Mostly agree. I abandoned the Mac around Systen 7.5 era for the 486DX 66Mhz. The multitasking and protected memory spaces put it in advance of the Mac, and the CPUs started to lag the competition as well.

I came back in the OS X era (can't remember if I ever had Cheetah, but I definitely had Jaguar) where although the chips were a bit slower overall it didn't matter much because the OS was just better. Now the chips are better, the OS is better (for versions of 'better' that don't include gaming)...but the OS as compared to its own standards is worse than it used to be. Better than Win 11 - hmm. Not the highest bar anymore.

Which, to be honest, fundamentally misunderstands used RAM readings. Vast majority of that 'used' RAM is in easily discardable caches - Apple had the same PR problem with misleading reports when they released whatever the version was about 4-5 years ago and their tools reported full memory.

Windows does use more RAM than most, but it showing almost all the RAM full is the same kind of caching strategy that macOS uses. Apple eventually started calling this "Memory Pressure" and gave it a simple traffic light system. RAM is doing you no good if it's free, might as well use it to cache if there's not a hard requirement for it right that moment.

I strongly believe Word peaked with Word 4.2 on the Mac - System 6, 1Mb RAM. There are those who would argue 5.1a on the Mac because it included envelope printing, but it was much, much slower and needed more like 2 or 4Mb.

Then they unified the version numbers across the platforms and moved to this pcode stuff in v6. This was so bad and so slow on the Mac that they actually issued an apology for it. Things have gone downhill since then, and v6 was released 1994.

You haven't? How about this evidence, or this evidence, or perhaps this evidence, or...

You get the idea. The article doesn't say anything about a court order one way or the other, so we simply don't know the state there. Given previous track record, it's likely the request was made legally if Apple complied with it.

You''ve added the word 'more' here and that wasn't in the original statement. The original statement is 100% correct. It would also be correct for Java, Javascript , C#...but it's still correctly used here.

That other things are also bad is no reason to not try to look at and change your own situation.

If I could paraphrase slightly - "other than the primary use case, there are no use cases". What you describe is exactly the use case - people running full desktop environments or closed-off deployment environments on top of a VMware frame.

A migration for many organisations would be huge to organise and costly since big bang-style would be out of the question. Lots of migrations that kick off let's say today wouldn't have concluded within 3-5 years. Would not shock me if longer exists as well.

In what way is it locked? It's a Unix box with a pretty front end, it doesn't restrict software installed and you can swap out anything.

iOS - yes, and I can't really think of a good use of an iPad for me. But the Mac is an open machine.

It's legal proceedings. He should have made his calls to Mumbo Jumbo. Abra Kadabra is purely for client presentation calls.

The point isn't to use it. The point is to stop you using the actually open source competitor. They're trying to get you concentrated on using nvidia kit until you're bored of AI, not on some general purpose kit until you're bored of AI. That's it - this isn't quite 'embrace, extend, extinguish' it's more 'announce, divert, extinguish'.

Less alliterative, but still true.

Let's see... there is a *much* lower than 1 in 4,200 chance of my toy drone injuring anyone or damaging anyone's property but it's controlled by very strict regulations that are supposed to be their for the public's safety and hugely constrain where and when I can fly it.

Someone explain how this works.

Yes - Apple have testified that they do not link data from the applications together. The 3rd party ones do link the data together. Hence the law suit.
br I'm neither the defence nor the prosecution so I don't have internal Apple evidence. The case has gone through before though, hence my title of "oh no not again". The solution had been agreed by the competition regulators, this is the 3rd parties opening it all up again.

Been following this one out of morbid curiosity for a few months. The reason the Apple ones don't show the same prompts as the third-party ones is they don't do the tracking as those third-parties. If they do, they ask for the same permission. Apple don't want to prompt for permission to do something they're not doing (at least in that app).

Personally I hope all the ad tracking of both sides just dies in a fire, but it does seem completely reasonable not to be forced to prompt to get permission for something you're not actually doing or going to do.

Make Lynx Great Again!!!!!

You kids and your graphical browsers... bah!

And while you're at it, get off my lawn!

I knew someone who worked at Psygnosis (later Studio Liverpool, later dead...), and got to play early cuts of Ridge Racer and Wipeout. It was clear at the time that this was a step above anything else that was out and it was going to be a huge success.

I also remember hating the name when it first appeared as well - PSX was the pre-launch name, and it seems to have stuck around in people's consciousness since as well.

The real-life initialLuddites were protesting working conditions and quality, not the machines per se. They threatened to destroy the machines because of low pay and poor quality output when they were made to operate them. That movement changed, and did eventually look more like a full on "destroy the machines" movement, true.

It's a pet hobby-horse of mine - the origins of the movement are far more nuanced, and directly applicable in fact, than the dismissive way we use the word today.