Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #680118 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-13 19:35 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-12-14 13:01 -0500 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 131 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-13 19:35 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 00:47 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-13 20:05 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 06:06 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 01:18 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 08:27 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 08:23 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-15 07:07 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 10:23 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 07:56 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 15:44 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 12:55 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 07:23 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 10:12 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 10:27 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-16 10:59 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 08:13 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 08:57 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 20:30 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 18:01 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-18 06:00 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-18 08:50 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-19 02:04 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 08:45 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-19 19:53 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-19 14:34 -0600
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 17:15 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-19 18:28 -0600
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 20:08 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-20 01:16 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 08:37 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 18:31 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 13:42 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-19 21:03 -0600
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 05:56 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 08:58 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 18:28 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 13:39 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-21 07:39 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 13:56 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-21 07:45 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-21 09:45 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-12-20 20:37 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 16:51 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2024-12-20 21:57 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 17:43 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-21 07:47 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-21 07:25 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-21 22:42 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-21 18:19 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-21 18:26 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-22 00:24 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-22 07:12 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 06:31 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-23 11:56 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-24 09:49 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-24 13:01 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-27 17:55 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2024-12-21 18:46 -0600
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 05:41 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-22 07:27 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 06:44 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-23 11:59 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-22 09:24 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-22 11:19 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-23 06:18 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-23 12:03 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-23 19:14 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-27 17:16 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-29 11:08 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-20 01:19 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 05:54 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 08:55 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 17:14 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 11:09 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-18 09:09 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 08:03 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 09:00 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 05:52 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 08:54 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 18:20 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-18 19:36 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 08:05 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 09:02 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-19 19:58 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-17 20:22 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 11:05 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-18 09:06 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 08:00 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-19 08:59 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 05:51 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-20 08:53 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-18 19:43 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 20:01 -0600
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 08:02 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-19 20:00 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-14 20:04 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:47 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-14 22:16 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 08:49 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-15 22:24 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-15 20:02 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 10:29 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-16 11:02 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 08:19 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 09:01 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 20:59 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-17 20:20 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 11:03 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-18 20:17 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-19 05:33 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 07:57 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 07:47 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-19 20:01 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 01:53 -0600
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-20 09:29 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 10:28 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-16 11:01 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 08:15 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 08:59 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 20:45 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-17 18:03 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 11:20 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-18 16:27 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-18 19:46 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2024-12-20 01:35 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 08:06 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 07:51 -0500
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 15:58 +0000
Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025 CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2024-12-14 13:01 -0500
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjsntp$1sthq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #680573 |
