On 2022-07-04 10:33:20 +0000, seasoned_geek said:

> On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:33:33 PM UTC-5, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/3/2022 10:14 AM, seasoned_geek wrote:
>>> That's exactly what people who know nothing said about Apple each and
>>> every time it completely abandoned a platform.
>> And why Apple jumped through hoops to make the new platforms compatible
>> with the old.
>
> Not really.
> https://www.howtogeek.com/677270/deja-vu-a-brief-history-of-every-mac-cpu-architecture/
>
>
> I never heard of anyone being able to use Lisa software on Macintosh or
> any Macintosh stuff being able to run on iMac.

Lisa is from ~1983, and failed in the market.

The Mac got going in ~1984 with Motorola 68000 hardware, and later
migrated to IBM/Motorola PPC hardware.

I'll skip forward to the last ~quarter-century of Mac history in the
following...

Pre-Y2K OS 9 "Classic" apps continued to run on Mac PPC OS X hardware
using the Classic support available through OS X 10.5. Then PPC apps
continued until OS X 10.7 on Intel hardware, using Rosetta. Intel apps
now are continuing to run on Mac with Apple silicon hardware using
Rosetta 2.

PPC to Intel was a fast transition, yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Intel_processors

Intel to Apple silicon got going in 2020, and there are at least two
Intel models still being sold. Here's the transition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silicon

Apple doesn't keep the old hardware and under- or un-maintained apps
around all that long after a transition, but never has. Apple does keep
the transitional stuff around for a hardware generation or so.

In parallel, the 32-bit to 64-bit transition took a ~decade; from OS X
10.5 or so, and the transition was completed with macOS 10.15 and the
removal of 32-bit APIs and frameworks. OpenVMS tried a different
approach for this migration, keeping everything. Or at least trying to.
Which makes adopting the resulting 64-bit environment more complex
particularly for new work, and means that some of the more problematic
APIs are also still in active use.

The iMac product name has been used for hardware with PPC, Intel, and
Apple silicon processors, and models have booted and run Classic, OS X,
and now macOS, so that name doesn't narrow down the transition as much
as might be assumed.

> Apple completely abandons its customer base with each processor change.
> The switch to Apple made ARM processors for notebooks/laptops/desktops
> may be the only switch with a semi-compatible code base for the OS . .
> . assuming they stick with their butchered BSD.

Rosetta and Rosetta 2 work well. A whole lot of folks have been using
Rosetta 2 to run their Intel apps on their Apple silicon Macs, too.

One area that's been lumpy for folks buying Apple silicon Macs have
been those folks trying to use Intel operating systems on Apple silicon
hardware, and Apple never supported that. Absent a hypervisor with
emulation (UTM, or QEMU directly, etc), the operating system needs to
be ported. The Linux port is working. Windows for Arm is working too,
though Microsoft is not (yet?) selling and not supporting that as a
product for use on Apple silicon Macs.

> Phones have a market life of about six months. You need lead time if
> you are going to use "the cool new hardware"

Google Pixel was getting up to three years of updates, last I checked.

Cheaper and generic and Android phones tend to be much closer to
disposable, yes.

Apple iPhone tends to go for three to five years from purchase, there
are a lot of folks still running yet older models.

For updates, iPhone 6s (2015) and newer models are all getting updates
to the current iOS 15 version.

iPhone 8 (2017) and newer will be getting support and updates for the
upcoming iOS 16 version, arriving later this year.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 2022-07-04 18:44:52 +0000, seasoned_geek said:

> On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 5:50:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2022-07-03 20:29:43 +0000, seasoned_geek said: I'm serious. What
>> evidence might or will convince you to change your beliefs? While we're
>> being serious.
>
> Actually, Hoff, why are you having such a tough time chewing and
> swallowing the idea the people working for Microsoft are working on a
> "Windows Desktop for Linux?"

Because I don't see the Linux desktop as a market large enough for
Microsoft to bother with, and WSL and WSL 2 does a good job of allowing
those needing Linux or Unix tooling to operate on Windows with the
Windows desktop.

And you can run Wayland or X as your UI, if you want or need that:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/tutorials/gui-apps

But for growth? Not so much.

As for Microsoft UIs, UWP came and went, and Windows App SDK is the UI
plan now, and there will undoubtedly be other new choices. But—outside
of those needing app portability—I doubt it'll be Wayland with whatever
app toolkit being the choice for most.

More generally, Microsoft has been transitioning to Azure and to
hosting services, as that's where they clearly believe the market is
going and where the growth is. They want to host and manage, well,
everything. Including with Azure AD, and the rest.

There are folks posting here—here, in usenet—that might not like or
might not use hosting, but there are a whole lot of other folks that
can and do use hosting, and that hosting market is consolidating toward
AWS, GCP, and Azure.

