUs. So it fits some specific use cases, at the expense of every other. And if they did make the hardware faster, all usecases would benefit.
All those people with a different usecase, are right to be annoyed by that. But just as this piece completely lacks unbiased opinion, so does the noise coming from HN (and the tech community in general).
