Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of OS X

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 589 posts

Re: The End of OS X

#331

Post by oneplane »

the_af wrote: post #308
oneplane wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the overall degradation. Sometimes I want 10% of 'everything', plus a new feature, plus less weight to carry around. That's practically been the only driver of my personal upgrades over the last 15 years. And by degradation I don't mean the existing device degrades per se, but the degradation of productivity on the current device vs. new device. At the same time, the way work is done has changed a lot for me…

> but the degradation of productivity on the current device vs. new device. What does this mean? Do you mean your current device starts working poorly (but that would mean "existing device degrades per se", which you ruled out) or that the existence of a new device automatically makes you perceive your device as being of "degraded productivity"?

For example if I run something that can take advantage of AVX512 and my current CPU doesn't have that but a new CPU does. Same goes for TB2 vs. TB3, very useful when you want to connect an external GPU. It does work on Thunderbolt 2 but the extra bandwidth of Thunderbolt 3 is a nice improvement.

Say you change your workload model there might be ~20% improvements between bare metal, virtual machines and containers. If you simulate a part of infrastructure using containers you may not need more RAM, but more CPU would be nice. But when you then want to do a lot of recording/capturing and process that, RAM gets more important. Just upgrading the RAM wouldn't help much because without a CPU to generate the data you might as well offload the whole thing.

Re: The End of OS X

#332

Post by webmobdev »

dheera wrote: post #220
sailingparrot wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I literally can think of no reason I personally would want to do this If you personnaly care a little bit about the environment there is a pretty evident reason why being able to swap a single piece of hardware is better than replacing the whole unit because everything is soldered together. Right to repair would also mean that once your device goes out of guarantee you would have more options to get your device rep…

Not only that, but also: * Apple charges +$800 for 64GB of RAM, which on Amazon would cost you around $300-350. * Apple costs $1600 for 4TB of SSD, which on Amazon would cost you around $450-600. * Soldering the SSD to the motherboard is an enormously horrible engineering decision for both servicing, backups, and data recovery.

Exactly. I feel more of us should speak up like this and not let ignorant users or shills try to sell this message that soldering down components and making it extremely difficult to replace parts like a battery is a "great thing" being done for the benefit of the consumer.

Re: The End of OS X

#333

Post by saagarjha »

thedjinn wrote: post #16
coliveira wrote: post #7

OS X (the name) is gone for a while, it was replaced by macOS. The numbering change now is inconsequential.

Most people probably don't even refer to the macOS versions by number but by codename.

Nit: Big Sur is a marketing name, not a codename. Apple has their own names for this things ;)

Re: The End of OS X

#334

Post by aylmao »

sudosysgen wrote: post #205
jaywalk wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Apple has explicitly said anything, but the fact that this version will support a new CPU architecture seems like a pretty good reason.

Not really, OS X supports PowerPC and Intel (32 and 64 bits) at various stages in it's lifetime.

macOS 11 will support Intel and ARM.

Re: The End of OS X

#336

Post by monocasa »

saagarjha wrote: post #327
monocasa wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the big announcement that arm macbooks will run iOS apps unmodified? Do you think you'll be able to run an non apple signed kernel on aarch64 macbooks?

I guess we'll find out a couple of weeks once the DTKs ship.

Maybe? The Intel DTKs had a very different boot process with a normal BIOS instead of EFI.

Re: The End of OS X

#337

Post by runjake »

pjmlp wrote: post #93
runjake wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple marketed directly to UNIX and Linux power users with their famous advertisement: https://julxrp.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/apple_unix_ad.jpg In this era, they were all about marketing to UNIX people.

When the ship is sinking anything goes, they also had sessions at CERN back in the day, but that was never a central role in Apple culture, nor its users for the most part.

I would argue that their UNIX focus was a major contributor to the popularity of the (post-OPENSTEP) Mac.

It attracted UNIX nerds, which attracted other nerds and all those nerds spread the word to family, friends, and coworkers and helped spur adoption in a significant way.

That's how I seem to remember it, anyway.

Re: The End of OS X

#338

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

luma wrote: post #275
wuunderbar wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be missing something here, but why would you need to change the stock installed tools in /usr/bin? Seems like an easy way to screw up your OS installation. And it's not like a VM where you can rollback to a snapshot or relaunch. If there really was an issue there then you either need to file a bug and have them mainline a fix, or yes hack/shim a fix on top for your needs. Perhaps leveraging PATH precedence.

Embedded in your response is the general attitude one hears when concerned about not being able to do "a thing" in the Apple ecosystem: why would you want to do that? Questioning the use case and insisting that one doesn't actually _want_ to do a thing instead of allowing the user to control their own system is the quintessential Apple experience.

> Embedded in your response is the general attitude one hears when concerned about not being able to do "a thing" in the Apple ecosystem: why would you want to do that?

Funny, that's a quote I hear a lot in Linux Desktop ecosystems as well. I think it is just the nature of people so accustomed to a certain way of thinking that any other use case that comes along is automatically considered to be doing it wrong.

Re: The End of OS X

#339

Post by dsr_ »

metalforever wrote: post #221
dsr_ wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that, and also -- Apple sets prices about once a year. Meanwhile, the price of CPUs, RAM and graphics cards drops. For any price level that Apple establishes, I can afford a Hackintosh desktop of much greater power or I can save a lot of money and get equivalent power. Though, to be honest, I don't bother unless there's a particular application which isn't available on Linux.

Hackintosh is a non starter if you are using the computer for commercial use.

Turns out there are some very small niches where it makes sense. Basically, if you need to maintain compatibility with a larger organization but your profit is independent from theirs, and you have necessary technical resources at hand.

Re: The End of OS X

#340

Post by saagarjha »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #100

Before leaving on my morning hike, I cleaned up some storage, getting 50G free on my MacBook, and downloaded the 9G installer while I was hiking. It turns out that I was still about 12G short in required disk space. I mention this to save other people from lost effort. A question: lots of my 256G of storage is taken up by remote mobile storage in ~/Library. If there an easy way to tell macOS to temporarily not keep l…

Did you happen to have Time Machine enabled? (To answer your question, I think what you're looking for is brctl evict.)
Post reply on HN