Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<67bp7jpbbnqf4aqnk60hvkl6uon1gmcug0@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us11.netnews.com!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=:?iOU1UUTaL756^8Dnlf4GHWonT5<]0TMdjI?Uho:XeKlL51CP6LDLL95GMl]75=8AHmmfl3JE?fO7@<I4Rf8bAAl3[[dIf;_mF2Do^b@=QS7G
X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net
From: Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Windows-on-ARM On Its Last Legs?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:07:33 -0400
Message-ID: <67bp7jpbbnqf4aqnk60hvkl6uon1gmcug0@4ax.com>
References: <v5i1f9$2b6kq$1@dont-email.me> <pl2p7jhp2emdsp5up04c7ntbn7s3rf4ft1@4ax.com> <v5i8ut$2cjv1$1@dont-email.me> <89ap7jd58cul732kscvb28kofcl46k1hj7@4ax.com> <v5i9ul$2cjv1$6@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
OS: Linux Mint 21.3 Cinnamon, with Wine 9.0 for WinAPI
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
X-Trace: 1719446853 reader.netnews.com 2363144 127.0.0.1:33615
Bytes: 2106

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>>>> Why would you expect Intel/AMD CPUs to last much longer?
>>>
>>>Certainly the Windows market is unable to move away from them.
>> 
>> Why?  They have Winblows on ARM, apps can be compiled for it or
>> emulated.
>
>But Microsoft cannot offer a compelling value proposition for moving to 
>such machines.


Sure they can, it's efficient, as Andrzej says battery life for
laptops, but even as a desktop user, I'd like something without the
fan noise, using less electricity.  I wouldn't want to run Windows, of
course, but Linux can be booted on an ARM device, too.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.