dewme

I wonder if the EU gives any thoughts to availability and resilience when it tries to drive everyone into using the same standards? Forcing software vendors to use common infrastructure and middleware increases the likelihood of a single point failure bringing down the whole system. One of the most useful forms of redundancy in software systems is n-version redundancy. Software, unlike hardware, doesn’t usually benefit from having redundancy in numbers, e.g., n-modular redundancy, because a common software defect will usually affect all redundant copies of the software, thus creating a common mode failure mechanism. Plus, software doesn’t wear-out.

A good example of a common mode failure vulnerability is the way browsers work on iOS/iPadOS. Installing Firefox, Chrome, or Edge on an iOS/iPadOS device does not buy you as much resiliency as it could because the HTTP processing stack is shared between all of the browsers on those devices. It buys you some due to the non-shared parts, but the most critical parts from a connectivity perspective are very vulnerable to a single point common mode failure. Of course Apple believes that because they developed those critical pieces and tested and hardened them, all is well, both from a functional and security standpoint.

All I know is that in practice, and specifically wrt browsers on macOS, it’s been very useful for me to have the ability to switch to a different browser with its own communication stack when I encounter a problem in a specific browser. Yes, I know that as you drill down deeper into the OS kernel and hardware for non-high availability system there will always be single point and common mode failure vulnerabilities, but at least the attack surface tends to get smaller and smaller as you drill down.

In my opinion, the interoperability concerns around instant messaging, e.g., iMessage, should be treated just like it is with email (Mail app) on Apple devices. Build an instant messaging client that aggregates and unifies the messages to/from multiple sources in a single client application without messing with the individual diverse underlying messaging systems. I can currently read my Outlook, Yahoo, GMail, and iCloud emails all within a unified inbox in Apple Mail or even in the Outlook client. 

Maintaining diversity in software improves fault tolerance and resiliency, just as it does in the DNA of living organisms. This diversity can be improved today by installing multiple messaging systems side-by-side on your device. The inconvenience of the user switching between all of them to communicate to everyone they need to can be alleviated by creating a unified client app and routing the messages through the systems that are designed to process each unique type. Apple wasn’t forced have to open up its email stack to allow it to work with Outlook/Exchange so why should different flavors of instant messaging be treated any differently? 

The EU should be careful about what it asks for and consider wider system effects. They are too often blinded by their narrow mindedness and unwillingness to allow natural selection, evolution, and fitness to determine who wins and who loses. They want to pick the winners and losers themselves for various reasons that are typically scoped to their own self interests, many of which have fleeting or unproven-in-use value.

Where are all the product innovations, vast improvements in consumer choice, cost reductions, and market diversity that resulted from the Microsoft takedown by the EU for bundling IE with Windows? More than 20 years later we basically have the same market share between major personal computer platforms and a sparse selection of browsers that are all basically indistinguishable. What happened to IE? It was killed off because it was unfit for continued survival. In other words, it succumbed to evolution and natural selection, not punitive regulation and manipulation.

When I saw the headline, my first thought was: "Finally! We're going to prevent those who are over age 70 from getting involved with yet another technology that they cannot possibly understand." At some point, and especially within political circles, there really needs to be an age limit - on the other end. At least children have parents to protect them. But grandma and grandpa are free to cause irreparable harm to not only themselves but to everyone else on the planet, for generations to come. We don't need to be amplifying the crazy stuff they could possibly do by allowing them to tap into AI. Can't we just teach them how to use a TV remote first and call that a win?

fastasleep said:

dewme said:

fastasleep said:

dewme said:

The operating systems and the applications that are optimized for those operating systems have a hell of a lot more sway over buying behaviors than do benchmarks or narrow slices of very domain specific applications. No matter what platform I’ve ever used, the computer always spends a heck of a lot more time waiting on me than I spend waiting on the computer. But if you get paid to run benchmarks the situation may be reversed. 

Or, maybe if you actually work in the applications they used for these benchmarks? What a weird dismissal of the target audience for this comparison, because you're not one of those people.

I have to agree with you. If your productivity and/or your happiness is directly tied to running the exact applications with the same or similar datasets to those used in a benchmark comparison then you should be seeking out the best computer that delivers those things for you. If you’re faced with a choice between computer A and computer B a particular benchmark that you care about may sway you one way or the other, everything else being equal. 

The problem I have with Mac vs PC comparisons is that it is fairly rare for “everything else being equal.” This leads me to be dismissive of most benchmarks in such scenarios like the one in this article, mostly because they tend to be too narrowly focused rather than geared towards the more typical way most people use computers for a variety of tasks. They also tend to overlook the entrenchment effect that exists in both camps. 

