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

x86 is dead, long live x86

engineering.mercari.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#81

Post by cthalupa »

adamc wrote: post #44
glimshe wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never buy an Apple laptop. I have one for work and I hate it. Linux and Windows are by far more productive for me, so all I need to do is keep getting better PC laptops. While Mac hardware does have a slight edge on cost/benefit at that price point, macOS is just too cumbersome for my needs. EDIT: It's funny to see this downvoted. I'm literally speaking of my particular use case and needs! Are there people wh…

The whole "click once on the app for it to wake up, click again for it to know which window you wanted" makes using Mac OS highly unpleasant on a daily basis. Yes, I'm on Mac OS, and no, I don't like it.

As a daily Mac user for about 13 years now I have no idea what phenomenon you're talking about.

For any program that is open, even if it hasn't been in use for a while, I click it once, and it comes to the forefront immediately.

For programs that are not open, I click it once, and then if I wait for it to launch, it appears in the forefront. If I immediately click back over to my web browser and begin using it before the program launches, it does not appear in the forefront... because I interacted with another program after starting the launch.

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#82

Post by ihattendorf »

amusingimpala75 wrote: post #61

I would just like to point out that that is not how the saying goes. When Queen Elizabeth died it would have been “the queen is dead, long live the king”, as the dead thing is the predecessor and the living thing is the one that follows it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_king_is_dead,_long_live_th...!

In this case, the article is implying that Intel (x86) is dead to them and AMD (x86) is the successor. Whether Intel is dead or not is up for debate (I doubt they are), but the saying is used correctly.

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#83

Post by Dylan16807 »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #68
oblak wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Build a pipeline with macOS in mind (because "All engineers I know have Macs") 2. Complain when the macOS-oriented process doesn't work for everyone.

Apple is doing what people hated Microsoft for. It's amazing that a closed ecosystem is so welcomed by Apple fans. But I suppose man has always been tribal.

Any closed ecosystem is annoying but I'm not going to complain very hard while their desktop market share is below 20-25%.

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#84

Post by Clamchop »

re-thc wrote: post #74
harpratap wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dead thing is Intel (x86) and the successor is AMD (x86) as opposed to ARM in our case. Isn't it correct?

> Isn't it correct? No. Intel isn't dead. They may be behind (for now) but they're definitely catching up and have in a way on the desktop. It's not certain that Intel will die and AMD will for sure win. Competition is great.

Weird. The topic was the phrase.

Mercari replaced Intel with AMD. One x86 out, another in. Usage is correct if figurative.

Article does not claim Intel is dead. States that they are "catching up". But for their nodes, Intel out ("dead"), AMD in.

It's reasonable.

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#85

Post by astrange »

agloe_dreams wrote: post #40
cardanome wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple products are only dominant the US. For the rest of the world they are more of an luxury item. That said, I am not terribly interested in ARM-based laptops for now. Yes, they may be more energy efficient and all but that hardly matters to me compared to just having the same x86 architecture I run on my desktop and servers. That sweet binary-compatibility means less headache. People underestimate the advantages t…

A key element to Apple and ARM and why you are right outside the us is this: 1. Apple's chips are so far beyond everything else that it makes obvious sense for Apple only. Snapdragon is at least 30% slower single core while having worse Performance per watt. 2. Apple wasn't playing fair with their translation layer. The Rosetta layer cheats a little because apple also made the chip. The secret sauce is that the M1 ha…

> That technically breaks ARM spec

It does not (or it wouldn't be there) and they aren't the only ARM vendor with TSO (Fujitsu also does it.)

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#86

Post by Teever »

saghm wrote: post #80
re-thc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it correct? No. Intel isn't dead. They may be behind (for now) but they're definitely catching up and have in a way on the desktop. It's not certain that Intel will die and AMD will for sure win. Competition is great.

If we're going to be that pedantic, we might as well just say that because Intel and AMD aren't living entities so they can't be "dead". Or we could just accept that the original meaning of the phrase has evolved and is flexible enough to be used in situations where it's not absolutely literal.

I just closed another post on HN because the top thread descended into some bullshit semantics pissing contest so I come here and see the same.

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed an increase in arguing over the meaning of words on HN lately?

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#87

Post by r00fus »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #67
retskrad wrote: post #4

x86 lives on desktop now. Windows, Intel, AMD and Nvidia have more or less thrown in the white flag and given the laptop market to Apple.

Unless Apple can deliver a sub-800 dollar product, they'll never own the laptop market.

Correct. And the fact is, Apple would rather not (as it comes with government antitrust scrutiny) Instead they'll focus on profit share.

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#88

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

Teever wrote: post #86
saghm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to be that pedantic, we might as well just say that because Intel and AMD aren't living entities so they can't be "dead". Or we could just accept that the original meaning of the phrase has evolved and is flexible enough to be used in situations where it's not absolutely literal.

I just closed another post on HN because the top thread descended into some bullshit semantics pissing contest so I come here and see the same. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed an increase in arguing over the meaning of words on HN lately?

I'd guess it's a timing thing. This site likes to prioritize more highly the "current" discussions which are generating upvotes as long as they're not also generating a ton of downvotes.

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#89

Post by zekica »

arp242 wrote: post #29
Andrex wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep meaning to research this, and maybe this isn't the right place, but how are things going for Linux executables? Last I tried Linux on ARM it seemed like application-level support for ARM was very spotty. It doesn't seem like a Rosetta 2-like effort is making it into mainline Linux anytime soon, if ever.

For open source applications it's generally pretty good. Closed source: not so much. qemu-x86_64 is probably the closest there is to Rosetta; it works fairly well and I think conceptually it's identical or similar to Rosetta, but I don't really know what the performance is like, and it's of course not as integrated/automatic as Rosetta.

IMO, better options are box86/box64 or FEX.

Re: x86 is dead, long live x86

#90

Post by kergonath »

Teever wrote: post #86
saghm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to be that pedantic, we might as well just say that because Intel and AMD aren't living entities so they can't be "dead". Or we could just accept that the original meaning of the phrase has evolved and is flexible enough to be used in situations where it's not absolutely literal.

I just closed another post on HN because the top thread descended into some bullshit semantics pissing contest so I come here and see the same. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed an increase in arguing over the meaning of words on HN lately?

I’ve noticed that as well. It beggars belief that people are seriously arguing about applying a centuries-old foreign metaphors about kings to modern large corporations. That’s straight over Pedantic territory into the Obnoxious Contrarian wilderness. Sigh…
Post reply on HN