Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #723482 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-08 23:23 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-10 18:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 147 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-08 23:23 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-08 23:43 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:35 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 00:09 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 15:58 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-12 19:23 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 19:37 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 16:47 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 19:58 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 18:33 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-13 07:48 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 14:24 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-12 20:35 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 14:21 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-13 11:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 16:22 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-13 14:32 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 10:50 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-14 11:52 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:13 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-14 10:26 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:37 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-14 10:44 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:23 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-13 17:09 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 17:13 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-13 14:34 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 10:51 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 08:04 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-13 19:38 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 11:57 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 09:30 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-14 16:53 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-15 00:46 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-14 21:02 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 21:29 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 18:43 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 22:13 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 20:10 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-15 01:59 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-08 16:46 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple's OS IS in fact Unix (was: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix) Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-09 00:56 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-09 01:06 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-08 19:28 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-09 08:25 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-09 14:40 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-09 09:09 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Nick Charles <nunya@none.none> - 2026-10-09 14:41 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-09 11:00 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 20:21 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 17:11 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 20:17 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 17:13 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 20:38 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:12 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:29 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 22:09 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 15:45 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-09 09:10 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Nick Charles <nunya@none.none> - 2026-10-09 14:41 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-09 11:02 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-09 09:11 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 14:32 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-09 17:13 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 18:36 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 19:14 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-09 17:14 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-10 01:36 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 21:40 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 07:34 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:24 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-11 21:16 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 21:23 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-11 21:32 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-12 04:10 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-09 19:06 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 07:38 -0400
A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 12:42 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 20:37 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 18:34 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 21:42 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:37 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-11 13:40 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:55 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 12:06 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 15:33 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 12:54 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:19 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 13:49 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-13 00:47 +0000
