Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.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: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:06:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <vk0k6r$2osc7$8@dont-email.me>
References: <hikplj9384rou0rmr2f8c6pmr0e09pcsi5@4ax.com>
 <ls42suFfeshU4@mid.individual.net>
 <ndmpljh9c3nljm6qltc2kelgs06u4f94ng@4ax.com>
 <4gf7P.5896$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 09:06:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e6fc862aa72b0119bcc7144625c86fda";
	logging-data="2912647"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oWFvwpgY26u+IvZB5/rqc"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xl4Krq7CuFKV2hoeI6R3QlOnopI=
Bytes: 6692

On 2024-12-18, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> 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.

I guess I'm a little "OCD" (if that's the right term) about some things.

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien