Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145651
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | uk.comp.sys.mac |
| Subject | Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits |
| Date | 2020-07-20 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnm2vaF8t5hU2@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <180720200435579360%nospam@nospam.invalid> <hng39hF95gU3@mid.individual.net> <190720200755266213%nospam@nospam.invalid> <hnirabFib41U1@mid.individual.net> <200720200921312246%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
On 7/20/20 6:21 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <hnirabFib41U1@mid.individual.net>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> x86 emulation on apple silicon is already quite >>>>>>>>>>> good, and that's running on a 2 year old chip >>>>>>>>>>> never designed to be used in a mac. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do have concerns about how well it will work -- >>>>>>>>>> though to be fair the recent version of Parallels >>>>>>>>>> have not been great with Windows. Do not know what >>>>>>>>>> the issue is, but it SLOW. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> parallels is not emulating anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> therefore irrelevant to the discussion about x86 >>>>>>> emulation on apple silicon, so why bring it up? >>>>>> >>>>>> I accept you fail to see the relevance of IF Windows ran >>>>>> slow now on the Intel Macs, at least in a VM, why this >>>>>> would make the need for it seem less. Maybe at some point >>>>>> you will figure that out. >>>> >>>> And you ignored what I said to play victim. Not really >>>> interested in your personal challenges, at least when you try >>>> to blame others for them. >>> >>> twisting and trolling. >> >> I agree you are doing so. Can you please stop? > > more of your puerile games. not interested. > >>> that is *not* what happened and you know it. >>> >>> not only did i *not* ignore what you said, but i specifically >>> told you what you said was not relevant whatsoever. >>> >>> you don't like being told you're wrong, so instead of admitting >>> your error and learning something for a change, you resort to >>> attacks, making you a hypocrite as well. >> >> Here you try to speak for me. Tsk tsk. > > nope, but above you tried to speak for me, as you did elsewhere. > you're a hypocrite. > >>>>> maybe at some point you'll stop twisting things, although >>>>> that's unlikely. >>>>> >>>>> maybe at some point you will also figure out that parallels >>>>> and rosetta 2 have nothing to do with each other, therefore a >>>>> comparison is meaningless, something which should be very >>>>> obvious, but in your case, it is not, so instead of admitting >>>>> you don't understand and learning from those who do, you >>>>> resort to attacks instead. >>>> >>>> It has already been established you failed to see the >>>> relevance. Not sure why you want to harp on that. >> >> And you still fail to see the relevance. Ok. > > more projection. > > *you* failed to understand the difference (which is huge, yet you > still failed) and are pretending to be an expert, which you clearly > are not. > > but since you are convinced there is some sort of relevance, feel > free to explain exactly what that supposedly is. this should be most > amusing. > > you won't, because you don't actually understand anything. instead, > you'll come up with some sort of excuse or even more psych mumbo > jumbo to avoid answering the question. > >>> it could not have been established since there is nothing to >>> establish. >>> >>> parallels is *not* relevant to rosetta 2. full stop. >>> >>> they are two *totally* wildly different things, something which >>> is obvious to everyone except you. >> >> You are still lost. OK. > > nope. unlike you, i fully understand the difference between > parallels and rosetta, as does anyone with even the slightest clue > about how things work. > > to claim that they are in any way related is laughable. > >>> what *has* been established is that you are wrong and stubbornly >>> refuse to admit your error, so you resort to lies and attacks, as >>> you normally do. >> >> What do you even think I was wrong about? Are you merely using an >> insult bot? > > if you paid attention rather than trolled you would have your > answer. > > reread the above. it's clearly spelled out. stop blaming others > because you fail to understand anything. Have you noticed the others in the conversation are not having the same challenges understanding that you are? In fact, they have been -- unlike you -- able to focus on the tech and actually offer reasoned comments. What about you do you think makes such conversations so challenging? Notice I and others do not share your weakness, so no blaming me or anyone else. The question is about why YOU think you have this challenge -- and, really, there is no need for you to answer here at all. Just consider what you can now clearly see, unless you actively seek not to, and work to improve yourself. Best wishes. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
Back to uk.comp.sys.mac | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-06-29 20:07 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-29 16:04 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-06-29 21:51 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-06-29 17:08 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> - 2020-06-30 12:23 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-14 09:14 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-14 16:38 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-17 06:24 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 14:33 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 15:23 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 10:25 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 15:31 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 11:08 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> - 2020-07-17 16:18 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 11:39 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> - 2020-07-17 15:23 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 11:39 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Alan B <alanrichardbarker@nospamgmail.com.here> - 2020-07-18 06:18 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-18 04:35 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 15:22 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 18:46 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 16:00 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-17 23:13 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 20:18 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Chris Ridd <chrisridd@mac.com> - 2020-07-18 10:45 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 09:49 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 04:02 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 12:10 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 11:42 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 11:46 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 19:14 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 15:48 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 23:04 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-19 08:42 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 08:49 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 15:39 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-19 23:16 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 16:28 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 04:01 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-18 12:11 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 02:36 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-20 10:33 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-17 19:34 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-17 20:20 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-18 04:35 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-18 04:04 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-19 07:55 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 12:06 +0000
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-20 09:21 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-20 10:35 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-21 11:23 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-21 08:50 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 14:51 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-20 09:21 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-20 10:30 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-21 11:23 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-21 08:46 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-07-22 08:39 -0400
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-22 13:40 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2020-07-17 17:23 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2020-07-17 21:18 +0100
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> - 2020-07-20 02:37 -0700
Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> - 2020-07-20 11:51 +0000
csiph-web