Thing is....I dropped a whole bunch of cash on an XBOX One before the "S" was announced. I'll be damned if I'm going to replace my console now. No XBOX VR for me...no sale for them. Thanks for fragmenting the ecosystem.
Only way I'll end up with any of that kit is if the XBOX One I have, dies. And even then, it'll depend on what titles are available for VR and the price difference between a regular console and the "S" model. I don't care about 4K and a lot of other people I know don't care either.
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.
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
I kind of feel that 2016 is a bit more bloated than 2012 R2 when you install it "with GUI"
A cluster of ARM server nano would be cool though
Before getting all excited, from TFA: "The bad news? It’s still offered only to users in the United States."
Would've been nice to add that little tidbit in the summary.
If only they could have run it on some sort of cloud platform hosted in multiple countries.....
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.
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?
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.
"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken