Even the newest "64-bit" cpus are really just 48-bit (or 36-bit on low end) or if bleeding edge 56-bit physical adressing processors. This is the maximum amount of virtual memory a process can have access to. You could memory map all your hard disks an still have room to map more physical memory to VMA.
It also feels like their insistence is doing nothing but hurting them. The average consumer who doesn't know the difference between a local account and a Microsoft account won't know or care about MS doing this.
But the users who do have a preference and do want a local account are just going to be irritated at it and give them bad press. They'll eventually figure out how to make a local account anyway and it may be the push they need to migrate off of Windows.
llama3:8b, I know it's "far from ideal" but only really specific use cases require more advanced models to run locally, if you do software development, graphic design or video editing 8gb is enough
edit: just tried it after some time and it works better than I remembered showcase
I have everything from apple but I know that 8gb is basically planned obsolescence in disguise.
We pay serious extra cash for just a ‚notch’ more refined experience. However I had to try to buy every possible thing from apple at least once in my life to see if it is worth it and basically only M4 iPad Pro 13 is truly worth the money and irreplaceable for me.
Everything else is nice for someone who is super lazy like me but can be easily replaced with not much difference for cheaper shit
No AVR, it's a small LPC from NXP. Chosen for the price, of course, but I have to somehow squeeze the software in it. At this point, even 8k would make me happy...
EDIT: Wait. Do you have framebuffer at all? Because from sounds of it, you might not even have it at all. If you don't store entire frame in RAM, then you don't have framebuffer, not just backbuffer.
I never said anything about framebuffers. The 256x64 pixel display in 16 brightness levels probably has something comparable inside. I just tell it that i want to update a rectangle, and send it some data for that.
Then, if you don't store contents of entire screen in memory, which simple math says you can't, I was partially wrong(depending on if you don't count buffer in display as framebuffer) when interpreted "shadow copy" as backbuffer.
Oh man, I remember so many people defended 8GB since the M1 first came out (and since).
I always argued it would significantly reduce the lifetimes of these machines if you bought one, not just because you’d be swapping a lot more on the (soldered in BTW) ssd, but because after a few years of updates it would become unbearably slow, or hardware would fail, or both.
Didn’t stop people constantly “tHe aRchITecTuRE iS cOmPlETelY diFFeRenT!!!”
Sure it’s different, but it’s still just a computer. A technical person can still look at the spec sheet and calculate effective performance accounting for bus widths etc.
Disclosure: I bought a top spec 16GB M1 Mac Air on launch and have been extremely happy with it - it’s still going strong.
Microsoft does thing nobody likes -> people complain -> some people threaten to switch to Linux -> a few of those people do but most people don't -> They make some excuse and claim that once Linux reaches some arbitrary milestone they'll switch (Adobe support, better game support, better software support, etc) -> most of those people forget (they're a minority, the vast majority of people never cared) -> Microsoft notices and they became even more emboldened to make their products worse -> repeat
If you want change then you need to break the cycle
I did manage to switch to Linux. I can understand though why people are hesitant, there are still things that are tough in Linux, or near impossible in some cases. That's despite having used Linux on and off for years.
That's because what people need to understand is that fundamentally Linux is not a drop in replacement for Windows, its not some open source copy. It'll never have full software compatibility, it'll never run the same, it'll never look exactly the same, and it'll never be the same. The sooner people accept that the sooner people understand what their options are. For me that's an advantage, I like the UI on DEs like Cosmic, I love the Unix filesystem, I love the terminal and how powerful it is, I love package managers, and I love the customizability of it all.
I don't think something needs to be identical to Windows to be a good replacement for it. I think there should be a replacement for Windows, and distributions like Linux Mint are that replacement for some people.
I also think that parts of the Linux ecosystem have major problems. Not necessarily problems with the kernel itself, but problems with the surrounding software like programs and user interfaces. Wider application support would be a start. Some distributions and parts of modern Linux systems can be unnecessarily complex or downright esoteric. Some features like HDR have very poor support, and are difficult to enable/setup where they are supported. It's also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems. Flatpaks and snaps help with this obviously but have divisive in the Linux community for one reason or another.
It’s also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems.
