Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #659317 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-09 01:12 -0400 |
| Last post | 2024-07-14 15:15 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 01:12 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-09 05:50 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 02:11 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-09 07:12 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 08:11 -0400
Re: 🏳️🌈It's over🏳️🌈 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2024-07-09 14:11 +0000
Re: 🏳️🌈It's over🏳️🌈 Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 10:22 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 00:46 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-10 01:56 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 04:14 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 15:25 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 21:39 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 18:55 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 23:48 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 00:55 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-12 01:01 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 02:38 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-11 22:30 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 18:57 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 23:49 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 00:48 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-12 01:03 +0000
Re: It's over chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-07-15 15:22 -0500
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 16:40 -0400
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-15 16:56 -0400
Re: It's over % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 14:54 -0700
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 01:04 +0000
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-12 11:22 -0400
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 12:58 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-12 23:01 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:01 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-13 18:04 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-13 23:22 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-14 04:20 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 18:15 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 01:46 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 01:46 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 15:30 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-14 19:36 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 01:47 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-15 04:59 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 05:43 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-15 17:41 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 01:03 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-13 23:22 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 07:34 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 01:49 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 12:54 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-16 00:16 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 01:01 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-16 14:40 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-16 19:56 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 23:46 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-17 02:50 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-19 01:26 +0000
Re: It's over RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 02:21 +0000
Re: It's over vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-19 03:06 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-19 08:05 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-19 04:44 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-19 04:36 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 21:44 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 02:44 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 23:14 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 05:41 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-16 09:55 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-16 19:47 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-16 06:40 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 07:25 +0000
Re: It's over Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-07-16 07:14 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-16 19:38 +0000
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-16 17:22 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 23:45 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 23:44 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-17 02:46 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-19 00:59 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-19 04:33 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-19 08:02 +0000
Re: It's over RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 13:21 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 01:00 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 21:47 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 05:40 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-16 09:52 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-16 23:42 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-10 13:20 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-10 18:45 +0000
Re: It's over Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-07-10 15:52 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-11 03:33 +0000
Re: It's over Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-07-11 11:58 -0400
Re: It's over % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 09:02 -0700
Re: It's over Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-07-12 15:40 -0400
Re: It's over % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 14:21 -0700
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 15:00 +0000
Re: It's over Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-07-14 08:01 -0400
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 15:30 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-11 18:02 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 15:00 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 22:27 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-11 03:26 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 03:33 +0000
Re: It's over vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-11 03:48 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-11 06:48 +0000
