Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145182 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-06-29 20:07 +0100 |
| Last post | 2020-07-20 11:51 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac
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
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hngudlF5qf8U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145560 |
On 7/18/20 5:11 AM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote: > On 18 Jul 2020 at 12:01:42 BST, "Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 7/18/20 2:45 AM, Chris Ridd wrote: >>> On 18/07/2020 04:18, Snit wrote: >>>> Had 14 and moved up to 15. Both were slow. It could be that Windows >>>> itself is getting weird -- I upgraded from 7. Also running low on hard >>>> drive space so maybe that plays into it. >>>> >>>> Good to know it is my system and not universal. I am not expecting >>>> super fast but it has slowed down a LOT since Win 7. >>> >>> I suspect your Windows installation has gone rotten. Windows isn't like >>> MacOS or indeed any other OS, and it gums itself up over time. The lack >>> of disk space isn't helping. I think the only fix is to reinstall Windows. >> >> I have a Windows 7 installer -- would have to go back to that. I think. >> Maybe the license can be used with Windows 10? > > Yes, it can. I'm not sure if the Win10 installer accepts it, but it'll go in > to the Activate Windows control panel thing when you're installed. > > Cheers - Jaimie > Awesome. Thanks -- you have been a great help. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sak Wathanasin <sw@nan.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-20 02:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f79722ab-b474-46de-8934-55109dc8e361o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #145543 |
On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 4:18:34 AM UTC+1, Snit wrote: > Had 14 and moved up to 15. Both were slow. It could be that Windows > itself is getting weird -- I upgraded from 7. Also running low on hard > drive space so maybe that plays into it. How much memory are you giving it? It worked much better when I was given a 16 GB MBP and could give the Win VM 8 GB. Fans came on full blast of course. Luckily, I don't have to use Win mcuh, but we share common code in the Win ver of our app, and I need to run Visual Studio every so often when I break the Win build & have to fix it (:-().
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-20 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnm2r2F8t5hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145630 |
On 7/20/20 2:36 AM, Sak Wathanasin wrote: > On Saturday, July 18, 2020 at 4:18:34 AM UTC+1, Snit wrote: > >> Had 14 and moved up to 15. Both were slow. It could be that Windows >> itself is getting weird -- I upgraded from 7. Also running low on hard >> drive space so maybe that plays into it. > > How much memory are you giving it? 4 GB, I think. Good point to suggest it might want more. > It worked much better when I was > given a 16 GB MBP and could give the Win VM 8 GB. Fans came on full > blast of course. Luckily, I don't have to use Win mcuh, but we share > common code in the Win ver of our app, and I need to run Visual > Studio every so often when I break the Win build & have to fix it > (:-(). I might try my original VM with 8 GB (my machine does have 16). I really have little need for Windows in a VM these days -- in the past I had more need. Used to teach Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and other applications where there were Mac and Windows versions. Most of my students, though, were on Windows, and it was easier to create videos for a smaller virtual screen. I recorded Windows, with Mac software (ScreenFlow), and then as needed showed the Mac versions where they were different. I am currently playing with this more as an academic experiment than for any real business or even personal need. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 19:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170720201934264663%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145540 |
In article <hneot1Fmh6nU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. > >>> > >>> what for? > >>> > >>> 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? > And it STILL is slow. Linux is not. that's something you're doing wrong and not parallels itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnf83tFpam2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145542 |
On 7/17/20 4:34 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <hneot1Fmh6nU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. >>>>> >>>>> what for? >>>>> >>>>> 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. In any case, that IF seems to not be true, at least based on comments from Jaimie Vandenbergh. >> And it STILL is slow. Linux is not. > > that's something you're doing wrong and not parallels itself. I suspect SOMEONE could give a less helpful and insightful response, but I am not sure who. Do you know of anyone? Wait. Never mind... I prefer useful responses. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 04:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180720200435579360%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145544 |
In article <hnf83tFpam2U2@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. > >>>>> > >>>>> what for? > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. 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. > In any case, that IF seems to not be true, at least based on comments > from Jaimie Vandenbergh. > > >> And it STILL is slow. Linux is not. > > > > that's something you're doing wrong and not parallels itself. > > I suspect SOMEONE could give a less helpful and insightful response, but > I am not sure who. Do you know of anyone? Wait. Never mind... I prefer > useful responses. there is no way to remotely diagnose what is wrong with your system without a *lot* more detail and diagnostic tests, nor did you ask for suggestions to fix anything. you blamed windows being slow on parallels, which is incorrect, and instead of admitting your error, you resort to attacks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 04:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hng39hF95gU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145547 |