I disagree there. The issue is that in Windows people bring over their own version of libraries they compiled on (the millions of .dll files) and you can even look in your Uninstall Apps settings where there's a bunch of MS specific runtime bundles to see that's even an issue in the MS ecosystem.
In Linux, developers have relied on the library versions just being there. It is, I'd argue, the most compelling reason package managers basically had to come into existence. On the flip-side this can cause issues where there is some version on the system by the package manager that replaces another version. And something not a part of that package management system isn't a part of those dependency checks and if they don't put the libraries with the binaries...well it is just luck if you have them all or if other versions can support those library calls in the same way still.
In Linux that is all those .so's in /var/lib and stuff.
You don't really see many proprietary things using package managers and those that do are packaged by someone else and are in some sort of repo that isn't part of the vanilla install because of legal caution.
Companies that made their money on porting games to Linux prior to Proton basically causing them to shutter Linux porting would put their .so's in with the game bundle themselves, just like you see happening in Windows when .dll's are inside the actual program's folders.
However, the more that this sort of dependency management has become abstracted by development suites that take care of this for the developers, the less they understand about it.
Flatpaks actually take care of this and it is one reason they are so popular. They figure out (well that's a simplification) those library dependencies, sandbox the apps with those dependencies so the library paths don't interfere with other flatpaks or the base system itself. People complain about this as a con because "the download is BIGGER" even though flatpak doesn't install the same runtimes over and over again, so once they are there, the download may still be bigger but the installed storage isn't.
Anyway, yes Linus Torvalds complained about the "Linux fragmentation" issue but it was about DE's not the state of the development ecosystem itself as I recall, though the rant is very old, so maybe I don't remember all of it.
Wider application support would be a start.
Sure, but that's not a Linux problem, that's a developer problem. Linux supports application development just fine. It is a kernel and the surrounding ecosystem is the operating system after all. It is developers that don't support it. That isn't really something Linux in and of itself can effectively solve. Users have to increase and developers supporting applications for Linux will also increase. The classic Linux Chicken and the Egg problem but it is capitalism and that's just going to be how it has to work.
I don't think something needs to be identical to Windows to be a good replacement for it.
I said drop in replacement
Wider application support would be a start.
No organization is willing to pay companies to support Linux
Some distributions and parts of modern Linux systems can be unnecessarily complex or downright esoteric. Some features like HDR have very poor support, and are difficult to enable/setup where they are supported.
That's because organizations like the Linux foundation primarily serve enterprise and server customers, they only need a good enough UI so that's what desktop users get. Nobody is paying money for Linux and few people donate.
It's also difficult for developers to publish to Linux because of the wide variety of different Linux systems. Flatpaks and snaps help with this obviously but have divisive in the Linux community for one reason or another.
That's because the current system allows distribution maintainers to decide if they want their distro to be bleeding edge or stable.
TLDR: Desktop Linux users get the scraps of enterprise and server Linux
No organization is willing to pay companies to support Linux
Well that's a lie. Lots of companies use Linux servers, Linux embedded devices, even Linux desktops for programmers or engineers. Android devices are everywhere too.
That's because organizations like the Linux foundation primarily serve enterprise and server customers, they only need a good enough UI so that's what desktop users get. Nobody is paying money for Linux and few people donate.
One of the most common uses of Linux is smartphones. Chromebooks are also fairly popular. It's more that the kind of people that use Linux desktops aren't happy with smartphone like functionality and customisation.
The better question is why aren't people supporting desktop Linux? We have increasing market share after all. My guess is a combination of fragmentation and the fact that the user base aren't the kind of people they want to sell too. It's hard to sell MS Office for Linux to your average Linux enthusiast who might even be an Open Source purist. They are also more likely to jailbreak or pirate your product.
Well that's a lie. Lots of companies use Linux servers, Linux embedded devices
I mentioned that
even Linux desktops for programmers or engineers. Android devices are everywhere too. One of the most common uses of Linux is smartphones.
They make money because they're proprietary, sell peoples info, and because of that they represent everything the free software movement fights against. I use Linux because it supports the free software movement, not the other way around.
The better question is why aren't people supporting desktop Linux?