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-11 07:41 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-11 13:44 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:57 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-12 04:23 +0000
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 00:29 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-12 07:07 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 07:11 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-12 07:51 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-12 18:54 +0000
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 12:07 -0700
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-11 21:25 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-11 21:12 -0400
Re: A diversion into iOS vs Android (was Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 12:09 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-10 12:17 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 12:43 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-11 07:49 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-11 13:45 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 07:29 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-10 20:24 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 20:40 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 18:35 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2026-10-09 18:36 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-10 12:13 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-10 20:21 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-10 20:36 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-11 03:57 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-10 01:08 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-09 22:27 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 20:14 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 20:16 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 21:32 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 23:03 +0000
Re: THE Reason Why Apple MacOS IS Unix (was: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix) Nick Charles <none@none.none> - 2026-10-11 00:18 +0000
Re: THE Reason Why Apple MacOS IS Unix (was: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 00:41 +0000
Re: THE Reason Why Apple MacOS IS Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 18:38 -0700
Re: THE Reason Why Apple MacOS IS Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:13 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:34 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2026-10-11 21:27 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 12:10 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 18:37 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:06 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:40 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 23:12 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 19:26 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 00:12 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 20:23 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 04:58 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 03:02 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:21 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-12 13:50 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:56 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-13 00:35 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why Apple Is Not Unix Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2026-10-10 18:35 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aodvi$1mj2p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724140 |
On 2026-10-14 07:50, Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 10/13/2026 5:32 PM, Alan wrote: >> On 2026-10-13 13:22, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> On 10/13/2026 2:25 PM, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-13 11:21, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >>>>>> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a >>>>>> great job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a >>>>>> direct approach and is likely to block those people, who are >>>>>> willing to spend way more, from buying a Mac. >>>>> >>>>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as >>>>> supporting Windows emulation, yeah. >>>> >>>> Describe what constitutes a "native gaming subsystem"... >>>> >>>> ...and Windows emulation IS already supported, doofus. >>> >>> Stop thinking so linearly, this is a fundamental chance for Apple to >>> destroy Microsoft, but it would take an effort that not everyone can >>> bring. I'll be honest, I don't like Apple's shit, it won't work on >>> me, but it could nevertheless make *great* inroads into Microsoft >>> territory, given the trends already seen and the potential. >> >> Why didn't you even TRY to answer the things I asked about? > > > Sorry. I meant that macOS would need to be a more robust environment > for gaming, to attract development along with the rise in consumers > using the OS. Apple could utilize existing Windows emulation tools, it > is true. > So by "native gaming subsystem" you meant nothing at all. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 13:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11aoelh$1ms7g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724151 |
