Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pothead <pothead@snakebite.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel's co-CEO claims retailers say Qualcomm-powered PCs have
 high return rates, points to new competitors with Arm chips coming in 2025
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 01:35:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Democrats Are Losers LLC
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <vk2hlq$3418q$3@dont-email.me>
References: <hikplj9384rou0rmr2f8c6pmr0e09pcsi5@4ax.com>
 <ls42suFfeshU4@mid.individual.net>
 <ndmpljh9c3nljm6qltc2kelgs06u4f94ng@4ax.com>
 <4gf7P.5896$Uup4.1220@fx10.iad> <vjl032$68i1$1@dont-email.me>
 <D7B7P.4494$G93a.1375@fx05.iad> <vjovbt$134en$3@dont-email.me>
 <F9Y7P.71531$oR74.43492@fx16.iad> <vjrbu5$1l8iu$4@dont-email.me>
 <Osf8P.12968$DPl.12220@fx13.iad> <vjsntp$1sthq$3@dont-email.me>
 <trn8P.23227$EYNf.7664@fx11.iad> <vjub67$28obp$6@dont-email.me>
 <tSA8P.3448$mi11.1673@fx48.iad> <vjveoc$2f7c6$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 02:35:55 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eeba9dc7088d73ad32c26533bd120a13";
	logging-data="3278106"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Rf9aOPRs6qVF3R68FJkEu"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ur5E1W6HdX0YpRhCszDTvJEF9T0=
Bytes: 7684

On 2024-12-18, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On 12/18/24 9:20 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> Le 2024-12-18 à 06:20, RonB a écrit :
>>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit :
>>>>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-12-14 à 17:16, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:56:30 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Higher performance per watt which leads to lower power use 
>>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore
>>>>>>>>>>>> improved battery life. Whether Intel and AMD want to admit it 
>>>>>>>>>>>> or not,
>>>>>>>>>>>> people _do_ want to have a computer which can handle a whole 
>>>>>>>>>>>> day's work
>>>>>>>>>>>> on a single charge and which won't increase electrical bills.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. But Windows can never give it to them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It can and it already does on Snapdragon offerings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently only "sort of."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is part of why I recommended that ARM enthusiasts go to Apple.
>>>>>>>> Only Apple actually follows through on their radical decisions.
>>>>>>>> Microsoft will announce something on Monday, do something half- 
>>>>>>>> assed on
>>>>>>>> Tuesday and abandon the project altogether on Wednesday. Their 
>>>>>>>> fortune
>>>>>>>> comes from the fact that people are reluctant to move away from 
>>>>>>>> x86-64.
>>>>>>>> If and once they do, Microsoft will have a lot of trouble 
>>>>>>>> catching up to
>>>>>>>> what Apple is doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I get that. But does Apple run these high-end video games that 
>>>>>>> require the
>>>>>>> powerful (watt-gobbling) GPUs? I don't know, these video games 
>>>>>>> hold no
>>>>>>> interest for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a community of Apple users getting their Mx machines to run
>>>>>> today's games in the same way Linux users try to get their choice 
>>>>>> OS to
>>>>>> play them. For what it's worth, it's a lot easier in Linux than it 
>>>>>> is in
>>>>>> MacOS. A game developed specifically for Macs will run very well on 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> hardware because it is indeed a lot more powerful than people realize,
>>>>>> but those titles are very few and are likely to remain so.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me Macs are too limited. But I actually got Trelby (a 2012 
>>>>> screenwriting
>>>>> application with recent updates) to work on my MacBook Air last 
>>>>> week. Trelby
>>>>> is based on Python. What took forever, though, was getting Brew and 
>>>>> Python
>>>>> installed on the old Mac (2015).
>>>>>
>>>>> As for Mac OS's "normal" mode, I just don't like it all. I try to 
>>>>> exit its
>>>>> terminal by typing "exit" it does exit (sort of), but the window 
>>>>> stays there
>>>>> until I close it with the trackpad. But it's still not closed 
>>>>> really, it's
>>>>> minimized (even though I chose close, not minimize). I then have to two
>>>>> finger click on the application in the dock, navigate down and tap 
>>>>> on "quit"
>>>>> to finally get the damn thing to go away. In Linux I type "exit" — 
>>>>> done.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get it that Mac is good at certain things (mostly for integrating 
>>>>> with
>>>>> other Apple crap) but I want to use an OS the way I want to use it — 
>>>>> not be
>>>>> constrained by an OS that thinks it's your nanny.
>>>>
>>>> I have to admit that I'm not a fan of how the MacOS doesn't close
>>>> applications when you click on the red dot in the corner. To be fair
>>>> though, this is a practise that other operating systems have borrowed
>>>> because there is no real need to terminate an application and reacquire
>>>> that memory at a time when there is no shortage of memory on most
>>>> hardware. Keeping the application dormant so that it can be restored
>>>> more quickly seems to be preferred which is why most Windows
>>>> applications and a good number of Linux ones close to the tray rather
>>>> than closing entirely.
>>>
>>> My "real need" is that, when I close an application I want it closed.
>>> Period. If I ran into Linux desktops that worked this way, I wouldn't use
>>> them. As for the amount of time it takes to open an application vs the 
>>> time
>>> it takes to "unminimize it," it's inconsequential (at least with the
>>> applications I use). The only time I want to minimize applications 
>>> (instead
>>> of closing them) is when I'm still doing something in the minimized
>>> application. That doesn't happen often. But when I do that on my Mac, 
>>> I use the minimize button.
>>>
>>> And then it comes down to, what's the point of having a minimize 
>>> button if
>>> the quit button just minimizes. It seems like someone is confused.
>> 
>> I have to admit that minimize becomes useless if close just removes the 
>> window but keeps it running in memory. I imagine that there used to be a 
>> speed benefit to minimizing rather than closing, but it doesn't seem to 
>> be there anymore. Either way, the interface doesn't bother me as much as 
>> it does you.
>
> Allowing Apps to remain in the background was the method years ago to 
> 'speed things up' for switching between them...probably goes back as far 
> as the Multifinder (classic Mac OS 5, circa 1987).
>.  Thus, this seems more of a PEBKAC.

> -hh

Back in the stone age this was called a TSR. Terminate and stay resident.

-- 
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:

Example of Snit trolling in real time:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ>

All about the snit troll:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>