Re: It's over Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-07-11 12:07 -0400
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-09 13:02 -0400
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-09 13:44 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 00:47 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-10 02:01 +0000
Re: It's over Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2024-07-10 04:58 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-10 06:57 +0000
Re: It's over vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-10 11:29 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-10 18:15 +0000
Re: It's over WittySausage <witty@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-10 17:32 -0400
Re: It's over vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-10 21:38 +0000
Re: It's over WittySausage <witty@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-10 19:32 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-11 03:54 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 05:56 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-11 06:56 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-11 07:17 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 07:14 +0000
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-10 13:14 -0400
Re: It's over WittySausage <witty@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-10 13:25 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 22:28 +0000
Re: It's over WittySausage <witty@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-10 10:43 -0400
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-10 12:46 -0400
Re: It's over WittySausage <witty@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-10 12:51 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-10 22:29 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 15:37 -0400
Re: It's over WittySausage <witty@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-11 19:42 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 00:58 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-11 22:07 -0400
Re: It's over CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-12 07:10 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 14:07 +0000
Re: It's over CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-12 15:07 -0400
Re: It's over % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 12:19 -0700
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-12 23:07 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-13 00:30 +0000
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-12 15:29 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 20:52 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 20:44 +0000
Re: It's over % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 14:22 -0700
Re: It's over CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-12 17:49 -0400
Re: It's over CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-12 17:51 -0400
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-12 23:50 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-12 23:02 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-13 00:23 +0000
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-20 19:32 -0400
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-20 19:45 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-21 05:54 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-21 16:43 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-12 01:05 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 14:30 +0000
Re: It's over CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-13 17:19 -0400
Re: It's over DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-13 17:56 -0400
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 17:46 -0400
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 15:50 +0000
Re: It's over CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-14 16:02 -0400
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-15 16:00 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-13 23:24 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 15:30 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 01:50 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-15 16:00 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 14:30 +0000
Re: It's over Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-07-13 14:45 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-13 15:00 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:06 -0400
Re: It's over Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-07-14 11:16 +0000
Re: It's over vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-07-15 05:35 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-13 17:21 +0000
Re: It's over RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 01:24 +0000
Re: It's over Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-07-14 11:13 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 15:30 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 12:05 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-13 23:27 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 07:39 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 01:55 +0000
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-13 23:25 +0000
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 15:30 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 17:46 -0400
Re: It's over Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-07-15 01:52 +0000
Re: It's over chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-07-14 06:26 -0500
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-14 15:30 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-14 18:53 +0000
Re: It's over CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-07-14 16:09 -0400
Re: It's over candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-07-15 16:00 +0000
Re: It's over rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-07-15 17:43 +0000
Re: It's over Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 15:15 -0400
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 00:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lfbcq6Fi6lmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #659540 |