On 10/14/2026 1:26 PM, Alan wrote: > On 2026-10-14 07:50, Joel W. Crump wrote: >> On 10/13/2026 5:32 PM, Alan wrote: >>> On 2026-10-13 13:22, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2026 2:25 PM, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2026-10-13 11:21, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >>>>>>> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a >>>>>>> great job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a >>>>>>> direct approach and is likely to block those people, who are >>>>>>> willing to spend way more, from buying a Mac. >>>>>> >>>>>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as >>>>>> supporting Windows emulation, yeah. >>>>> >>>>> Describe what constitutes a "native gaming subsystem"... >>>>> >>>>> ...and Windows emulation IS already supported, doofus. >>>> >>>> Stop thinking so linearly, this is a fundamental chance for Apple to >>>> destroy Microsoft, but it would take an effort that not everyone can >>>> bring. I'll be honest, I don't like Apple's shit, it won't work on >>>> me, but it could nevertheless make *great* inroads into Microsoft >>>> territory, given the trends already seen and the potential. >>> >>> Why didn't you even TRY to answer the things I asked about? >> >> Sorry. I meant that macOS would need to be a more robust environment >> for gaming, to attract development along with the rise in consumers >> using the OS. Apple could utilize existing Windows emulation tools, >> it is true. > > So by "native gaming subsystem" you meant nothing at all. > > Got it. I think it will require improvement, but it sounds like there's more of one than I gave them credit for. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aof15$1n1k9$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724152 |
On 2026-10-14 10:37, Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 10/14/2026 1:26 PM, Alan wrote: >> On 2026-10-14 07:50, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> On 10/13/2026 5:32 PM, Alan wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-13 13:22, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>> On 10/13/2026 2:25 PM, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-10-13 11:21, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >>>>>>>> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a >>>>>>>> great job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a >>>>>>>> direct approach and is likely to block those people, who are >>>>>>>> willing to spend way more, from buying a Mac. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as >>>>>>> supporting Windows emulation, yeah. >>>>>> >>>>>> Describe what constitutes a "native gaming subsystem"... >>>>>> >>>>>> ...and Windows emulation IS already supported, doofus. >>>>> >>>>> Stop thinking so linearly, this is a fundamental chance for Apple >>>>> to destroy Microsoft, but it would take an effort that not everyone >>>>> can bring. I'll be honest, I don't like Apple's shit, it won't >>>>> work on me, but it could nevertheless make *great* inroads into >>>>> Microsoft territory, given the trends already seen and the potential. >>>> >>>> Why didn't you even TRY to answer the things I asked about? >>> >>> Sorry. I meant that macOS would need to be a more robust environment >>> for gaming, to attract development along with the rise in consumers >>> using the OS. Apple could utilize existing Windows emulation tools, >>> it is true. >> >> So by "native gaming subsystem" you meant nothing at all. >> >> Got it. > > > I think it will require improvement, but it sounds like there's more of > one than I gave them credit for. > It seems to me like you (again) posted something about which you had ZERO actual knowledge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 14:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11aohbr$1o01h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724154 |
On 10/14/2026 1:44 PM, Alan wrote: > On 2026-10-14 10:37, Joel W. Crump wrote: >> On 10/14/2026 1:26 PM, Alan wrote: >>> On 2026-10-14 07:50, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2026 5:32 PM, Alan wrote: >>>>> On 2026-10-13 13:22, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2026 2:25 PM, Alan wrote: >>>>>>> On 2026-10-13 11:21, Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are >>>>>>>>> projects making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover >>>>>>>>> does a great job playing games as well. However, it's >>>>>>>>> definitely not a direct approach and is likely to block those >>>>>>>>> people, who are willing to spend way more, from buying a Mac. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as >>>>>>>> supporting Windows emulation, yeah. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Describe what constitutes a "native gaming subsystem"... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...and Windows emulation IS already supported, doofus. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop thinking so linearly, this is a fundamental chance for Apple >>>>>> to destroy Microsoft, but it would take an effort that not >>>>>> everyone can bring. I'll be honest, I don't like Apple's shit, it >>>>>> won't work on me, but it could nevertheless make *great* inroads >>>>>> into Microsoft territory, given the trends already seen and the >>>>>> potential. >>>>> >>>>> Why didn't you even TRY to answer the things I asked about? >>>> >>>> Sorry. I meant that macOS would need to be a more robust >>>> environment for gaming, to attract development along with the rise >>>> in consumers using the OS. Apple could utilize existing Windows >>>> emulation tools, it is true. >>> >>> So by "native gaming subsystem" you meant nothing at all. >>> >>> Got it. >> >> I think it will require improvement, but it sounds like there's more >> of one than I gave them credit for. > > It seems to me like you (again) posted something about which you had > ZERO actual knowledge. And yet, they clearly are not on the same level as MS on gaming. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6ace9e24$5$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #724038 |