It's a combination of a few factors, developers are pressured into not asking for donations (users need to actively find their website to donate), the vast majority of Linux software is free of price, and people don't want to pay money for their operating system.
It's a combination of a few factors, developers are pressured into not asking for donations (users need to actively find their website to donate), the vast majority of Linux software is free of price, and people don't want to pay money for their operating system.
I am talking about businesses supporting the Linux desktop with software, not about the OS devs themselves.
They make money because they're proprietary, sell peoples info, and because of that they represent everything the free software movement fights against. I use Linux because it supports the free software movement, not the other way around.
This is the reason why most businesses don't want to support Linux.
Given there are quite a lot more people using Linux than there used to be I imagine a fair bit. That's only going to increase as Linux users keep increasing. Linux users still buy things like Video Games, Spotify subscriptions, and potentially other software products too like Jetbrains IDEs.
Fundamentally that doesn't make any sense, unlike Apple or Google Linux can't charge a percentage for subscriptions. Right now companies are getting away with not contributing any money to Linux, why would they magically start? Furthermore who would they pay? Not everyone uses flatpaks and adding paid apps/subscriptions would be highly controversial. Even if it did work the money made would be a tiny fraction of what android makes.
I have been talking about application support this whole time, not the Linux infrastructure itself. You keep carrying on as if I am talking about the distributions or the kernel, that's why my comments aren't making sense to you.
For someone who uses Linux you are awfully negative about it.
I was at the make excuses stage until late last year when my excuses were fixed. Booted my windows install maybe four times since then, and that was mostly to grab files from it haha.
Some of us manage to break the cycle, but despite how much I love Linux (ups and downs) I understand that it isn't for everyone currently.
What most people want is a stable system they can just use without understanding much if anything about how the underlying systems work. They don't care that wifi drivers can be fixed through a few terminal commands, they rail against the fact they have to do much of anything at all besides click [Next >]. And I can't blame them; that's what Microsoft has trained them for.
So many people with random toolbars and junk extensions in their browsers because the [Next >] button is how they get past whatever problem they have. The average user isn't very tech savvy, and it takes someone with a desire to learn to truly thrive in a Linux environment.
I've converted my mom to Kubuntu, and she does well, but she's also an outlier (she has an expired CCNA certification).
Linux suffers from a catch 22: there's not enough users because there's not a lot of commercial support because there's not enough users because... And the people who are donating their time to make it better are saints as far as I'm concerned, but there's only so much people can do for free. Things truly have gotten better, but until more typical user types can adopt Linux with little to no fuss, not much will change.
We make our happy little bubble here to be outraged in. The world at large carries on without caring. Just in the past few years, there's been the Reddit API change, the WhatsApp ToS change, the YouTube dislike button removal, etc etc. A small minority (like us) complains endlessly. The rest of the world shrugs and accepts enshitification.
People have accepted that they'll never have privacy, that they dont own the products they purchase (physical or digital), that not only do they not control their technology but fundamentally their technology controls them, that every few years they'll have to replace their devices or the manufacturer stops supporting them, people own nothing and are happy.
People don't know and don't care. Privacy isn't an issue on anyone's mind (just like climate wasn't 20 years ago). People don't know or care about digital media ownership issues.
People know, they see their digital media being removed from them and they know that their devices spy on them. Everyone talks about it yet nobody cares.
I disagree. I think it's more helplessness than apathy.
I don't approve of all the spying, but I don't "own" any congress critters, so what can I do? I can't even opt out of the spying by cancelling my Internet plan and smashing my phone -- there's still tracking through CCTV, face recognition, license plate scanners, etc. I'd have to move to some remote middle of nowhere and live as a subsistence farmer -- and even on the way there, I'd be thoroughly tracked. There's no escape, it's like we're all in a giant digital cage.
Accepted isn't the right word. I think consumers "voting with their feet" just isn't that relevant when it comes to these issues. This model of thinking works when it's about the product offering. Bad product? Too expensive? Demand dwindles.
But the issue doesn't directly impact the product offering, consumers won't "vote with their feet" in significant numbers. Worker exploitation? People will still buy cheaper clothes. Oil money dictatorships? Cheap luxury airlines. Privacy invasion? But all my friends are on there. I could go on.