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:57:34 -0400, Joel wrote: > This is simply a matter of dominoes falling, ARM will supplant x86, it's > over as I said in the Subject line, they will put everything on this > hardware. I would never buy another x86 machine, but the one I have > could probably remain useful for a long time. You have hit on one of the problems. https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/windows-11/windows-10-still- has-more-than-double-the-market-share-of-windows-11-and-that-doesnt-look- like-it-will-change-any-time-soon "Windows 11 continues to lag behind Windows 10 in terms of market share. The latest figures from StatCounter state Windows 10 has a 67.23% market share, while Windows 11 only has a market share of 28.18%." Consider what that means. Windows 11 came out in 2021 and presumably any computer purchased since then would have Windows 11 preinstalled. I bought my laptop in 2020 with Windows 10 and have upgraded it to 11. The only reason was IT forced all the work machines to be upgraded and I figured I might as well otherwise I would still be in the 67%. I have no reason to buy a laptop in the near future. To get back on point, this means 67% of the computers were probably purchased prior to 2021. The people aren't moving to Windows 11 although many of the machine are capable and they aren't buying new machines. What they have presently meets their needs. So, what is the compelling reason to buy a new machine, particularly with an unproven version of Windows running on unproven hardware? So far the ARM64 API is tailored for the Broadcomm Snapdragon so the performance across the few vendors (Microsoft, Samsung, and Lenovo) will be similar. They all will be struggling for market share. Will anyone else get in the game in 2025 if the pioneers have lackluster sales? Will the profit margins be there? Is ARM64 and high end an oxymoron? I don't know. There are a lot of hail mary passes in play to stimulate sales after the covid bump but in a tight economy there has to be a reason. So far Microsoft's AI is being met with a yawn in the enterprise users. Will new laptops save the day?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v6pvdg$2mv4v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659555 |
On 12 Jul 2024 00:48:06 GMT, rbowman wrote: > So far the ARM64 API is tailored for the [Qualcomm] Snapdragon so the > performance across the few vendors (Microsoft, Samsung, and Lenovo) will > be similar. That’s something that needs emphasizing: this isn’t “Windows-on-ARM” in the sense of “Linux-on-ARM”, as in the ability to run on a wide range of ARM chips: this is very much only “Windows-on-Qualcomm-ARM”.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 15:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <951b9j501utqmi6roubor5oso9mihjupq7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #659559 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >That’s something that needs emphasizing: this isn’t “Windows-on-ARM” in >the sense of “Linux-on-ARM”, as in the ability to run on a wide range of >ARM chips: this is very much only “Windows-on-Qualcomm-ARM”. Made in Taiwan, of course. With Chinese warships circling. -- "My whole claim is that JPGs can and often do have EXIF data (but need not to). [Peter K] claims I am wrong." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 16:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <r02b9j1pdhubp20omnk53eo46g6ckignu5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #659866 |
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >>That’s something that needs emphasizing: this isn’t “Windows-on-ARM” in >>the sense of “Linux-on-ARM”, as in the ability to run on a wide range of >>ARM chips: this is very much only “Windows-on-Qualcomm-ARM”. > >Made in Taiwan, of course. With Chinese warships circling. I believe this is the start of a revolution in CPU usage, if I were designing a machine I'd want an ARM processor right now. I'd ask why it's only in the XPS 13, and Apple with VMs. I know that I'd give up some Linux choice with an ARM device, so it's convenient that I have perfectly good x86 gear right now, but boy if I were in laptops that Dell would be a nice one. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 16:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v742eo$ruc4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659867 |
On 7/15/2024 4:40 PM, Joel wrote: > chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> That’s something that needs emphasizing: this isn’t “Windows-on-ARM” in >>> the sense of “Linux-on-ARM”, as in the ability to run on a wide range of >>> ARM chips: this is very much only “Windows-on-Qualcomm-ARM”. >> >> Made in Taiwan, of course. With Chinese warships circling. > > > I believe this is the start of a revolution in CPU usage, if I were > designing a machine I'd want an ARM processor right now. I'd ask why > it's only in the XPS 13, and Apple with VMs. I know that I'd give up > some Linux choice with an ARM device, so it's convenient that I have > perfectly good x86 gear right now, but boy if I were in laptops that > Dell would be a nice one. You might like these: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/copilot-plus-pcs I like my 34" widescreen monitor and larger Comfort Curve 2000 keyboard, so a laptop isn't for me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <pursent100@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 14:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nBmdnaih7rjhBwj7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #659873 |
DFS wrote: > On 7/15/2024 4:40 PM, Joel wrote: >> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> That’s something that needs emphasizing: this isn’t “Windows-on-ARM” in >>>> the sense of “Linux-on-ARM”, as in the ability to run on a wide >>>> range of >>>> ARM chips: this is very much only “Windows-on-Qualcomm-ARM”. >>> >>> Made in Taiwan, of course. With Chinese warships circling. >> >> >> I believe this is the start of a revolution in CPU usage, if I were >> designing a machine I'd want an ARM processor right now. I'd ask why >> it's only in the XPS 13, and Apple with VMs. I know that I'd give up >> some Linux choice with an ARM device, so it's convenient that I have >> perfectly good x86 gear right now, but boy if I were in laptops that >> Dell would be a nice one. > > > You might like these: > > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/copilot-plus-pcs > > I like my 34" widescreen monitor and larger Comfort Curve 2000 keyboard, > so a laptop isn't for me. > > my monitor is 72 inches long
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-16 01:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v74gud$un01$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659867 |