On 2026-10-13 2:21 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >> On 2026-10-12 7:37 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> On 10/12/2026 7:23 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-12 6:58 p.m., Alan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> APPLE is a COMPANY. >>>> >>>> I'd like to add to that. Apple is a company that is interested in >>>> selling hardware. To do that, they invest as much as they can into >>>> developing an experience that is pleasing and intuitive to current >>>> and potential customers. iOS, tvOS, watchOS and MacOS are the result >>>> of that, and they've done such a good job in selling hardware that >>>> the company is often at the peak of the most valuable companies on >>>> the planet. At no point did the customers or the administration of >>>> said company think about whether they are UNIX or not. Whether they >>>> are or aren't will do absolutely nothing to sell the hardware much >>>> like it has done nothing to sell the hardware of any other company >>>> that got certification. While the UNIX name has value to obese, >>>> neck- bearded men of old age who fondly remember using the operating >>>> system on mainframes in the 1960s, absolutely _no one_ today gives a >>>> piece of excrement about it today. If Apple uses it to produce a >>>> stable, stellar experience, so be it; if it had managed to do the >>>> same without UNIX, so be it too. >>> >>> All that matters, now, though, is what they're willing to do to try >>> to expand their territory. The Neo is one thing. But to really take >>> on MS, they'll need to feed a diverse field of consumers. >> >> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a great >> job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a direct >> approach and is likely to block those people, who are willing to spend >> way more, from buying a Mac. > > > They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting > Windows emulation, yeah. They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? -- CrudeSausage MacBook Air M4 iPhone 13 Friendly Apple zealot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 17:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11am6t2$trmg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724068 |
On 10/13/2026 5:09 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > On 2026-10-13 2:21 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> On 2026-10-12 7:37 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2026 7:23 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>> On 2026-10-12 6:58 p.m., Alan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> APPLE is a COMPANY. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to add to that. Apple is a company that is interested in >>>>> selling hardware. To do that, they invest as much as they can into >>>>> developing an experience that is pleasing and intuitive to current >>>>> and potential customers. iOS, tvOS, watchOS and MacOS are the >>>>> result of that, and they've done such a good job in selling >>>>> hardware that the company is often at the peak of the most valuable >>>>> companies on the planet. At no point did the customers or the >>>>> administration of said company think about whether they are UNIX or >>>>> not. Whether they are or aren't will do absolutely nothing to sell >>>>> the hardware much like it has done nothing to sell the hardware of >>>>> any other company that got certification. While the UNIX name has >>>>> value to obese, neck- bearded men of old age who fondly remember >>>>> using the operating system on mainframes in the 1960s, absolutely >>>>> _no one_ today gives a piece of excrement about it today. If Apple >>>>> uses it to produce a stable, stellar experience, so be it; if it >>>>> had managed to do the same without UNIX, so be it too. >>>> >>>> All that matters, now, though, is what they're willing to do to try >>>> to expand their territory. The Neo is one thing. But to really >>>> take on MS, they'll need to feed a diverse field of consumers. >>> >>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >>> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a great >>> job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a direct >>> approach and is likely to block those people, who are willing to >>> spend way more, from buying a Mac. >> >> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting >> Windows emulation, yeah. > > They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, Parallels > and Crossover. What else do you need? Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11am852$u9v6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724071 |
On 2026-10-13 14:13, Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 10/13/2026 5:09 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >> On 2026-10-13 2:21 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-12 7:37 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2026 7:23 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-10-12 6:58 p.m., Alan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> APPLE is a COMPANY. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to add to that. Apple is a company that is interested in >>>>>> selling hardware. To do that, they invest as much as they can into >>>>>> developing an experience that is pleasing and intuitive to current >>>>>> and potential customers. iOS, tvOS, watchOS and MacOS are the >>>>>> result of that, and they've done such a good job in selling >>>>>> hardware that the company is often at the peak of the most >>>>>> valuable companies on the planet. At no point did the customers or >>>>>> the administration of said company think about whether they are >>>>>> UNIX or not. Whether they are or aren't will do absolutely nothing >>>>>> to sell the hardware much like it has done nothing to sell the >>>>>> hardware of any other company that got certification. While the >>>>>> UNIX name has value to obese, neck- bearded men of old age who >>>>>> fondly remember using the operating system on mainframes in the >>>>>> 1960s, absolutely _no one_ today gives a piece of excrement about >>>>>> it today. If Apple uses it to produce a stable, stellar >>>>>> experience, so be it; if it had managed to do the same without >>>>>> UNIX, so be it too. >>>>> >>>>> All that matters, now, though, is what they're willing to do to try >>>>> to expand their territory. The Neo is one thing. But to really >>>>> take on MS, they'll need to feed a diverse field of consumers. >>>> >>>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >>>> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a great >>>> job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a direct >>>> approach and is likely to block those people, who are willing to >>>> spend way more, from buying a Mac. >>> >>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting >>> Windows emulation, yeah. >> >> They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, >> Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? > > > Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. > Why? How would that even work? Fact: you can run Windows software on your Mac. Fact: you can run Intel-based Windows software on your Mac. Fact: you can do so in a cohesive environment, rather than having a Window where all your Windows software runs. Why would APPLE (not "Mac") need to do anything more? What more COULD be done?