On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use and therefore >>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it or not, >>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole day's work >>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>> >>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>> >>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>> >>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple. >>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half-assed on >>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their fortune >>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from x86-64. >>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble catching up to >>> what Apple is doing. >> >> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that require the >> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games hold no >> interest for me. > > There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run > today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice OS to > play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it is in > MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on the > hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize, > but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 screenwriting application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last week. Trelby is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and Python installed on the old Mac (2015). As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to exit its terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window stays there until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed really, it's minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap on "quit" to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — done. I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating with other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — not be constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-17 18:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <trn8P.23227$EYNf.7664@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #680627 |
Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : > On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use and therefore >>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it or not, >>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole day's work >>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>>> >>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>>> >>>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>>> >>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple. >>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half-assed on >>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their fortune >>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from x86-64. >>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble catching up to >>>> what Apple is doing. >>> >>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that require the >>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games hold no >>> interest for me. >> >> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run >> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice OS to >> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it is in >> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on the >> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize, >> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. > > For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 screenwriting > application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last week. Trelby > is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and Python > installed on the old Mac (2015). > > As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to exit its > terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window stays there > until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed really, it's > minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two > finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap on "quit" > to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — done. > > I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating with > other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — not be > constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather than closing entirely. -- CrudeSausage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 11:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjub67$28obp$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #680651 |
On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : >> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use and therefore >>>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it or not, >>>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole day's work >>>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>>>> >>>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple. >>>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half-assed on >>>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their fortune >>>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from x86-64. >>>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble catching up to >>>>> what Apple is doing. >>>> >>>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that require the >>>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games hold no >>>> interest for me. >>> >>> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run >>> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice OS to >>> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it is in >>> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on the >>> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize, >>> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. >> >> For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 screenwriting >> application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last week. Trelby >> is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and Python >> installed on the old Mac (2015). >> >> As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to exit its >> terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window stays there >> until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed really, it's >> minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two >> finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap on "quit" >> to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — done. >> >> I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating with >> other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — not be >> constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. > > I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close > applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair > though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed > because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire > that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most > hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored > more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows > applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather > than closing entirely. My "real need" is that, when I close an application I want it closed. Period. If I ran into Linux desktops that worked this way, I wouldn't use them. As for the amount of time it takes to open an application vs the time it takes to "unminimize it," it's inconsequential (at least with the applications I use). The only time I want to minimize applications (instead of closing them) is when I'm still doing something in the minimized application. That doesn't happen often. But when I do that on my Mac, I use the minimize button. And then it comes down to, what's the point of having a minimize button if the quit button just minimizes. It seems like someone is confused. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tSA8P.3448$mi11.1673@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #680687 |