The self-correcting market model is flawed. For these issues, strong government intervention is needed. It's possible that a competitor comes along and they're able to capture the market, but that will only happen with a superior product offering. But not because of different TOS or whatever people don't consider part of what they're buying.
Finally, someone gets my point. Capitalism inherently makes products worse and more expensive, the flaw in your argument is you think it can ever be contained.
Why do they struggle so much with some "obvious things" sometimes ? We wouldn't have a type-C iphone if the EU didn't pressured them to do make the switch
The E-Mac (looks like a toilet, sounds like a jet) came with 256 MB of RAM in one of the two slots, adding a 512MB stick was dirt cheap (everyone had at the very least 1GB on their PC), well it was dirt cheap except if you bought it from Apple...
It's how Apple monetizes their customers. Figuring out an artificial shortcoming they can sell as an upgrade to them (check out dongles for example).
They didn't have a reason to switch to USB-C, and several reasons to avoid it for as long as possible. Their old Lightning connector (and the big 30-pin connector that came before it) was proprietary, and companies had to pay a royalty to Apple for every port and connector they manufactured. They made a lot of money off of the royalties.
They moved to on-die RAM for a reason: To nickel and dime yo ass.
I needed to expense a Mac Mini for iOS development, and everyone (Me, the company, our purchasing department) was baffled at how much it cost to get 16 GB. And they only go up to 24GB. Imagine how much they'll charge for 32 in a year!
Yeah but if you're only putting 8 GB of RAM on then you're also going to be constantly querying the hard drive. So any performance gain you get from soldering, is lost by going all the way to the hard drive every 3 microseconds.
It's only better performance on paper in reality there's no real benefit. If you can run an application entirely entirely within the 8 GB of RAM, and assuming you're not running anything else, then maybe you get better performance.
And that's the idea. Soldering memory is an engineering decision. How much to solder is a marketing decision. Since users can't easily add more, marketing can upsell on more RAM.
It's not "on paper," the RAM itself is performing better vs socketed RAM. Whether the system runs better depends on the configuration, as in, did you order enough RAM.
I can't tell if you're a stooge or if you really think that. I hope you are stooge, because otherwise that's a really stupid position you've decided to take and you clearly don't actually understand the issue.
putting memory closer to the CPU improves performance due to less latency - from 96GB/s -> 200 (M1) or 400 (M1 Max) GB/s
customers can't easily solder on more RAM
Apple's RAM upgrades are way more expensive than socketed options on the market
And here's my interpretation/guesses:
marketing sees 1 & 2, and sees an opportunity to do more of 3
marketing probably asked engineering what the bare minimum is, and they probably said 8GB (assuming web browsing and whatnot only), though 16GB is preferable (that's what I'd answer)
marketing sets the minimum @ 8GB, banking on most users who need more than the basics to buy more, or for users to buy another laptop sooner when they realize they ran out of RAM (getting after-sale RAM upgrades is expensive)
So:
using soldered RAM is an engineering decision due to improved performance (double socketed RAM w/ Intel on M1, quadruple on M1 Max)
limiting RAM to 8GB is a marketing decision
if you don't have enough RAM, that doesn't mean the RAM isn't performing well, it means you don't have enough RAM
Using socketed RAM won't fix performance issues related to running out of RAM, that issue is the same regardless. Only adding RAM will fix those performance issues, and Apple could just as easily make "special" RAM so you can't buy socketed RAM on the regular market anyway (e.g. they'd need a different memory standard anyway due to Unified Memory).
I have hated Apple's memory pricing for decades now, it has always been way more expensive to add RAM to an Apple device at order time vs PC competitors (I still add my own RAM to laptops, but it's usually way cheaper through HP, Lenovo, etc than Apple at build-time). I'm not defending them here, I'm merely saying that the decision to use soldered RAM makes a lot of engineering sense, especially with the new Unified Memory architecture they're using in the M-series devices.
Couldn't you do that in a VM with GPU passthrough? I use that approach for all kinds of stuff, including Gaming (with Looking Glass and SSD passthrough)
The US government isn't gonna do anything like this unless it causes a huge fuss. The agencies responsible don't get enough funding to properly regulate the stuff they're supposed to, and they have to prioritize as a result.