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 10:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11ao4tj$1iqsd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724077 |
On 10/13/2026 5:34 PM, Alan wrote: > On 2026-10-13 14:13, Joel W. Crump wrote: >> On 10/13/2026 5:09 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> On 2026-10-13 2:21 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >>>>> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a great >>>>> job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a direct >>>>> approach and is likely to block those people, who are willing to >>>>> spend way more, from buying a Mac. >>>> >>>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting >>>> Windows emulation, yeah. >>> >>> They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, >>> Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? >> >> Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. > > Why? How would that even work? > > Fact: you can run Windows software on your Mac. > > Fact: you can run Intel-based Windows software on your Mac. > > Fact: you can do so in a cohesive environment, rather than having a > Window where all your Windows software runs. > > Why would APPLE (not "Mac") need to do anything more? > > What more COULD be done? I concede your point. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1791990246.F56CD0C5@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #724077 |
On Oct 13, 2026 at 2:34 PM, Alan wrote <11am852$u9v6$2@dont-email.me>: > On 2026-10-13 14:13, Joel W. Crump wrote: > > On 10/13/2026 5:09 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > > > On 2026-10-13 2:21 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: > > > > On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > > > > > On 2026-10-12 7:37 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: > > > > > > On 10/12/2026 7:23 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > > > > > > > On 2026-10-12 6:58 p.m., Alan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > APPLE is a COMPANY. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to add to that. Apple is a company that is interested in selling hardware. To do that, they invest as much as they can into developing an experience that is pleasing and intuitive to current and potential customers. iOS, tvOS, watchOS and MacOS are the result of that, and they've done such a good job in selling hardware that the company is often at the peak of the most valuable companies on the planet. At no point did the customers or the administration of said company think about whether they are UNIX or not. Whether they are or aren't will do absolutely nothing to sell the hardware much like it has done nothing to sell the hardware of any other company that got certification. While the UNIX name has value to obese, neck- bearded men of old age who fondly remember using the operating system on mainframes in the 1960s, absolutely _no one_ today gives a piece of excrement about it today. If Apple uses it to produce a stable, stellar experience, so be it; if it had managed to do the same without UNIX, so be it too. > > > > > > > > > > > > All that matters, now, though, is what they're willing to do to try to expand their territory. The Neo is one thing. But to really take on MS, they'll need to feed a diverse field of consumers. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a great job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a direct approach and is likely to block those people, who are willing to spend way more, from buying a Mac. > > > > > > > > They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting Windows emulation, yeah. > > > > > > They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? > > > > > > Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. > > > > Why? How would that even work? > > Fact: you can run Windows software on your Mac. > > Fact: you can run Intel-based Windows software on your Mac. For now. Next version of macOS removes Rosetta. There might be third party solutions but I am not sure. > > Fact: you can do so in a cohesive environment, rather than having a Window where all your Windows software runs. > > Why would APPLE (not "Mac") need to do anything more? > > What more COULD be done? > -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6acec0fd$0$35631$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #724071 |