On 7/18/20 1:35 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <hnf83tFpam2U2@mid.individual.net>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Wonder if we1ll see x86-over-Thunderbolt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> what for? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. > 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. >> In any case, that IF seems to not be true, at least based on comments >> from Jaimie Vandenbergh. >> >>>> And it STILL is slow. Linux is not. >>> >>> that's something you're doing wrong and not parallels itself. >> >> I suspect SOMEONE could give a less helpful and insightful response, but >> I am not sure who. Do you know of anyone? Wait. Never mind... I prefer >> useful responses. I am happy you did not even try to find anyone who gives less useful responses than you did. Thank you. > there is no way to remotely diagnose what is wrong with your system > without a *lot* more detail and diagnostic tests, nor did you ask for > suggestions to fix anything. > > you blamed windows being slow on parallels, which is incorrect, and > instead of admitting your error, you resort to attacks. > -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 07:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190720200755266213%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145554 |
In article <hng39hF95gU3@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. 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. > > 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. 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. 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. > >> In any case, that IF seems to not be true, at least based on comments > >> from Jaimie Vandenbergh. > >> > >>>> And it STILL is slow. Linux is not. > >>> > >>> that's something you're doing wrong and not parallels itself. > >> > >> I suspect SOMEONE could give a less helpful and insightful response, but > >> I am not sure who. Do you know of anyone? Wait. Never mind... I prefer > >> useful responses. > > I am happy you did not even try to find anyone who gives less useful > responses than you did. Thank you. more of your twisting, trolling and attacks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 12:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hnirabFib41U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145580 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <hng39hF95gU3@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? > 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. >>> 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. > 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. > 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? >>>> In any case, that IF seems to not be true, at least based on comments >>>> from Jaimie Vandenbergh. >>>> >>>>>> And it STILL is slow. Linux is not. >>>>> >>>>> that's something you're doing wrong and not parallels itself. >>>> >>>> I suspect SOMEONE could give a less helpful and insightful response, but >>>> I am not sure who. Do you know of anyone? Wait. Never mind... I prefer >>>> useful responses. >> >> I am happy you did not even try to find anyone who gives less useful >> responses than you did. Thank you. You still failed. > more of your twisting, trolling and attacks. > -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-20 09:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <200720200921312246%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145582 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-20 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnm2vaF8t5hU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145641 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-21 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <210720201123440922%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145651 |
In article <hnm2vaF8t5hU2@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> 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. unlike you, they're smart enough to not talk about things they don't fully understand. > 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. exactly as expected, more of your psycho mumbo jumbo to avoid admitting you are wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-21 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnoh60FomffU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145690 |
On 7/21/20 8:23 AM, nospam wrote: ... >> 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. > > unlike you, they're smart enough to not talk about things they don't > fully understand. > >> 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. > > exactly as expected, more of your psycho mumbo jumbo to avoid admitting > you are wrong. This is not complex. I noted that: 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from Intel would not be a big deal. You have admitted, repeatedly, you cannot understand this -- even though, frankly, it is not a complex concept. 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help me get Windows running better under Parallels. Based on those useful replies (contrary to yours), I was inspired to try installing a new Windows VM and found it does at least seem to run faster (I did very little with it and have not installed anything on it). -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnjtjmFpdq3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145580 |
On 7/19/20 4:55 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <hng39hF95gU3@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. 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. > >>> 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. > > 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. > > 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. > >>>> In any case, that IF seems to not be true, at least based on comments >>>> from Jaimie Vandenbergh. >>>> >>>>>> And it STILL is slow. Linux is not. >>>>> >>>>> that's something you're doing wrong and not parallels itself. >>>> >>>> I suspect SOMEONE could give a less helpful and insightful response, but >>>> I am not sure who. Do you know of anyone? Wait. Never mind... I prefer >>>> useful responses. >> >> I am happy you did not even try to find anyone who gives less useful >> responses than you did. Thank you. > > more of your twisting, trolling and attacks. > This is not complex. I noted that: 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from Intel would not be a big deal. 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help me get Windows running better under Parallels. 4) You are showing you are STILL lost. Whatever. So you are lost. So you want to play victim. Great for you. Go join Carroll and Diesel who like to play the same games and have the same victim mentality you do. Whatever. I don't care. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-20 09:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <200720200921292143%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145595 |