Le 2024-12-18 à 06:20, RonB a écrit : > On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : >>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use and therefore >>>>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it or not, >>>>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole day's work >>>>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple. >>>>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>>>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half-assed on >>>>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their fortune >>>>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from x86-64. >>>>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble catching up to >>>>>> what Apple is doing. >>>>> >>>>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that require the >>>>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games hold no >>>>> interest for me. >>>> >>>> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run >>>> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice OS to >>>> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it is in >>>> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on the >>>> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize, >>>> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. >>> >>> For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 screenwriting >>> application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last week. Trelby >>> is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and Python >>> installed on the old Mac (2015). >>> >>> As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to exit its >>> terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window stays there >>> until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed really, it's >>> minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two >>> finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap on "quit" >>> to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — done. >>> >>> I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating with >>> other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — not be >>> constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. >> >> I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close >> applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair >> though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed >> because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire >> that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most >> hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored >> more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows >> applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather >> than closing entirely. > > My "real need" is that, when I close an application I want it closed. > Period. If I ran into Linux desktops that worked this way, I wouldn't use > them. As for the amount of time it takes to open an application vs the time > it takes to "unminimize it," it's inconsequential (at least with the > applications I use). The only time I want to minimize applications (instead > of closing them) is when I'm still doing something in the minimized > application. That doesn't happen often. But when I do that on my Mac, I use > the minimize button. > > And then it comes down to, what's the point of having a minimize button if > the quit button just minimizes. It seems like someone is confused. I have to admit that minimize becomes useless if close just removes the window but keeps it running in memory. I imagine that there used to be a speed benefit to minimizing rather than closing, but it doesn't seem to be there anymore. Either way, the interface doesn't bother me as much as it does you. -- CrudeSausage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 16:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vjveoc$2f7c6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #680703 |
On 12/18/24 9:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote: > Le 2024-12-18 à 06:20, RonB a écrit : >> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : >>>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>>>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use >>>>>>>>>>> and therefore >>>>>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it >>>>>>>>>>> or not, >>>>>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole >>>>>>>>>>> day's work >>>>>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple. >>>>>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>>>>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half- >>>>>>> assed on >>>>>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their >>>>>>> fortune >>>>>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from >>>>>>> x86-64. >>>>>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble >>>>>>> catching up to >>>>>>> what Apple is doing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that >>>>>> require the >>>>>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games >>>>>> hold no >>>>>> interest for me. >>>>> >>>>> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run >>>>> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice >>>>> OS to >>>>> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it >>>>> is in >>>>> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on >>>>> the >>>>> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize, >>>>> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. >>>> >>>> For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 >>>> screenwriting >>>> application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last >>>> week. Trelby >>>> is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and >>>> Python >>>> installed on the old Mac (2015). >>>> >>>> As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to >>>> exit its >>>> terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window >>>> stays there >>>> until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed >>>> really, it's >>>> minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two >>>> finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap >>>> on "quit" >>>> to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — >>>> done. >>>> >>>> I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating >>>> with >>>> other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — >>>> not be >>>> constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. >>> >>> I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close >>> applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair >>> though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed >>> because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire >>> that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most >>> hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored >>> more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows >>> applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather >>> than closing entirely. >> >> My "real need" is that, when I close an application I want it closed. >> Period. If I ran into Linux desktops that worked this way, I wouldn't use >> them. As for the amount of time it takes to open an application vs the >> time >> it takes to "unminimize it," it's inconsequential (at least with the >> applications I use). The only time I want to minimize applications >> (instead >> of closing them) is when I'm still doing something in the minimized >> application. That doesn't happen often. But when I do that on my Mac, >> I use the minimize button. >> >> And then it comes down to, what's the point of having a minimize >> button if >> the quit button just minimizes. It seems like someone is confused. > > I have to admit that minimize becomes useless if close just removes the > window but keeps it running in memory. I imagine that there used to be a > speed benefit to minimizing rather than closing, but it doesn't seem to > be there anymore. Either way, the interface doesn't bother me as much as > it does you. Allowing Apps to remain in the background was the method years ago to 'speed things up' for switching between them...probably goes back as far as the Multifinder (classic Mac OS 5, circa 1987). But these days, both Windows & MacOS have the design philosophy that closing a document window doesn't necessarily quit the App, because one is likely to be just ending one's work session with Documents Set A and will be opening up Document Set B. As such, if one really intends to quit the App, invoke/use ^Q. Thus, this seems more of a PEBKAC. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 19:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <72K8P.44200$%aWb.394@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #680737 |
Le 2024-12-18 à 16:27, -hh a écrit : > On 12/18/24 9:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote: >> Le 2024-12-18 à 06:20, RonB a écrit : >>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : >>>>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use >>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit >>>>>>>>>>>> it or not, >>>>>>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole >>>>>>>>>>>> day's work >>>>>>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to >>>>>>>> Apple. >>>>>>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>>>>>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half- >>>>>>>> assed on >>>>>>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their >>>>>>>> fortune >>>>>>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from >>>>>>>> x86-64. >>>>>>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble >>>>>>>> catching up to >>>>>>>> what Apple is doing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that >>>>>>> require the >>>>>>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games >>>>>>> hold no >>>>>>> interest for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run >>>>>> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice >>>>>> OS to >>>>>> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it >>>>>> is in >>>>>> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well >>>>>> on