----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: _f1.6958@fx06.iad> 9b25af19
@REPLY: 2@dont-email.me> 3701dd83
@REPLYADDR RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 RabidPedagog
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References:
1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> 1@dont-email.me> 3@dont-email.me>
<knhjs4FokktU2@mid.individual.net> 1@paganini.bofh.team>
<0001HW.2AC4F5620000D6097000008C32CF@news.eternal-september.org> 1@dont-email.me> <knk7ghF73klU4@mid.individual.net>
2@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> <knllcmFecn7U1@mid.individual.net>
1@dont-email.me> <0001HW.2AC646C6001CD8927000006B72CF@news.eternal-september.org>
<knmundFl0ppU2@mid.individual.net> 1@paganini.bofh.team> <0HGRM.329263$ZXz4.303092@fx18.iad>
1@dont-email.me> Hih7.57774@fx11.iad> 1@dont-email.me>
1@news.samoylyk.net> <knphajF39egU1@mid.individual.net> 4@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> q0k.107@fx34.iad> 1@dont-email.me>
Lmc1.8154@fx44.iad> 2@dont-email.me>
@RFC-Message-ID: _f1.6958@fx06.iad>
@TZUTC: -0400
@PID: Betterbird (Windows)
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 2023-09-30 2:09 p.m., Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 10:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
>>>> x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
>>>> the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
>>>> the same kind of performance, but I do. I don`t see myself buying
>>>> another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
>>>
>>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
>>> engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual
>>> machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>>
>>> From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
>>> available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
>>> computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
>>> access tools."
science-6>.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
>>> as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it`s fallen to 13.3%
share-apple/>.
>>>
>>> Right now I`m on a project where we really want one of of our
>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can`t run
>>> it. So he`s using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>
>> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
>> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
>> they really wanted simply because their university program required
>> x86-specific software. There`s even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2
>> on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
>> realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn`t as much
>> software for the Mac as there is for the PC. Even in the early 2000s,
>> I was fixing up an old man`s Pentium 3, and I learned that he was a
>> Mac die-hard since it was released. When I inquired why he finally
>> went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved walking into a computer
>> store and buying random programs, but that there was less and less for
>> the Mac (which was true at the time).
>>
>> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
>> are actually nicer.
>>
>
> Yup. The early 2000s were a period of significant rebuilding for the Mac
> as a consumer platform.
>
> Remembering that Mac OS X was first released in 2001, and a lot of
> software developers would have been questioning whether or not it would
> be a good idea to continue developing for the new OS.
>
> Since then, macOS has quintupled its share of the personal computer OS
> market.
>
309>
>
> It`s a good thing for Windows stats that there are parts of the world
> where Macs aren`t affordable for large swathes of the population...
>
-202309>
>
> ...and that a lot of Windows "personal computers" are sold for
> non-personal usage.
>
> ?
I can say that Mac OS X didn`t have the right kind of hardware to run it
at the time. I actually purchased an iBook G3 600 with 128MB RAM back
then. It came with Mac OS X but retained Mac OS 9.2.2 for compatibility
purposes. With the default hardware, Mac OS X was unbearable. Even after
maxing out the RAM to 640MB, it wasn`t much better. I was actually
encouraged to just use Mac OS 9.2.2. On the G4 PowerBook I purchased to
replace it (G4 1GHz 1GB RAM), it was mostly fine but nothing special. I
don`t think that the operating system got the kind of hardware it
deserved until it switched to the G5 processors.
--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7
--- Betterbird (Windows)
* Origin: blocknews - www.blocknews.net (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441