Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #145649

Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits

From Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups uk.comp.sys.mac
Subject Re: Early Geekbench results for ARM dev kits
Date 2020-07-20 10:30 -0700
Message-ID <hnm2lcF8rmoU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References (12 earlier) <180720200435579360%nospam@nospam.invalid> <hng39hF95gU3@mid.individual.net> <190720200755266213%nospam@nospam.invalid> <hnjtjmFpdq3U1@mid.individual.net> <200720200921292143%nospam@nospam.invalid>

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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

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