the >>>>>> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people >>>>>> realize, >>>>>> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. >>>>> >>>>> For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 >>>>> screenwriting >>>>> application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last >>>>> week. Trelby >>>>> is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and >>>>> Python >>>>> installed on the old Mac (2015). >>>>> >>>>> As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to >>>>> exit its >>>>> terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window >>>>> stays there >>>>> until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed >>>>> really, it's >>>>> minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to >>>>> two >>>>> finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap >>>>> on "quit" >>>>> to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — >>>>> done. >>>>> >>>>> I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating >>>>> with >>>>> other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it >>>>> — not be >>>>> constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. >>>> >>>> I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close >>>> applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair >>>> though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed >>>> because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire >>>> that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most >>>> hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored >>>> more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows >>>> applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather >>>> than closing entirely. >>> >>> My "real need" is that, when I close an application I want it closed. >>> Period. If I ran into Linux desktops that worked this way, I wouldn't >>> use >>> them. As for the amount of time it takes to open an application vs >>> the time >>> it takes to "unminimize it," it's inconsequential (at least with the >>> applications I use). The only time I want to minimize applications >>> (instead >>> of closing them) is when I'm still doing something in the minimized >>> application. That doesn't happen often. But when I do that on my Mac, >>> I use the minimize button. >>> >>> And then it comes down to, what's the point of having a minimize >>> button if >>> the quit button just minimizes. It seems like someone is confused. >> >> I have to admit that minimize becomes useless if close just removes >> the window but keeps it running in memory. I imagine that there used >> to be a speed benefit to minimizing rather than closing, but it >> doesn't seem to be there anymore. Either way, the interface doesn't >> bother me as much as it does you. > > Allowing Apps to remain in the background was the method years ago to > 'speed things up' for switching between them...probably goes back as far > as the Multifinder (classic Mac OS 5, circa 1987). > > But these days, both Windows & MacOS have the design philosophy that > closing a document window doesn't necessarily quit the App, because one > is likely to be just ending one's work session with Documents Set A and > will be opening up Document Set B. As such, if one really intends to > quit the App, invoke/use ^Q. Thus, this seems more of a PEBKAC. I'm not a fan of close minimizing to the taskbar but I can live with close minimizing to the system tray. If I had little RAM and the operating system behaved this way, I'd be pretty pissed but we all have way more RAM than our operating systems will even need for the kinds of tasks we do. I know that vallor needs 128GB and 192 cores to calculate the probability that he'll ever see his dick again but most of us don't need that much power. -- CrudeSausage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-20 01:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk2hlq$3418q$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #680737 |
On 2024-12-18, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > On 12/18/24 9:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote: >> Le 2024-12-18 à 06:20, RonB a écrit : >>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : >>>>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use >>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it >>>>>>>>>>>> or not, >>>>>>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole >>>>>>>>>>>> day's work >>>>>>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple. >>>>>>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>>>>>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half- >>>>>>>> assed on >>>>>>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their >>>>>>>> fortune >>>>>>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from >>>>>>>> x86-64. >>>>>>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble >>>>>>>> catching up to >>>>>>>> what Apple is doing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that >>>>>>> require the >>>>>>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games >>>>>>> hold no >>>>>>> interest for me. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run >>>>>> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice >>>>>> OS to >>>>>> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it >>>>>> is in >>>>>> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on >>>>>> the >>>>>> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize, >>>>>> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. >>>>> >>>>> For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 >>>>> screenwriting >>>>> application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last >>>>> week. Trelby >>>>> is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and >>>>> Python >>>>> installed on the old Mac (2015). >>>>> >>>>> As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to >>>>> exit its >>>>> terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window >>>>> stays there >>>>> until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed >>>>> really, it's >>>>> minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two >>>>> finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap >>>>> on "quit" >>>>> to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — >>>>> done. >>>>> >>>>> I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating >>>>> with >>>>> other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — >>>>> not be >>>>> constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. >>>> >>>> I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close >>>> applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair >>>> though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed >>>> because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire >>>> that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most >>>> hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored >>>> more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows >>>> applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather >>>> than closing entirely. >>> >>> My "real need" is that, when I close an application I want it closed. >>> Period. If I ran into Linux desktops that worked this way, I wouldn't use >>> them. As for the amount of time it takes to open an application vs the >>> time >>> it takes to "unminimize it," it's inconsequential (at least with the >>> applications I use). The only time I want to minimize applications >>> (instead >>> of closing them) is when I'm still doing something in the minimized >>> application. That doesn't happen often. But when I do that on my Mac, >>> I use the minimize button. >>> >>> And then it comes down to, what's the point of having a minimize >>> button if >>> the quit button just minimizes. It seems like someone is confused. >> >> I have to admit that minimize becomes useless if close just removes the >> window but keeps it running in memory. I imagine that there used to be a >> speed benefit to minimizing rather than closing, but it doesn't seem to >> be there anymore. Either way, the interface doesn't bother me as much as >> it does you. > > Allowing Apps to remain in the background was the method years ago to > 'speed things up' for switching between them...probably goes back as far > as the Multifinder (classic Mac OS 5, circa 1987). >. Thus, this seems more of a PEBKAC. > -hh Back in the stone age this was called a TSR. Terminate and stay resident. -- pothead All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron: Example of Snit trolling in real time: <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ> All about the snit troll: <https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html> <https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html> <https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 08:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk0k6r$2osc7$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #680703 |
