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.