A lot of the reasons and rationale being used on both sides of the debate are mostly being used to justify the individual choices and preferences that have already been established and ingrained into one’s existing belief system, like the necessity of plugging the PC into an existing power source to attain full performance. If the tables were turned, say by Apple offering up a big performance boost when plugged in, there would be plenty of defenders of that option. 

A lot of what we’re seeing is similar to car comparisons and benchmarks like 0-60 times. The 0-60 benchmarks may be completely legitimate, but they are rarely the deciding factor in choosing one vehicle type or vehicle brand over another. The entire vehicle taken in aggregate plus the needs of the buyer and their budget have greater sway than 0-60 times. But sure, to your point, if you are a professional drag racer of showroom stock cars and want to win races, you’re going to pick the car with the fastest 0-60 time and probably don’t care as much about the leather seats, cargo space, and seating capacity for 8 people. 

This isn't a Mac vs PC comparison inasmuch as it's a comparison of raw power doing tasks that can measure just that using these chips. It's very plainly stated in the article what they're measuring. Not "the more typical way most people use computers for a variety of tasks". Not "leather seats" etc. And, once again, there are plenty of people who work in software like Premiere, Cinema 4D, Blender, etc all day long to whom this information is useful, myself included. 

Would you personally switch platforms based on one particular product’s measurable performance advantage on a set of benchmarks that matter to you? If a year later the tables are turned, would you then go back the other way? If my income was tightly bound to the performance deltas and the apps in question were a revenue affecting constraint/bottleneck in my overall business process then I would have to answer “yes.” Most business people don’t want to leave money on the table, regardless of their personal preferences.

On the other hand, I do understand what you and others are saying with respect to a particular processor+GPU combination from the overwhelmingly dominant personal computing platform clearly demonstrating that for certain applications, like GPU intensive creativity apps and games, the current “best benchmark leader” that Apple has available is clearly not the fastest option in the overall market, a market that Apple owns about 10% of. But this has generally been the case for a very long time, especially when it comes to gaming.

The real question is whether these obvious disparities at the processing level will inspire Apple to up their game. I think that for as long as Apple enjoys its advantage across the “variety of tasks” spectrum with its intensely loyal 10% market share customer base the answer is “eventually.” Apple set out on a path with Apple Silicon knowing where their pros/cons were and with some stark advantages in some areas like performance per watt, single threaded performance, and graphics performance for an integrated CPU based system. They are now iterating on their initial design to improve on the pros and lessen the cons.

Apple’s competition is absolutely doing the same thing in terms of their own set of pros/cons. I’m sure that the competition’s answer to the same question, whether their obvious disparities in areas where Apple dominates their current offerings will inspire them to up their game is also “eventually.” The relative market share disparity hasn’t changed a whole lot either way in a very long time and Apple is doing extremely well on the revenue front with their small slice. They are sticking to a roadmap that is serving them very well. In the meantime don’t venture too far from a wall plug if you have a discrete GPU based PC and try to force yourself to get excited about Apple Arcade if you’re a Mac user.

Marvin said:

marktime said:

mknelson said:

marktime said:

Not really. Microsoft doesn't sell Windows for ARM. The only version that I am aware of is the Windows 11 Insider Preview ARM64. That's not a generally available version. There's a lot less to this announcement than is implied.

Parallels already had a simple install for Windows 11 Insider Preview ARM64 - super slick and super quick!

I think the main takeaway is Microsoft won't go out of their way to break ARM64 installs if they aren't on  computers with Qualcomm CPUs.

Agreed, the Parallels install and support for Windows 11 Insider Preview works very well. The integration between the two operating systems works extraordinarily well. What I object to is the first sentence of the article.

"You can get Windows onto an Apple Silicon MacBook Air." 

No you can't unless you are enrolled in the Microsoft's Windows Insider program.

That's what's changing:

https://www.parallels.com/windows-11-arm-apple-m-series/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/02/microsoft-officially-blesses-parallels-as-a-way-to-run-windows-on-m1-m2-macs/

Parallels has an easy installer for Windows and it can be licensed through the normal Windows 11 site:

https://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/welcome-trial/

They support Windows 11 Pro and Enterprise.

This change isn't exclusive to Parallels. VMWare is also jumping on the bandwagon. It sounds like any hesitation VMWare had with the licensing uncertainty with Windows on ARM is no longer an issue and it will be full speed ahead for VMware supporting Windows on ARM on Apple Silicon..

https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2023/02/microsoft-now-officially-supports-windows-on-mac-computers-with-apple-silicon.html

appleinsideruser said:

Who’s going first to try it? I’m tempted, but don’t want to risk it on day 1…

I tried it with my HomePod mini stereo pair and it completed successfully. No problem.