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:40:44 -0400, Joel wrote: > I believe this is the start of a revolution in CPU usage, if I were > designing a machine I'd want an ARM processor right now. Or better still, given some of the greedy noises Arm Ltd have been making, RISC-V.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 11:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v6rhoc$3336c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659540 |
On 7/11/2024 6:57 PM, Joel wrote: > This is simply a matter of dominoes falling, ARM will supplant x86, Definitely not. It doesn't offer enough advantages over CISC. Do you remember what you said to me 14.3 years ago? "You are clueless, dude. Apple is going to release OS X for other OEMs and retail sales - mark my words, it's coming." > it's over as I said in the Subject line, they will put everything on > this hardware. I would never buy another x86 machine, but the one I > have could probably remain useful for a long time. Don't get rid of it. You need to keep it around so I can be proven right that Win13 will run just fine on it (you claimed Win12 would be the end) Win8.1 release: Oct 2013 Win10 release: July 2015 Win11 release: Oct 2021 Win12 release: 2025 (online speculation) Win13 release: 2030?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 12:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvn29j1ssspab2g66aeqdjtmtkh7tkqqnc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #659602 |
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> This is simply a matter of dominoes falling, ARM will supplant x86, > >Definitely not. It doesn't offer enough advantages over CISC. > >Do you remember what you said to me 14.3 years ago? > >"You are clueless, dude. Apple is going to release OS X for other OEMs >and retail sales - mark my words, it's coming." If I really said that, that's funny, although that would've been at the time I was enthusiastic about OS X. >> it's over as I said in the Subject line, they will put everything on >> this hardware. I would never buy another x86 machine, but the one I >> have could probably remain useful for a long time. > >Don't get rid of it. You need to keep it around so I can be proven >right that Win13 will run just fine on it (you claimed Win12 would be >the end) > > >Win8.1 release: Oct 2013 >Win10 release: July 2015 >Win11 release: Oct 2021 >Win12 release: 2025 (online speculation) >Win13 release: 2030? It's not inconceivable that M$ would support a 10th gen CPU for Win13, actually. It would run like crap, though, and 12 might really not be as good as 11, for that matter. Either way, Linux is already better than pre-12 release (i.e. 11). -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-12 23:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v6scjn$37p6h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659602 |
On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:22:49 -0400, DFS wrote: > [ARM] doesn't offer enough advantages over CISC. RISC architectures like ARM and RISC-V offer plenty of advantages, but you need native code to take advantage of them. That native code almost entirely runs under Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 12:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <84959jpsu1k2h3k7q4p5bv7sk3i9htbfp8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #659633 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:22:49 -0400, DFS wrote: > >> [ARM] doesn't offer enough advantages over CISC. > >RISC architectures like ARM and RISC-V offer plenty of advantages, but you >need native code to take advantage of them. That native code almost >entirely runs under Linux. They will start compiling Win64 apps for ARM, though, with these devices hitting the market. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lffttaF8h1fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #659659 |
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 12:01:33 -0400, Joel wrote: > They will start compiling Win64 apps for ARM, though, with these devices > hitting the market. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/overview There will be a ripple effect. Many programs pull in NuGet packages, third party software for a particular task. Newtonsoft.jspn, for example, is a popular package for working with JSON although Microsoft finally came up with System.Text.Json which is arguably better. Of course if your existing app uses NewtonSoft switching isn't painless. I don't know if that example is actually applicable but I'm sure there will be stumbling blocks when you realize your favorite package isn't available as an ARM binary. I expect many apps will be running in the Prism emulator while companies scramble for a native Arm solution or they might decide emulation is good enough. I assume the .NET process for Windows on Arm will be similar to linux-arm64. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/iot/deployment There is a win-arm64 RID so maybe you can cross your fingers and hope for the best assuming you've scored a suitable test machine. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/rid-catalog Thankfully, this is not my problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-13 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v6v27s$3povk$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659668 |
On 13 Jul 2024 18:04:27 GMT, rbowman wrote: > I expect many apps will be running in the Prism emulator while companies > scramble for a native Arm solution or they might decide emulation is > good enough. Some things won’t run under emulation, as I pointed out elsewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 04:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lfh201Fdhd3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #659685 |
On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:22:36 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On 13 Jul 2024 18:04:27 GMT, rbowman wrote: > >> I expect many apps will be running in the Prism emulator while >> companies scramble for a native Arm solution or they might decide >> emulation is good enough. > > Some things won’t run under emulation, as I pointed out elsewhere. Absolutely but you are claiming Windows on Arm won't have the apps out of the box that will attract developers. Will enough apps run under Prism to attract users before native apps are developed? Of 'some apps' means games that can't use anti-cheat code is that the market they're even aiming at? Typically gamers don't list low power as part of the criteria. I think some of them have worked their way up to vapor phase cooling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 18:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gmi89jli4e3bgi5dlvrqajj8i9peh8hlbb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #659699 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:22:36 