> "Poweruser"? No, I feel the more accurate term would be power-consumer.
Possibly. I guess there are many different kinds of powerusers. The interpretation I had in mind is that I use the computer (1) a lot, (2) not just for internet/media consumption, and (3) I use it to program so I want/need easy accessibility to many software packages (which is a problem on Windows, IME).
Just because I can solve all of the problems/configuration and use all the low-level backup/networking tools, it doesn't mean that I want to (it's just not worth my time).
If you use computers "a lot", the percentage of time required to learning a select few Linux userspace administrative tools, as well as the time dedicated to configuration and maintenance, is less than nothing compared to time spent on general everyday usage. The common perception that Linux is a timesink is false (not to mention most things are very much plug-and-play nowadays, e.g. networking via DHCP). And the benefits in doing so are huge, in that you now control your needs using a variety of independent tools, as opposed to the far more locked-in, proprietary solutions that Apple offers. I simply disagree with your claim that Macbooks are the best option for so-called power-users when on multiple aspects from hardware to software they're not. Macbooks/The Apple ecosystem is A choice, not THE choice.
> Possibly. I guess there are many different kinds of powerusers.
It's simply that "programmer who doesn't like to configure things in detail until everything they use fits them like a glove and doesn't know much about hardware" and "power user" are different and orthogonal things.
Apple hardware is good-ish. For proof you should look at the equivalent laptops from Dell etc and notice that they are cheaper, but not by much. Beyond superior? Nope. They still have better screens (colors not number of pixels!) and faster storage, but that's about it. And they fucked up the keyboards lately.
The one thing that makes Apple crap still superior is the HW/OS integration. I switched from Linux to OS X because of that, not the actual hardware.
Back to the power something, I do custom embedded Linux-es for a living. I still would like my base OS to "just work". <Cough> systemd... can't trust Linux any more.
Really? What's the best Linux distro/toolset to use in order to get anything to show up in a usable way in HDPI? I don't think you can buy new monitors anymore that are at low enough a resolution to support modern Linux.
Err, you must be looking in the wrong aisle/store. You can certainly buy new, good IPS/MVA panels (as a finsihed, desktop-ready unit) with more classic dpi. E.g. the classic format 19" 1280*1024: iiyama PROLITE P1905S-B2 available for 150~200$ new. To be fair, this is probably one of the, if not the lowest DPI/resolution desktop screen they offer, but still. it's at about 86 DPI, they also sell a 32" 1080p screen running at 68 DPI. I do like it a bit higher between about 100~110 DPI, and above 120 DPI requires high DPI technology. So, yes, please consider reasonable hardware. Don't buy HighDPI if you don't want to handle HighDPI with legacy software.
