macplusplus

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

danvm said:

racerhomie3 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

StrangeDays said:

Johan42 said:

Diminishing returns is here. Apple’s planned obsolescence as well. Who will prevail? The customer who has no sense will.

You’re high. Apple devices have the longest lifespan in the business — both in official support terms (iOS), and in real world useful lifespan. My primary desktop is a 2011 iMac. I have an iphone 4s that was used as a primary device by a family member until a year or two ago and now is a backup device. What other brand has the same support and lifespan longevity? 

My Lenovo Thinkpad T60P laptop is over 12 years old and runs like it was new -- but with a modern OS and I'm thinking swapping its main harddrive for an SSD.  How does Apple have the "longest lifespan" ?

Same here buddy. My MacBook is from late 2008. It is 11 years old, running smoothly , and it does so looking 5 times better than your machine.

The difference is that the good looking machine is running an old OS X 10.11 while the ugly one is capable of running the latest version of Windows 10.  Following the original post about longest lifespan, the ugly one is ahead considering it's running a modern OS.  Still, both devices are to old for modern applications.  

Nonsense. The capabilities of a machine depends on the CPU. You cannot override CPU’s physical limitations with the OS, no matter how modern it is. Windows support of earlier machines is because those were crap in terms of security. This a just a burden on Microsoft, not progress.

Not quite. At a cost of speed, "physical limitations" of CPUs apart from speed can oft be "overridden" with software emulation. If the CPU is 64 bit, and it's running Windows 10, it can run pretty much all modern software, albeit much more slowly than a modern CPU. Oh, and it gets security updates. 

To increase your signal to noise ratio please go to ark.intel.com, find Intel Core Duo under Legacy Intel Processors, compare it to today’s 9th generation Intel. Then please tell us what capabilities can you implement via software emulation to make it run as 9th gen Intel !...

A Core Duo will always run as Core Duo regardless of the OS or whatever software emulation you implement. In most cases a legacy machine will run faster under its native OS, XP Vista or whatever, not to mention also the legacy driver support. Windows 10 forums are full of people screaming because of the lack of legacy driver support and reverting back to their legacy OS for that reason. Yes you get a modern OS and most probably better security but you lose the fingerprint reader or the sound card...

To decrease your ignorance level, please go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator .

You'll note I said 64-bit. Core Duos are not 64 bit. But in any case, it is possible for a 32-bit CPU to do 64-bit calculations, but they are much slower as they're done in software. Like I said, if an older CPU doesn't support an extension of x64 that a modern piece of software uses, the missing extension is emulated in software. It is much slower, as I said, but it allows modern software to run on older CPUs. If this wasn't the case, it would mean software would always have to be written for the lowest target CPU that the developer thinks may be used. Otherwise the software would crash as soon as an unsupported instruction was encountered. No developer would specifically target a 9th gen i9, as it would only be supported on a tiny subset of systems. 

Driver support is a different beast entirely, that's up to the manufacturer of the peripheral on a PC. If a manufacturer keeps the peripheral updated, even a 15 year old peripheral will run just fine in Win 10. Apple supplies all the drivers for Macs and could keep old drivers updated to ensure they worked on newer OSs, so your point is moot; the same issue would not pertain to Macs.

And to prove my point, the Church-Turing thesis corroborates exactly what I said above.

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

danvm said:

racerhomie3 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

StrangeDays said:

Johan42 said:

Diminishing returns is here. Apple’s planned obsolescence as well. Who will prevail? The customer who has no sense will.

You’re high. Apple devices have the longest lifespan in the business — both in official support terms (iOS), and in real world useful lifespan. My primary desktop is a 2011 iMac. I have an iphone 4s that was used as a primary device by a family member until a year or two ago and now is a backup device. What other brand has the same support and lifespan longevity? 

My Lenovo Thinkpad T60P laptop is over 12 years old and runs like it was new -- but with a modern OS and I'm thinking swapping its main harddrive for an SSD.  How does Apple have the "longest lifespan" ?