On 2026-10-13 5:13 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 10/13/2026 5:09 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >> On 2026-10-13 2:21 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >>> On 10/12/2026 8:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> On 2026-10-12 7:37 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/2026 7:23 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>> On 2026-10-12 6:58 p.m., Alan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> APPLE is a COMPANY. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to add to that. Apple is a company that is interested in >>>>>> selling hardware. To do that, they invest as much as they can into >>>>>> developing an experience that is pleasing and intuitive to current >>>>>> and potential customers. iOS, tvOS, watchOS and MacOS are the >>>>>> result of that, and they've done such a good job in selling >>>>>> hardware that the company is often at the peak of the most >>>>>> valuable companies on the planet. At no point did the customers or >>>>>> the administration of said company think about whether they are >>>>>> UNIX or not. Whether they are or aren't will do absolutely nothing >>>>>> to sell the hardware much like it has done nothing to sell the >>>>>> hardware of any other company that got certification. While the >>>>>> UNIX name has value to obese, neck- bearded men of old age who >>>>>> fondly remember using the operating system on mainframes in the >>>>>> 1960s, absolutely _no one_ today gives a piece of excrement about >>>>>> it today. If Apple uses it to produce a stable, stellar >>>>>> experience, so be it; if it had managed to do the same without >>>>>> UNIX, so be it too. >>>>> >>>>> All that matters, now, though, is what they're willing to do to try >>>>> to expand their territory. The Neo is one thing. But to really >>>>> take on MS, they'll need to feed a diverse field of consumers. >>>> >>>> The only thing they don't cater to is gamers. There are projects >>>> making this a lot better like NotProton, and Crossover does a great >>>> job playing games as well. However, it's definitely not a direct >>>> approach and is likely to block those people, who are willing to >>>> spend way more, from buying a Mac. >>> >>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting >>> Windows emulation, yeah. >> >> They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, >> Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? > > Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. Macs don't need to emulate Windows software internally because there is tons of software to do so from third-parties should the need arise. Apple only needed to emulate the existing library of Mac software, for the x86 platform, which they did admirably. Microsoft tried to do it as well as Apple did and failed miserably as they always do. That's why the transition from 68xxx to PowerPC went well (60-70% native speed under emulation), as did the transitions from PowerPC to Intel and then Intel to Apple silicon. Has it occurred to you that Apple has its own library and doesn't need Microsoft's software? -- CrudeSausage MacBook Air M4 iPhone 13 Friendly Apple zealot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 11:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11ao8pb$1kf0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724080 |
On 10/13/2026 7:38 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting >>>> Windows emulation, yeah. >>> >>> They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, >>> Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? >> >> Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. > Macs don't need to emulate Windows software internally because there is > tons of software to do so from third-parties should the need arise. > Apple only needed to emulate the existing library of Mac software, for > the x86 platform, which they did admirably. Microsoft tried to do it as > well as Apple did and failed miserably as they always do. That's why the > transition from 68xxx to PowerPC went well (60-70% native speed under > emulation), as did the transitions from PowerPC to Intel and then Intel > to Apple silicon. Has it occurred to you that Apple has its own library > and doesn't need Microsoft's software? I agree that Windows on ARM wasn't as smooth as macOS in transitioning from x86 - but you have to think about why that would be. Mac ecosystem is simply a different animal, for more than one reason. But that's why I think macOS has the potential to be a more dominant platform, Microsoft's platform frankly is going to split in direction, people like me will cling to Windows 11, but others will actually appreciate the newfangled interface to come, Linux always offers an alternative but I see the Mac as having the capacity to expand as a proprietary product, if Apple wants to take advantage of the opportunity. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1791995448.24ABB24A@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #724147 |
On Oct 14, 2026 at 8:57 AM, Joel W. Crump wrote <11ao8pb$1kf0h$1@dont-email.me>: > On 10/13/2026 7:38 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > > > > > > They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as supporting Windows emulation, yeah. > > > > > > > > They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? > > > > > > Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. > > > Macs don't need to emulate Windows software internally because there is tons of software to do so from third-parties should the need arise. Apple only needed to emulate the existing library of Mac software, for the x86 platform, which they did admirably. Microsoft tried to do it as well as Apple did and failed miserably as they always do. That's why the transition from 68xxx to PowerPC went well (60-70% native speed under emulation), as did the transitions from PowerPC to Intel and then Intel to Apple silicon. Has it occurred to you that Apple has its own library and doesn't need Microsoft's software? > > > I agree that Windows on ARM wasn't as smooth as macOS in transitioning from x86 - but you have to think about why that would be. Mac ecosystem is simply a different animal, for more than one reason. But that's why I think macOS has the potential to be a more dominant platform, Microsoft's platform frankly is going to split in direction, people like me will cling to Windows 11, but others will actually appreciate the newfangled interface to come, Linux always offers an alternative but I see the Mac as having the capacity to expand as a proprietary product, if Apple wants to take advantage of the opportunity. Apple's way has definite downsides -- backward compatibility being a major one. But it allows them to focus on what is possible now, not be stuck in what was happening in the '80s. At some point MS will have to let go of that era. > > -- > Joel W. Crump > -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 16:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6acfebd8$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #724147 |
