251–257 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I believe Windows on ARM now ships with x86 emulation The last time I saw this tested, it was more likely to fail than work for any particular bit of modern 64 bit Windows software.
x86_64 support didn't exist due to Intel patents. That issue was resolved: https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2020/12/10/introdu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing with lenovo is that advertise inflated prices. Everything is 50% off in a few months around black friday. The list price is only for press releases. Besides, thinkpads are sold primarily in bulk to companies who also get the discounted rate.
Not in this market. We're usually buying thinkads in bunches of 20 every few months, and are struggling to get any (decent ones), never mind 50% off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is Docker an issue?
Well, for starters, virtualizing anything on MacOS is a pain in the butt. It's an open secret that Docker on Mac has performance issues, kernel interface problems and general compatibility hiccups that don't exist when the host is running Linux. Then there's the fact that quite a number of Docker containers aren't ARM-ready, and even the ones that are won't be an accurate portrayal of how they'll behave on other arch…
Interesting. I was recently looking to upgrade my personal T480s which I use for development, but didn't see anything in Lenovo lineup that were reasonably light/powerful/quiet/cool enough to make put in the order. I've grown so sick of laptops constantly hissing at me when I do something more complicated than browsing the web. My work issued Dell is basically unusable in a quiet room without headphones. So as an imp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim. I've had 3 16:10 panels in the last 10 years and this was the case each time: 1920x1200 (vs 1920x1080), 2560x1600 (vs 2560x1440) and now a 3840x2400 (vs 3840x2160). 16:10 monitors were out of fashion for most of the last 10 years, but ar…
> In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim. Sure, that's true for the pixels (which might also be the more important part), but the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).
That's hypothetical, they don't have the same diagonal in the real world. (e.g. 15.6" laptop displays are 16:9 while 16:10 ones are 16", and they have the same width after all http://www.displaywars.com/15,6-inch-16x9-vs-16-inch-16x10)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People want 16:10, 4:3, please.
Why not 1:1?
Tldr: our peripheral vision extends width wise more than it does height wise. That 4:3 was popular at all was an artificial of display technology not being able to take advantage of that. Now, of course for using a computer vs just watching movies or playing games, 4:3 makes a lot of sense, but I think we’d see 3:4 (portrait letter size) before 1:1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. Why would I run Windows when I can just run the OS that I actually want?
Depends on how much fun you want supporting 100% of the laptop hardware.