And I'll take your reply here as also meaning "there's nothing anybody
could cite that will convince you otherwise", and will accordingly exit
the thread.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

In article <ta28vo$3q5kr$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh@hoffmanlabs.invalid> writes:
>On 2022-07-04 10:33:20 +0000, seasoned_geek said:
>
>> On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 8:33:33 PM UTC-5, Arne Vajh�j wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2022 10:14 AM, seasoned_geek wrote:
>>>> That's exactly what people who know nothing said about Apple each and
>>>> every time it completely abandoned a platform.
>>> And why Apple jumped through hoops to make the new platforms compatible
>>> with the old.
>>
>> Not really.
>> https://www.howtogeek.com/677270/deja-vu-a-brief-history-of-every-mac-cpu-architecture/
>>
>>
>> I never heard of anyone being able to use Lisa software on Macintosh or
>> any Macintosh stuff being able to run on iMac.
>
>Lisa is from ~1983, and failed in the market.
>
>The Mac got going in ~1984 with Motorola 68000 hardware, and later
>migrated to IBM/Motorola PPC hardware.
>
>I'll skip forward to the last ~quarter-century of Mac history in the
>following...
>
>Pre-Y2K OS 9 "Classic" apps continued to run on Mac PPC OS X hardware
>using the Classic support available through OS X 10.5. Then PPC apps
>continued until OS X 10.7 on Intel hardware, using Rosetta. Intel apps
>now are continuing to run on Mac with Apple silicon hardware using
>Rosetta 2.
>
>PPC to Intel was a fast transition, yes.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Intel_processors
>
>Intel to Apple silicon got going in 2020, and there are at least two
>Intel models still being sold. Here's the transition:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silicon
>
>Apple doesn't keep the old hardware and under- or un-maintained apps
>around all that long after a transition, but never has. Apple does keep
>the transitional stuff around for a hardware generation or so.
>
>In parallel, the 32-bit to 64-bit transition took a ~decade; from OS X
>10.5 or so, and the transition was completed with macOS 10.15 and the
>removal of 32-bit APIs and frameworks. OpenVMS tried a different
>approach for this migration, keeping everything. Or at least trying to.
>Which makes adopting the resulting 64-bit environment more complex
>particularly for new work, and means that some of the more problematic
>APIs are also still in active use.
>
>The iMac product name has been used for hardware with PPC, Intel, and
>Apple silicon processors, and models have booted and run Classic, OS X,
>and now macOS, so that name doesn't narrow down the transition as much
>as might be assumed.
>
>> Apple completely abandons its customer base with each processor change.
>> The switch to Apple made ARM processors for notebooks/laptops/desktops
>> may be the only switch with a semi-compatible code base for the OS . .
>> . assuming they stick with their butchered BSD.
>
>Rosetta and Rosetta 2 work well. A whole lot of folks have been using
>Rosetta 2 to run their Intel apps on their Apple silicon Macs, too.
>
>One area that's been lumpy for folks buying Apple silicon Macs have
>been those folks trying to use Intel operating systems on Apple silicon
>hardware, and Apple never supported that. Absent a hypervisor with
>emulation (UTM, or QEMU directly, etc), the operating system needs to
>be ported. The Linux port is working. Windows for Arm is working too,
>though Microsoft is not (yet?) selling and not supporting that as a
>product for use on Apple silicon Macs.
>
>> Phones have a market life of about six months. You need lead time if
>> you are going to use "the cool new hardware"
>
>Google Pixel was getting up to three years of updates, last I checked.
>
>Cheaper and generic and Android phones tend to be much closer to
>disposable, yes.
>
>Apple iPhone tends to go for three to five years from purchase, there
>are a lot of folks still running yet older models.
>
>For updates, iPhone 6s (2015) and newer models are all getting updates
>to the current iOS 15 version.
>
>iPhone 8 (2017) and newer will be getting support and updates for the
>upcoming iOS 16 version, arriving later this year.

.... and then, they released Big Sewer and lost me as an Apple fanboi.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

On 7/5/2022 5:32 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> As for Microsoft UIs, UWP came and went, and Windows App SDK is the UI
> plan now, and there will undoubtedly be other new choices. But—outside
> of those needing app portability—I doubt it'll be Wayland with whatever
> app toolkit being the choice for most.

MS UI is a big mess.

Originally it was Win32 API.

Then came MFC.

Then came WinForms for .NET.

Then came WPF for .NET (incl. SL).

Then came Metro / Modern UI / UWP / Windows Store app / MS Store app
that was based on WinRT which is an extension of COM (IUnknown
and IInspectable) but with .NET meta data.

And now we got Xamarin/MAUI which is back to .NET.

> More generally, Microsoft has been transitioning to Azure and to hosting
> services, as that's where they clearly believe the market is going and
> where the growth is. They want to host and manage, well, everything.
> Including with Azure AD, and the rest.
>
> There are folks posting here—here, in usenet—that might not like or
> might not use hosting, but there are a whole lot of other folks that can
> and do use hosting, and that hosting market is consolidating toward AWS,
> GCP, and Azure.

Some years ago there were a prediction that 90% of server workload
would move to public cloud. Right now that predictions looks to
be on track to become reality!

Arne