On 2026-10-14 11:57 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote: > On 10/13/2026 7:38 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > >>>>> They'd need more of a native gaming subsystem, as well as >>>>> supporting Windows emulation, yeah. >>>> >>>> They already support Windows emulation through virtualization, >>>> Parallels and Crossover. What else do you need? >>> >>> Mac would need to address it instead of emulating it. > >> Macs don't need to emulate Windows software internally because there >> is tons of software to do so from third-parties should the need arise. >> Apple only needed to emulate the existing library of Mac software, for >> the x86 platform, which they did admirably. Microsoft tried to do it >> as well as Apple did and failed miserably as they always do. That's >> why the transition from 68xxx to PowerPC went well (60-70% native >> speed under emulation), as did the transitions from PowerPC to Intel >> and then Intel to Apple silicon. Has it occurred to you that Apple has >> its own library and doesn't need Microsoft's software? > > > I agree that Windows on ARM wasn't as smooth as macOS in transitioning > from x86 - but you have to think about why that would be. Mac ecosystem > is simply a different animal, for more than one reason. But that's why > I think macOS has the potential to be a more dominant platform, > Microsoft's platform frankly is going to split in direction, people like > me will cling to Windows 11, but others will actually appreciate the > newfangled interface to come, Linux always offers an alternative but I > see the Mac as having the capacity to expand as a proprietary product, > if Apple wants to take advantage of the opportunity. The transition to Windows on ARM was a failure because Microsoft was leading the transition. They can't do _anything_ right. Even when they come up with great ideas, you just know that they will abandon them if they don't immediately capture 60% of the market. Heck, I'm surprised they held on with Xbox which has yet to be the #1 machine in any generation and has even gone on to port its titles to rival machines. Nevertheless, if Microsoft goes even further in blocking Linux installs, like they seemed to be attempting to do with Secure Boot, I think that they will be able to take care of that threat to their dominance. If they were able to convince manufacturers to implement something as awful as Modern Standby, they can definitely convince them to block anything but Windows installations, lawsuits be damned. Those developing Linux won't be able to do a thing about it except hope that manufacturers start releasing Linux hardware or provide an option to install Linux instead of Windows, which they won't do. They have to hope that SteamOS is a tremendous success across the board, the way I see it. As for future Windows, nothing gives me any confidence that the next version of the operating system will be anything but an anti-user, anti-ownership mess. -- CrudeSausage MacBook Air M4 iPhone 13 Friendly Apple zealot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 00:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njam3gFc9lcU40@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #724165 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 16:53:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > The transition to Windows on ARM was a failure because Microsoft was > leading the transition. They can't do _anything_ right. Even when they > come up with great ideas, you just know that they will abandon them if > they don't immediately capture 60% of the market. For a company with the resources of Microsoft they did an extremely poor job the first time around in telling buyers Windows on ARM was not Windows on x64. The second time around they were more forthcoming but still didn't have a native port of much of the software. Developers remembered the first fiasco and other Microsoft shooting star projects and stood back to see what was going to happen. They appear to again have lost interest while chasing AI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 21:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6ad02613$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> |
| In reply to | #724179 |
On 2026-10-14 8:46 p.m., rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 16:53:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> The transition to Windows on ARM was a failure because Microsoft was >> leading the transition. They can't do _anything_ right. Even when they >> come up with great ideas, you just know that they will abandon them if >> they don't immediately capture 60% of the market. > > For a company with the resources of Microsoft they did an extremely poor > job the first time around in telling buyers Windows on ARM was not Windows > on x64. > > The second time around they were more forthcoming but still didn't have a > native port of much of the software. Developers remembered the first > fiasco and other Microsoft shooting star projects and stood back to see > what was going to happen. They appear to again have lost interest while > chasing AI. Microsoft's inability to transition to ARM basically handed Apple the win as far as portable computing and energy efficiency goes. If either of those two things is of interest to a customer, especially in this age of high electrical bills, there is no reason whatsoever to pick up a PC. -- CrudeSausage MacBook Air M4 iPhone 13 Friendly Apple zealot
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 21:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11apa92$20e5h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724180 |