On 2024-12-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > Le 2024-12-18 à 06:20, RonB a écrit : >> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : >>>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>>>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use and therefore >>>>>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it or not, >>>>>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole day's work >>>>>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apparently only "sort of." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple. >>>>>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions. >>>>>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half-assed on >>>>>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their fortune >>>>>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from x86-64. >>>>>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble catching up to >>>>>>> what Apple is doing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that require the >>>>>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games hold no >>>>>> interest for me. >>>>> >>>>> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run >>>>> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice OS to >>>>> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it is in >>>>> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on the >>>>> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize, >>>>> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so. >>>> >>>> For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 screenwriting >>>> application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last week. Trelby >>>> is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and Python >>>> installed on the old Mac (2015). >>>> >>>> As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to exit its >>>> terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window stays there >>>> until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed really, it's >>>> minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two >>>> finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap on "quit" >>>> to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — done. >>>> >>>> I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating with >>>> other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — not be >>>> constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny. >>> >>> I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close >>> applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair >>> though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed >>> because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire >>> that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most >>> hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored >>> more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows >>> applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather >>> than closing entirely. >> >> My "real need" is that, when I close an application I want it closed. >> Period. If I ran into Linux desktops that worked this way, I wouldn't use >> them. As for the amount of time it takes to open an application vs the time >> it takes to "unminimize it," it's inconsequential (at least with the >> applications I use). The only time I want to minimize applications (instead >> of closing them) is when I'm still doing something in the minimized >> application. That doesn't happen often. But when I do that on my Mac, I use >> the minimize button. >> >> And then it comes down to, what's the point of having a minimize button if >> the quit button just minimizes. It seems like someone is confused. > > I have to admit that minimize becomes useless if close just removes the > window but keeps it running in memory. I imagine that there used to be a > speed benefit to minimizing rather than closing, but it doesn't seem to > be there anymore. Either way, the interface doesn't bother me as much as > it does you. I guess I'm a little "OCD" (if that's the right term) about some things. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 07:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Fbf7P.64696$oR74.58506@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #680118 |
Le 2024-12-13 à 19:35, Joel a écrit : > https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intels-interim-co-ceo-claims-retailers-are-concerned-by-return-rate-of-qualcomm-powered-machines > > > Bottom line, people are having an issue with familiarity, returning a > Windows ARM device. It didn't operate quite the same way. Duh, it's > a good thing, it's superior tech for a laptop. Don't just return it. Unlike Apple which made sure that its compatibility layer allowed most existing software to continue working when they made the architecture change (from 68000 to PowerPC, from PowerPC to Intel, from Intel to ARM), Microsoft couldn't be bothered to do the same. They must have run out of resources. -- CrudeSausage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 15:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vjk9ub$28k0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #680147 |
On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > Le 2024-12-13 à 19:35, Joel a écrit : >> https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intels-interim-co-ceo-claims-retailers-are-concerned-by-return-rate-of-qualcomm-powered-machines >> >> >> Bottom line, people are having an issue with familiarity, returning a >> Windows ARM device. It didn't operate quite the same way. Duh, it's >> a good thing, it's superior tech for a laptop. Don't just return it. I think you (Joel) are kind of missing the point. The reason Microsoft has retained an almost monopoly status in the desktop OS market is because it runs the supposedly "necessary" Windows applications. I'm guessing the ARM CPU versions of Windows computers have limitations in this regard. > Unlike Apple which made sure that its compatibility layer allowed most > existing software to continue working when they made the architecture > change (from 68000 to PowerPC, from PowerPC to Intel, from Intel to > ARM), Microsoft couldn't be bothered to do the same. They must have run > out of resources. I think you're right. Microsoft is always trying to "catch up" on new trends without putting in the work and getting it right. They've got the "the customer is our beta tester" attitude. Looks like another case of doing a half-assed rollout is going bite them in the butt. -- “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-14 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rKj7P.1230$DPp5.418@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #680190 |
Le 2024-12-14 à 10:58, RonB a écrit : > On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> Le 2024-12-13 à 19:35, Joel a écrit : >>> https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intels-interim-co-ceo-claims-retailers-are-concerned-by-return-rate-of-qualcomm-powered-machines >>> >>> >>> Bottom line, people are having an issue with familiarity, returning a >>> Windows ARM device. It didn't operate quite the same way. Duh, it's >>> a good thing, it's superior tech for a laptop. Don't just return it. > > I think you (Joel) are kind of missing the point. The reason Microsoft has > retained an almost monopoly status in the desktop OS market is because it > runs the supposedly "necessary" Windows applications. I'm guessing the ARM > CPU versions of Windows computers have limitations in this regard. I haven't tried it myself but I would believe that the ARM version of most programs doesn't exist and whatever compatibility layer Microsoft offers is grossly insufficient to make the x86-64 software work reliably or perform under the new architecture. >> Unlike Apple which made sure that its compatibility layer allowed most >> existing software to continue working when they made the architecture >> change (from 68000 to PowerPC, from PowerPC to Intel, from Intel to >> ARM), Microsoft couldn't be bothered to do the same. They must have run >> out of resources. > > I think you're right. Microsoft is always trying to "catch up" on new trends > without putting in the work and getting it right. They've got the "the > customer is our beta tester" attitude. Looks like another case of doing a > half-assed rollout is going bite them in the butt. I will say this much: if ARM becomes the only game in town by the time I am ready to upgrade from this machine, I won't be bothering with Microsoft at all. By then, it won't bother me one bit that I will be abandoning the rather large movie collection I've created in Microsoft Films & TV if it means avoiding the exhibition of gross incompetence Microsoft's venture into an ARM-only environment will be. -- CrudeSausage
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web