Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: RonB 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: References: <4gf7P.5896$Uup4.1220@fx10.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 wrote: > Le 2024-12-18 à 06:20, RonB a écrit : >> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> Le 2024-12-17 à 15:45, RonB a écrit : >>>> On 2024-12-17, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>> Le 2024-12-17 à 03:15, RonB a écrit : >>>>>> On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>> Le 2024-12-16 à 05:28, RonB a écrit : >>>>>>>> On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage 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