On 10/14/2026 9:02 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > On 2026-10-14 8:46 p.m., rbowman wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 16:53:44 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >> >>> The transition to Windows on ARM was a failure because Microsoft was >>> leading the transition. They can't do _anything_ right. Even when they >>> come up with great ideas, you just know that they will abandon them if >>> they don't immediately capture 60% of the market. >> >> For a company with the resources of Microsoft they did an extremely poor >> job the first time around in telling buyers Windows on ARM was not >> Windows >> on x64. >> >> The second time around they were more forthcoming but still didn't have a >> native port of much of the software. Developers remembered the first >> fiasco and other Microsoft shooting star projects and stood back to see >> what was going to happen. They appear to again have lost interest while >> chasing AI. > > Microsoft's inability to transition to ARM basically handed Apple the > win as far as portable computing and energy efficiency goes. If either > of those two things is of interest to a customer, especially in this age > of high electrical bills, there is no reason whatsoever to pick up a PC. Windows on ARM is OK for what it is, but it doesn't fully deliver the Windows experience, in truth, because x86-64 is native territory, despite Windows being theoretically portable, it's not that it isn't but it's been developed on x86 so long that it would be impossible to replicate the experience, on an ARM device. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1792028620.0D0AE4F4@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #724181 |
On Oct 14, 2026 at 6:29 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote <11apa92$20e5h$1@dont-email.me>: > On 10/14/2026 9:02 PM, CrudeSausage wrote: > > On 2026-10-14 8:46 p.m., rbowman wrote: <snip 17 lines> > > > > Microsoft's inability to transition to ARM basically handed Apple > > the win as far as portable computing and energy efficiency goes. If > > either of those two things is of interest to a customer, especially > > in this age of high electrical bills, there is no reason whatsoever > > to pick up a PC. > > > Windows on ARM is OK for what it is, but it doesn't fully deliver the > Windows experience, in truth, because x86-64 is native territory, > despite Windows being theoretically portable, it's not that it isn't > but it's been developed on x86 so long that it would be impossible to > replicate the experience, on an ARM device. It is pretty amazing Apple has been able to take Macs to different CPU architectures every few years and manage it so well. NOT painless. Next year even Intel emulation goes away and some older programs just fade away. Windows users face a lot less of that. But getting rid of the old also has some benefits. Does not mean I do not miss some older apps / games... but so be it. Like the new stuff, too. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 22:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11apcsk$214ir$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #724182 |
On 10/14/2026 9:43 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote: >> Windows on ARM is OK for what it is, but it doesn't fully deliver the >> Windows experience, in truth, because x86-64 is native territory, >> despite Windows being theoretically portable, it's not that it isn't >> but it's been developed on x86 so long that it would be impossible to >> replicate the experience, on an ARM device. > > It is pretty amazing Apple has been able to take Macs to different CPU > architectures every few years and manage it so well. NOT painless. Next > year even Intel emulation goes away and some older programs just fade > away. Windows users face a lot less of that. But getting rid of the old > also has some benefits. > > Does not mean I do not miss some older apps / games... but so be it. > Like the new stuff, too. I like to have the freshest experience possible, with a computer, so using whatever is current is generally all I do. -- Joel W. Crump
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 20:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1792033856.B068CA56@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #724185 |
On Oct 14, 2026 at 7:13 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote <11apcsk$214ir$1@dont-email.me>: > On 10/14/2026 9:43 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote: > <snip 5 lines> > > > > It is pretty amazing Apple has been able to take Macs to different > > CPU architectures every few years and manage it so well. NOT > > painless. Next year even Intel emulation goes away and some older > > programs just fade away. Windows users face a lot less of that. But > > getting rid of the old also has some benefits. > > > > Does not mean I do not miss some older apps / games... but so be it. > > Like the new stuff, too. > > > I like to have the freshest experience possible, with a computer, so > using whatever is current is generally all I do. I am on a now-older M2, but have the newest OS and stay largely on the bleeding edge. And recently have been playing to see what I can do with AI -- which is blowing my mind. -- It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 01:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <njaqbtFc9lcU49@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #724181 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 21:29:03 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote: > Windows on ARM is OK for what it is, but it doesn't fully deliver the > Windows experience, in truth, because x86-64 is native territory, > despite Windows being theoretically portable, it's not that it isn't but > it's been developed on x86 so long that it would be impossible to > replicate the experience, on an ARM device. otoh the Debian Trixie distro on my Raspberry Pi offers many of the same things as Debian on x86_64. The DE is labws:wlroots but the WM is Wayland.and it uses systemd. Other Linux flavors are available but I went with the standard Raspberry Pi OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web