I'm sure companies know this very well. Our rights as consumers have been slowly decaying for years, and we haven't seen much government action until recently.
You know how China has a strong centralized government and cooperates with their big companies? Government says jump, Huawei says how high?
We have a similar system. A strong centralized government that cooperates with the big companies. The primarily difference is that on the spectrum of
Government power <-----------> corporate power
The US leans more to the right.
Really what's interesting is both the US and China are slowly converging onto a point in the middle. Zizek said something like this some years back.. authoritarian capitalism is unfortunately the most effective form of capitalism.
Authoritarian capitalism is not the most effective form of capitalism. It is the most effective for those that are already on top, but for the market as a whole (and especially for the society around that market), it's going to be worse in the long run.
Companies that are protected from competition by an authoritarian government will be able to extract higher profits in the short term, but their products and services will become worse in the long term, which not only harms their customers, but also the company's chances of selling their products on actually competitive markets. The American car makers are a good example of this imo.
Companies that are protected from having to pay fair wages and/or providing good working conditions, will be faced with labor shortages if the workers have alternatives, or with a depressed consumer market because the people have less money/time to spend on consuming things.
Authoritarian capitalism is not the most effective form of capitalism. It is the most effective for those that are already on top, but for the market as a whole (and especially for the society around that market), it's going to be worse in the long run.
Well, yeah, but screw those guys. They're not the ones that are supposed to benefit from the system anyway.
It depends how you define effective. Of course the consumer would prefer a free market with competition and low barriers to entry. This is the most egalitarian system, where money (and therefore power) gets distributed almost democratically.
It's a liberal democratic version of capitalism. It's the version of capitalism that works. Not perfectly, but it rises people out of poverty and is more or less egalitarian, relative to the alternatives.
Authoritarian capitalism is where you still have the large private sector except you don't have the political freedoms. Think China post 1970s, modern Russia, Singapore.
The government essentially rewards companies that support the power structure. They get privileges and a say at the table. It creates a sort of incestuous relationship between the government and large corporate entities.
The US is moving towards this system as wealth inequality and corporate influence rises (more strongly under Biden than Trump, might I add. Probably to do with pandemic). More $$$ = more power. More power, more influence within the government. Creates a cycle where it's a "buy your policy" type of democracy.
Slowly our political freedoms are being eroded. Mass surveillance, the CIA and Pentagon are now allowed to spread propaganda on US soil (they were not allowed to before early 2000s), erosion of democratic institutions through populism. For example "fake elections" and events like Jan 6th. We are starting to censor and ban outside views ("misinformation" bans from Covid, the banning of TikTok, Google & Facebook & reddit & Twitter regularly manipulate the information people receive and cooperate with the government)
Only some crazy number like 20% of people approve of Congress in this country. The democracy is falling apart and some new system is forming.
As China is opening up their private market to become more like us in terms of finance, big capital, corporate rights, etc. We are closing down our political system to become more like them in terms of the loss of political freedoms, censorship, etc.
I consider as most effective, the system that is most effective for the whole market in the long term, not the system that only works best for a few in that market. And yes, I realize that authoritarian market intervention is great for maximizing short term profits for those few companies/persons, but if the rest of the market suffers in the long term because of it (and they are), then we're dealing with rent seeking and that's pretty commonly accepted to be bad in the long term. Bad for society, but also bad for wealth creation. And if it's bad for wealth creation, then it's definitely not effective capitalism. This is why I consider authoritarian capitalism to not be the most effective form of capitalism.
And yeah, I'm aware that the USA is on this trajectory. Other western democracies are too, but of those that are, I think it's still mostly to a lesser extent than the USA.
About China: China's competiveness has significantly regressed in the last few years. Xi Jinping's authoritarian and imperialistic policies have not been good for business. Under Xi Jinping guanxi is also much more important again than it was under Hun Jintao: companies have no real rights, they too are dependant on maintaining relations and obeying the government. If they fail to maintain relations or if they bet on the wrong political horse, then the company leadership will be gone pretty fast.
xda-developers.com
Hot