In article <hnjtjmFpdq3U1@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > This is not complex. correct, yet you still fail to understand it and continue to argue. > I noted that: > > 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like > Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from > Intel would not be a big deal. fail. windows won't run at all on apple silicon macs. this is obvious to everyone, except you. for that to happen, parallels/vmware (or a new player) needs to release an entirely new product and/or microsoft needs to port woq. there have been hints that they might be working on it, but as of now, no official announcements have been made. > 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. > You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. fail. i did not assume anything. you insisted that parallels is relevant to rosetta 2. it is not nor can it be, for reasons that should be very obvious. you also refuse to admit your mistake. double fail. > 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They > understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help > me get Windows running better under Parallels. fail. everyone noted that what you said was definitely not true and that your windows problems is something specific to your system. > 4) You are showing you are STILL lost. Whatever. So you are lost. So you > want to play victim. Great for you. Go join Carroll and Diesel who like > to play the same games and have the same victim mentality you do. > Whatever. I don't care. fail. i am not lost. unlike you, i have a solid understanding of how things work internally. you obviously care enough to keep babbling and pretending to know what you're talking about, which you clearly do not, while digging yourself a deeper hole with every post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-20 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnm2lcF8rmoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145640 |
On 7/20/20 6:21 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <hnjtjmFpdq3U1@mid.individual.net>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> >> This is not complex. > > correct, yet you still fail to understand it and continue to argue. > >> I noted that: >> >> 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like >> Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from >> Intel would not be a big deal. > > fail. > > windows won't run at all on apple silicon macs. this is obvious to > everyone, except you. > > for that to happen, parallels/vmware (or a new player) needs to release > an entirely new product and/or microsoft needs to port woq. > > there have been hints that they might be working on it, but as of now, > no official announcements have been made. > >> 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. >> You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. > > fail. i did not assume anything. > > you insisted that parallels is relevant to rosetta 2. it is not nor can > it be, for reasons that should be very obvious. > > you also refuse to admit your mistake. double fail. > >> 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They >> understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help >> me get Windows running better under Parallels. > > fail. everyone noted that what you said was definitely not true and > that your windows problems is something specific to your system. > >> 4) You are showing you are STILL lost. Whatever. So you are lost. So you >> want to play victim. Great for you. Go join Carroll and Diesel who like >> to play the same games and have the same victim mentality you do. >> Whatever. I don't care. > > fail. i am not lost. unlike you, i have a solid understanding of how > things work internally. > > you obviously care enough to keep babbling and pretending to know what > you're talking about, which you clearly do not, while digging yourself > a deeper hole with every post. > Again you just spew nonsense attacks. I will stay focused on the tech topics and, I admit, your failed responses to them: 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from Intel would not be a big deal. On seeing this you pretended (lied) that this implied someone was saying Windows might run natively on Macs without Intel chips. Nobody did. It might run NON-natively, which is WHY Parallels and VMWare have hinted they might be working on new tools which would allow such. As far as I know nothing specific has been made public about this, though. 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. On seeing this you merely repeated how you failed to understand point 1. Whatever. So you made a mistake and failed to see the relevance. Whatever. Nobody is attacking you for not being perfect. 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help me get Windows running better under Parallels. Since that time I have, in fact, re-installed Windows, though mostly just as a test (I have little need to run Windows in a VM these days). You failed to show any understanding of this, too. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-21 11:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <210720201123451003%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145649 |
In article <hnm2lcF8rmoU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> This is not complex. > > > > correct, yet you still fail to understand it and continue to argue. > > > >> I noted that: > >> > >> 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like > >> Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from > >> Intel would not be a big deal. > > > > fail. > > > > windows won't run at all on apple silicon macs. this is obvious to > > everyone, except you. > > > > for that to happen, parallels/vmware (or a new player) needs to release > > an entirely new product and/or microsoft needs to port woq. > > > > there have been hints that they might be working on it, but as of now, > > no official announcements have been made. > > > >> 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. > >> You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. > > > > fail. i did not assume anything. > > > > you insisted that parallels is relevant to rosetta 2. it is not nor can > > it be, for reasons that should be very obvious. > > > > you also refuse to admit your mistake. double fail. > > > >> 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They > >> understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help > >> me get Windows running better under Parallels. > > > > fail. everyone noted that what you said was definitely not true and > > that your windows problems is something specific to your system. > > > >> 4) You are showing you are STILL lost. Whatever. So you are lost. So you > >> want to play victim. Great for you. Go join Carroll and Diesel who like > >> to play the same games and have the same victim mentality you do. > >> Whatever. I don't care. > > > > fail. i am not lost. unlike you, i have a solid understanding of how > > things work