Same here buddy. My MacBook is from late 2008. It is 11 years old, running smoothly , and it does so looking 5 times better than your machine.

The difference is that the good looking machine is running an old OS X 10.11 while the ugly one is capable of running the latest version of Windows 10.  Following the original post about longest lifespan, the ugly one is ahead considering it's running a modern OS.  Still, both devices are to old for modern applications.  

Nonsense. The capabilities of a machine depends on the CPU. You cannot override CPU’s physical limitations with the OS, no matter how modern it is. Windows support of earlier machines is because those were crap in terms of security. This a just a burden on Microsoft, not progress.

Not quite. At a cost of speed, "physical limitations" of CPUs apart from speed can oft be "overridden" with software emulation. If the CPU is 64 bit, and it's running Windows 10, it can run pretty much all modern software, albeit much more slowly than a modern CPU. Oh, and it gets security updates. 

To increase your signal to noise ratio please go to ark.intel.com, find Intel Core Duo under Legacy Intel Processors, compare it to today’s 9th generation Intel. Then please tell us what capabilities can you implement via software emulation to make it run as 9th gen Intel !...

A Core Duo will always run as Core Duo regardless of the OS or whatever software emulation you implement. In most cases a legacy machine will run faster under its native OS, XP Vista or whatever, not to mention also the legacy driver support. Windows 10 forums are full of people screaming because of the lack of legacy driver support and reverting back to their legacy OS for that reason. Yes you get a modern OS and most probably better security but you lose the fingerprint reader or the sound card...

danvm said:

racerhomie3 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

StrangeDays said:

Johan42 said:

Diminishing returns is here. Apple’s planned obsolescence as well. Who will prevail? The customer who has no sense will.

You’re high. Apple devices have the longest lifespan in the business — both in official support terms (iOS), and in real world useful lifespan. My primary desktop is a 2011 iMac. I have an iphone 4s that was used as a primary device by a family member until a year or two ago and now is a backup device. What other brand has the same support and lifespan longevity? 

My Lenovo Thinkpad T60P laptop is over 12 years old and runs like it was new -- but with a modern OS and I'm thinking swapping its main harddrive for an SSD.  How does Apple have the "longest lifespan" ?

Same here buddy. My MacBook is from late 2008. It is 11 years old, running smoothly , and it does so looking 5 times better than your machine.

The difference is that the good looking machine is running an old OS X 10.11 while the ugly one is capable of running the latest version of Windows 10.  Following the original post about longest lifespan, the ugly one is ahead considering it's running a modern OS.  Still, both devices are to old for modern applications.  

tjwolf said:

I think the piece adequately defends Apple’s approach to voice assistant direction from an economic/tactical perspective: clearly Apple has made money on hardware that had its voice assistant whereas the competition has not.  But it’s kind of ignoring Siri’s strategic weakness: whereas Apple seems content to make Siri an ever more talented id1ot savant, Google and Amazon are aiming at making their assistants conversationally capable servants.

I’m a big Apple fan - have nearly every one of their devices.  But to be honest, I’d much rather be using Google Assistant than Siri.  The only reason I stay with Siri are my concerns for privacy and Siri’s deeper integration with my phone and other Apple services/devices.

Siri shortcuts are a joke - nobody, except Apple geeks, even know about them.  Heck, even though I know about them and have 2 computer science degrees, I don’t even use them.  People shouldn’t have to “program” a voice assistant to make it more useful - that should be the job of the Siri engineering team!  As the author continually points out, Apple is making heaps of money - how about using some of that to light a fire under the Siri team’s a$$?  

lorin schultz said:

The article seems to confirm what I've been suspecting -- that hardware acceleration only works if one accepts having certain parameter settings fixed.

Years ago I did a mountain of tests with Handbrake, adjusting various parameters to evaluate their impact on the compressed result. I eventually settled on a combination of settings that yield the best (for my purposes) balance between file size and compression artifacts. After all the effort that went into that, I'd be reluctant to surrender any of that control to a chip that may prioritize differently than I would. I'll have to wait until I can compare myself, but I suspect I may choose to live with longer encode times to get a better end result.