commentzilla

About

Username
commentzilla
Joined
Visits
116
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,443
Badges
1
Posts
725

Reactions

858Like97Informative

  • Judge clears way for $500M iPhone throttling settlements

    commentzillacommentzilla
    The bottomline line is that this feature was meant to protect the phone and the user (period). But hey, I guess the shills would prefer the phone to just unexpectedly turn off or explode.
    watto_cobra

  • Latest Intel and AMD vulnerabilities a gentle reminder to switch to Apple silicon

    commentzillacommentzilla
    IreneW said:
    iBiCCC said:
    coolfactor said:
    iBiCCC said:
    lam92103 said:
    Thanks but no thanks. Gonna stick to x86
    #metoo.  Honestly who wouldn't.  It makes zero sense.  All microprocessor will be the same.  MacOS is built on x86.  Intel is a serious company. Rosetta runs x86.  It was built on x86 and the M-Chips are x86.  Fun Fact.

    What? That makes no sense. I think you're missing a few details.

    Before Apple adopted Intel processors, Mac OS (or OS X) ran on Motorola PowerPC chips.

    Are you claiming that ARM chips (of which M-series chips are built) are actually built using Intel x86 architecture? Not true at all. ARM and x86 are entirely separate architectures. If your claim had any truth to it, Microsoft would not have had so much trouble rolling out their ARM-based Windows.

    Rosetta translates executable code of applications, not the OS, that haven't yet been built for Apple silicon. That's the only role that Rosetta plays. macOS itself is not running ON Rosetta.
    x86 are. MacOS is running on Objective-C.  The Robot language is still x86.  The PowerPC ships with Apple and Motorola are long gone, great SISC chips.  M-Series Chips are still C - C++ - Objective-C- Swift.  Apple does not allow NXU kernel runs.  Hence Rosetta.  You can test, but it won't pass Apple.
    What the #@$ are you talking about?
    iBiCCC said:
    coolfactor said:
    iBiCCC said:
    lam92103 said:
    Thanks but no thanks. Gonna stick to x86
    #metoo.  Honestly who wouldn't.  It makes zero sense.  All microprocessor will be the same.  MacOS is built on x86.  Intel is a serious company. Rosetta runs x86.  It was built on x86 and the M-Chips are x86.  Fun Fact.

    What? That makes no sense. I think you're missing a few details.

    Before Apple adopted Intel processors, Mac OS (or OS X) ran on Motorola PowerPC chips.

    Are you claiming that ARM chips (of which M-series chips are built) are actually built using Intel x86 architecture? Not true at all. ARM and x86 are entirely separate architectures. If your claim had any truth to it, Microsoft would not have had so much trouble rolling out their ARM-based Windows.

    Rosetta translates executable code of applications, not the OS, that haven't yet been built for Apple silicon. That's the only role that Rosetta plays. macOS itself is not running ON Rosetta.
    x86 are. MacOS is running on Objective-C.  The Robot language is still x86.  The PowerPC ships with Apple and Motorola are long gone, great SISC chips.  M-Series Chips are still C - C++ - Objective-C- Swift.  Apple does not allow NXU kernel runs.  Hence Rosetta.  You can test, but it won't pass Apple.
    Rosetta is a translator that converts the x86 instruction set to run on ARM and the language used is irrelevant.
    watto_cobra

  • The cheesegrater Mac Pro could still be the best Mac ever made

    commentzillacommentzilla
    The M series Macs are by far the best becuase they run cool and quiet, with easy access TouchID. Can't get a PC with the power of  Mac Studio unless it doubles has a hair dryer but it certainly will not be as responsive as the hard to beat the M series unified memory. The PC industry will eventually copy-cat it all, as they always do.
    killroy

  • Twitter has now rebranded as 'X'

    commentzillacommentzilla
    Musk is systemically destroying the brand and its revenue stream. I have little reason to believe it won't be be eclipsed by Threads as X becomes a Truth Social competitor.  :D
    ronnwilliamlondonwatto_cobraAlex_VAlex1Njony0

  • Apple is asking iPhone suppliers for screens without any bezel

    commentzillacommentzilla
    mayfly said:
    There is a phrase in this article that understates what I'd think is a much bigger issue:
    "increased vulnerability to external shocks"

    With no metal bezel surrounding a glass lens, seems like it would be way more likely to break due to accidents that current phones survive intact. They're going to have to explore a radically different glass technology to prevent that. Or they could just use current glass tech, and make more money on repairs, I suppose.
    Hint... the "lens" is not made of glass.
    watto_cobra