Re: Poor "Snit"

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech
Subject	Re: Poor "Snit"
Date	2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<210420171817125989%nospam@nospam.invalid> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <D51F83B0.A0A6E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <210420171325597579%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D51FA312.A0AAE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <210420171507152170%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D51FAE7B.A0AC0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <D51FAE7B.A0AC0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>> only because macos advances more rapidly than windows.
> >> 
> >> To some extent true... but also MS has a LOT of people using older software
> >> and they do put a lot of effort into keeping it running. They also have not
> >> moved CPU architectures to the extent Apple has... though the move to XP
> >> was
> >> a big change from the 9x platform.
> > 
> > microsoft is moving windows to arm, which is a very big change.
> 
> Have not heard they are doing this. Even on the desktop?

yes.

<http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/7/13866936/microsoft-windows-10-arm-des
ktop-apps-support-qualcomm>
  Windows RT couldn¹t run traditional desktop apps, but it had a
  desktop mode and most of the regular Windows utilities that have
  existed for more than 25 years. Microsoft is correcting that mistake
  today, and taking another stab at supporting ARM processors with
  Windows. Starting next year, Windows 10 will be able to emulate
  traditional desktop apps, allowing device creators to build laptops,
  tablets, and phones that support the millions of existing
  applications in the Windows world.

...

  ...Microsoft isn¹t detailing exactly how its emulation works, but
  developers won¹t have to do anything special to get their apps to run
  on ARM chips. The regular MSI or EXE packages will work just like
  they do on machines with Intel chipsets. 

<https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/86298/arm-based-windows-10-
portable-pcs-hell-yes>
  This is full Windows 10 for PCs, not some stripped down version. It¹s
  Windows 10 Home and Pro, on ARM. And Windows 10 Enterprise, with all
  the functionality that businesses expect, including domain join. This
  is Windows RT done right.

> >>> developers had *years* to update their apps to be native.
> >> 
> >> True... but there are apps I do not want to have to pay for again. But I am
> >> cheap. My old FM Pro no longer prints without crashing, but I could buy the
> >> new one and use my old files just fine.
> > 
> > that's your choice, not apple or filemaker.
> 
> Fair enough... though like all consumers I would prefer a lower price. With
> open source that is generally not a concern, so there is that advantage. But
> there is also NOTHING in the open source world that is like FM Pro. It
> really comes down if I decide the price is worth it.

yep.

as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Poor "Snit" Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-20 14:23 -0500
  Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 15:41 -0400
    Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 12:57 -0700
      Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 13:01 -0700
      Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 16:06 -0400
        Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 16:20 -0400
          Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 18:32 -0400
            Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 15:36 -0700
              Re: Poor "Snit" "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 21:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 18:29 -0700
            Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-20 19:00 -0400
              Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 16:17 -0700
              Re: Poor "Snit" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-04-21 10:07 +0200
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 07:11 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-04-21 16:19 +0200
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:32 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:19 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:34 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:38 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:52 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 15:07 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:41 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:47 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 09:19 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:32 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 09:39 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:45 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:21 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 11:59 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:25 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:18 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:48 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 11:56 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:14 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 12:24 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:36 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 12:23 -0500
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:26 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:39 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:17 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:43 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 09:24 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:44 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:20 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:23 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 13:25 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 11:18 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 10:13 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 08:21 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-04-21 12:13 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 15:19 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Silver Slimer <sl@im.er> - 2017-04-21 17:40 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 15:13 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:20 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 12:42 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2017-04-21 17:21 -0400
                Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-21 15:15 -0700
                Re: Poor "Snit" nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-21 18:17 -0400
        Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 13:35 -0700
  Re: Poor "Snit" Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-20 12:53 -0700

csiph-web