----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 3@dont-email.me> 3cc97b3e
@REPLY: _f1.6958@fx06.iad> 9b25af19
@REPLYADDR Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Alan
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 3@dont-email.me>
@RFC-References:
1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> 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>
_f1.6958@fx06.iad>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 2023-09-30 11:16, RabidPedagog wrote:
> 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.
>
I think it was probably a combination of the early Mac OS X being far
from optimized AND better processors, but yeah.
All of it left developers hesitant to invest resources in rewriting for
Mac OS X... ...and of course that`s why Apple kept the "Classic
Environment" (which also hurt performance of course) as well as the
Carbon API.
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (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