Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Nope... (Score 1) 193

ARM are low performance chips, that's why they have the room to improve. Intel server chips crush ARM in performance. Let's take a typical hyperconverged server my employer uses with 8 six core Xeon processors, how many of your USB powered ARM servers will it take to equal that? A row of racks?

The question is though....in some situations....is it better to have a monster multi xeon machine that sits there idling 98% of the time vs an ARM based server that may only be idle 10% of the time while consuming a hundreth of the power that the xeon system does?

Both the multi xeon machine, and the ARM machine have their purposes in the server area. It's about picking the best tool for the job. One size doesn't fit all.

Comment Re:How ARM will handle the bloat? (Score 1) 193

It's kind of relative to the role really. But I know I get horrible redraw issues using default RDP settings because it tries to use things like image backgrounds (have to turn that off in the RDP connection settings before making a connection, never had to do that previous to 2016)

Does anyone know if services like "Sync Host" (used for syncing mail, contacts, calendars,etc.) and "Maps Downloader" are present on a core install? I'm guessing not....but I don't know why it's included in a GUI install either on a server? Only time it'd be possibly useful would be for RDS

Comment Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it (Score 1) 202

Yeah, I still have an aluminium PowerBook G4 in my garage. But the reason it....and the G5 machines became obsolete was because they switched architectures....and they had numerous heat related issues with the G5. I still remember the photoshopped pictures of the 5 inch thick PowerBook G5's.

Still, I accepted that my PowerBook G4 would be unsupported with the Intel switch because they'd reached severe limitations with the PowerPC architecture.

The main reason I'm pissed is that this particular "obsolescence" is not due to technical issues.

I know my Mac Pro won't stop working....but I paid a premium for the machine and in a couple of years time, some of the Mac only software I use may not even run on El Capitan, despite the machine itself having higher specs than a lot of the "newer" machines that can run latest software.

Comment Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it (Score 1) 202

Funny, considering all the unofficial guides to install Sierra on a Mac Pro (3,1) make no mention of needing to install drivers for it (unless you have a 3rd party graphics card), which suggests they're already in the OS.

These aren't iMacs that people check their Facebook and send a few e-mails on, they're Pro machines - designed for a completely different environment and completely different workloads. Given that, why shouldn't they be supported longer too?

Comment Re:Pity my MacPro can't run it (Score 4, Interesting) 202

You obviously have no idea how much these machines costed when they were released - especially fully loaded. Why should I not expect it to be supported longer, given the premium they demand on the Mac Pro machines?

Forced obsolescence of a perfectly capable, useful (and expensive) machine makes the Hackintosh camp a lot more appealing (mainly because of the apps I already have that are Mac only). Not to mention, the current Mac Pro's are very limited in how they can be customised after purchase.

The (1,1) and (2,1) Mac Pros were retired because they had 32-bit EFI and the new OS's needed 64-bit EFI....a technical limitation. Most of the Macs I've had that have lost support have been because of a technical limitation (be it RAM limits, 32-bit only processors, Power CPU's). This instance is just plain greed.

Microsoft obviously don't think the hardware is obsolete as Windows 10 runs flawlessly on mine in bootcamp for the Windows only stuff I do.

Comment What financial rewards? (Score 1) 122

Android is free and open source. The operating system isn't what makes the money.

Google makes money off the stuff that runs on top of the free operating system (which provides the APIs and runtimes, for free), not the operating system itself.

People are free to do what they like with that free operating system, just look at Amazon for example. They are not beholden to Google, they include and exclude what they require for themselves and that's fine. They don't pay Google a cent for that operating system that they base their devices' software off.

Slashdot Top Deals

Bus error -- driver executed.

Working...