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On 13 Jul 2024 18:04:27 GMT, rbowman wrote: >> >>> I expect many apps will be running in the Prism emulator while >>> companies scramble for a native Arm solution or they might decide >>> emulation is good enough. >> >> Some things won’t run under emulation, as I pointed out elsewhere. > >Absolutely but you are claiming Windows on Arm won't have the apps out of >the box that will attract developers. Will enough apps run under Prism to >attract users before native apps are developed? Of 'some apps' means games >that can't use anti-cheat code is that the market they're even aiming at? > >Typically gamers don't list low power as part of the criteria. I think >some of them have worked their way up to vapor phase cooling. We realize that a lot so far, in running software under an ARM CPU and Windows, has been emulation. That will quickly evolve. CISC CPUs can continue to try to compete all they want, but people even like myself will see the positives with ARM gear. And I am nowhere near using a laptop. Laptops are the largest installed base of computers better than a phone. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v71v21$gomv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659782 |
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 18:15:15 -0400, Joel wrote: > We realize that a lot so far, in running software under an ARM CPU and > Windows, has been emulation. That will quickly evolve. Assuming Windows-on-Qualcomm-ARM takes off. You keep assuming that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v71v11$gomv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659699 |
On 14 Jul 2024 04:20:18 GMT, rbowman wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:22:36 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On 13 Jul 2024 18:04:27 GMT, rbowman wrote: >> >>> I expect many apps will be running in the Prism emulator while >>> companies scramble for a native Arm solution or they might decide >>> emulation is good enough. >> >> Some things won’t run under emulation, as I pointed out elsewhere. > > Absolutely but you are claiming Windows on Arm won't have the apps out > of the box that will attract developers. To attract users. It is users that attract developers, not the other way round.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnv97rh5.5aj.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> |
| In reply to | #659668 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 18:04 this Saturday (GMT): > On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 12:01:33 -0400, Joel wrote: > >> They will start compiling Win64 apps for ARM, though, with these devices >> hitting the market. > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/overview > > There will be a ripple effect. Many programs pull in NuGet packages, third > party software for a particular task. Newtonsoft.jspn, for example, is a > popular package for working with JSON although Microsoft finally came up > with System.Text.Json which is arguably better. Of course if your existing > app uses NewtonSoft switching isn't painless. Wait, MS didn't have native JSON support?? > I don't know if that example is actually applicable but I'm sure there > will be stumbling blocks when you realize your favorite package isn't > available as an ARM binary. Especially if you enjoy apps that aren't updated anymore > I expect many apps will be running in the Prism emulator while companies > scramble for a native Arm solution or they might decide emulation is good I'd imagine it wouldn't be seamless, but it seems good as a stopgap. > enough. I assume the .NET process for Windows on Arm will be similar to > linux-arm64. > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/iot/deployment > > There is a win-arm64 RID so maybe you can cross your fingers and hope for > the best assuming you've scored a suitable test machine. > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/rid-catalog > > > Thankfully, this is not my problem. -- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-14 19:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lfinluFl1raU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #659731 |
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:30:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote at 18:04 this Saturday (GMT): >> On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 12:01:33 -0400, Joel wrote: >> >>> They will start compiling Win64 apps for ARM, though, with these >>> devices hitting the market. >> >> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/overview >> >> There will be a ripple effect. Many programs pull in NuGet packages, >> third party software for a particular task. Newtonsoft.jspn, for >> example, is a popular package for working with JSON although Microsoft >> finally came up with System.Text.Json which is arguably better. Of >> course if your existing app uses NewtonSoft switching isn't painless. > > Wait, MS didn't have native JSON support?? They did have Json.NET which was cumbersome as tied in with LINQ. That goes back to 2006 or so. That was mostly replaced by Newtonsoft.Json although ASP.NET still has Json.NET dependencies. System.Text.Json was added in .NET Core 3.0, which was separate from .NET Framework 3.1. .NET Framework is a dead end at 4.8.2, I think and what is referred to as .NET is Core. beginning at .NET 5. Confused yet? Even more confusing James Newton-King was instrumental in all three attempts and I thing Newtonsoft was actually a company although he works for MS now. In Microsoft's defense JSON wasn't all that popular in 2006 with XML still king of the hill. They also were promoting XAML, a XML derivative. They still are since MAUI is XAML based. They also were/are heavily invested in SOAP, which is XML based using WCF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Communication_Foundation fwiw I and almost everyone else in the world hates WCF. Unfortunately many of the interfaces I deal with use SOAP. It took them forever to move from the Datamaxx DMPP 2020 protocol and hell will be undergoing global cooling before they move to REST. Government agencies move with the speed of an arthritic sloth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 01:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v71v4b$gomv$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #659756 |
On 14 Jul 2024 19:36:32 GMT, rbowman wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Communication_Foundation > > fwiw I and almost everyone else in the world hates WCF. s/world/Windows world/ Outside of Windows, nobody has even heard of WCF.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web