internally. > > > > you obviously care enough to keep babbling and pretending to know what > > you're talking about, which you clearly do not, while digging yourself > > a deeper hole with every post. > > > > Again you just spew nonsense attacks. I will stay focused on the tech > topics and, I admit, your failed responses to them: i'm not the one doing the attacking. you claimed that parallels on an intel mac has some sort of relevance to rosetta 2. when asked to back that up, you refuse and went into attack mode, because there is no relevance and you won't admit your mistake. > 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like > Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from > Intel would not be a big deal. one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. > On seeing this you pretended (lied) that this implied someone was saying > Windows might run natively on Macs without Intel chips. Nobody did. It > might run NON-natively, which is WHY Parallels and VMWare have hinted > they might be working on new tools which would allow such. As far as I > know nothing specific has been made public about this, though. you live in an alternate reality. i said that those and other companies have hinted at something coming long before you even thought about the possibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-21 08:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnogv1FomffU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145691 |
On 7/21/20 8:23 AM, nospam wrote: ... >> 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like >> Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from >> Intel would not be a big deal. > > one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. I understand you fail to see it. Fine. And I am OK with your failure there, and feel no responsibility to help you understand AS you are trolling me. Remember, while I enjoy helping others you are not entitled. >> On seeing this you pretended (lied) that this implied someone was saying >> Windows might run natively on Macs without Intel chips. Nobody did. It >> might run NON-natively, which is WHY Parallels and VMWare have hinted >> they might be working on new tools which would allow such. As far as I >> know nothing specific has been made public about this, though. And you ran from this, leaving a wake of insults behind you. You also snipped this: 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. On seeing this you merely repeated how you failed to understand point 1. Whatever. So you made a mistake and failed to see the relevance. Whatever. Nobody is attacking you for not being perfect. 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help me get Windows running better under Parallels. Since that time I have, in fact, re-installed Windows, though mostly just as a test (I have little need to run Windows in a VM these days). You failed to show any understanding of this, too. > you live in an alternate reality. > > i said that those and other companies have hinted at something coming > long before you even thought about the possibility. And here you try to speak FOR me instead of listening to me. -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-22 08:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <220720200839402296%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #145694 |
In article <hnogv1FomffU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like > >> Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from > >> Intel would not be a big deal. > > > > one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. > > I understand you fail to see it. Fine. And I am OK with your failure > there, and feel no responsibility to help you understand AS you are > trolling me. Remember, while I enjoy helping others you are not entitled. you're utterly delusional. i asked you to explain the relevance, and not only did you refuse, but you continue to refuse, because there is no relevance whatsoever and you know it, which is why you resort to twisting and lying. not only do you fail to understand that, but you refuse to admit your mistakes, along with a lack of any desire to learn something new. you try to pass it off with you being the only one who knows the secret. that is pure trolling, among other things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-22 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hnrmh6FetigU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #145721 |
On 7/22/20 5:39 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <hnogv1FomffU1@mid.individual.net>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>> 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like >>>> Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from >>>> Intel would not be a big deal. >>> >>> one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. >> >> I understand you fail to see it. Fine. And I am OK with your failure >> there, and feel no responsibility to help you understand AS you are >> trolling me. Remember, while I enjoy helping others you are not entitled. > > you're utterly delusional. You are the one saying you fail to see it. Now you say to trust you is "delusional". Remember, this is not complex! Here is what I noted: 1) *IF* Windows was not running well on Macs now, even under things like Parallels, then it not running great under Macs that move away from Intel would not be a big deal. You have admitted, repeatedly, you cannot understand this -- even though, frankly, it is not a complex concept. 2) You assumed, incorrectly, that this meant I thought things I did not. You just fabricated nonsense. You failed to understand what you read. 3) Others noted that my "*IF*" may very well not be true. They understood what I said and, being adults, even gave suggestions to help me get Windows running better under Parallels. Based on those useful replies (contrary to yours), I was inspired to try installing a new Windows VM and found it does at least seem to run faster (I did very little with it and have not installed anything on it). > i asked you to explain the relevance, and not only did you refuse, but > you continue to refuse, because there is no relevance whatsoever and > you know it, which is why you resort to twisting and lying. Above you say it is "delusional" to note you fail to see the relevance, but here you openly admit to it. Note that in my point 1 I am quite clear with the relevance you claim to not be able to see. Below you speak of yourself in third person. > not only do you fail to understand that, but you refuse to admit your > mistakes, along with a lack of any desire to learn something new. you > try to pass it off with you being the only one who knows the secret. > that is pure trolling, among other things. > -- 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac
csiph-web