On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:20:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

>On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
>>>>>>>> Like aircraft and cars in general.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they're
>>>>>>> constantly proved wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
>>>>>> faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
>>>>>> is add more cores.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
>>>>> the power used by an Intel equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>> That by itself, says nothing
>>>> A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
>>>> A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.
>>>
>>> It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1
>>
>> I prefer things designed for adults.
>>
>> I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.
>
>It's not Apple vs Intel it's TSMC vs Intel.
>
>Apple's processor is an ARM so it's going to be more efficient than
>intels X86

The long-term problem with Intel is that they cannot let go of the x86
architecture, and over time this has become severely limiting.

Apple had the same problem, but eventually did transition from
Motorola CPUs to Intel, gaining the ability to run Windows on Apple
desktop and laptop computers. But the Intel architecture had become
too hide-bound, and Apple was more or less forced to escape.

But I wonder how well and how long Apple's new M1 architecture will be
able to support running Windows OS and software, which is exactly what
I'm using as I type these words. (iMac (with lots of memory),
Parallels, Win10, Forte Agent.)

I may stay on Intel for that reason, for desktops, but iPhones and
iPads will go M1, because I have no reason to retain Intel there. But
I will wait for the few apps I use to have become mature on M1 first.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:03:59 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:20:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
> <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
>>>>>>>>> Like aircraft and cars in general.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they're
>>>>>>>> constantly proved wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
>>>>>>> faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
>>>>>>> is add more cores.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
>>>>>> the power used by an Intel equivalent.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That by itself, says nothing
>>>>> A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
>>>>> A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.
>>>>
>>>> It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1
>>>
>>> I prefer things designed for adults.
>>>
>>> I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.
>>
>> It's not Apple vs Intel it's TSMC vs Intel.
>>
>> Apple's processor is an ARM so it's going to be more efficient than
>> intels X86
>
> The long-term problem with Intel is that they cannot let go of the x86
> architecture, and over time this has become severely limiting.
>
> Apple had the same problem, but eventually did transition from
> Motorola CPUs to Intel, gaining the ability to run Windows on Apple
> desktop and laptop computers. But the Intel architecture had become
> too hide-bound, and Apple was more or less forced to escape.
>
> But I wonder how well and how long Apple's new M1 architecture will be
> able to support running Windows OS and software, which is exactly what
> I'm using as I type these words. (iMac (with lots of memory),
> Parallels, Win10, Forte Agent.)
>
> I may stay on Intel for that reason, for desktops, but iPhones and
> iPads will go M1, because I have no reason to retain Intel there. But
> I will wait for the few apps I use to have become mature on M1 first.

So a speed change but no compatibility? Bit of a bugger to change every program's coding.

Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:03:59 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:20:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
>> <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
>>>>>>>>>> Like aircraft and cars in general.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they're
>>>>>>>>> constantly proved wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
>>>>>>>> faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
>>>>>>>> is add more cores.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
>>>>>>> the power used by an Intel equivalent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That by itself, says nothing
>>>>>> A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
>>>>>> A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.
>>>>>
>>>>> It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1
>>>>
>>>> I prefer things designed for adults.
>>>>
>>>> I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.
>>>
>>> It's not Apple vs Intel it's TSMC vs Intel.
>>>
>>> Apple's processor is an ARM so it's going to be more efficient than
>>> intels X86
>>
>> The long-term problem with Intel is that they cannot let go of the x86
>> architecture, and over time this has become severely limiting.
>>
>> Apple had the same problem, but eventually did transition from
>> Motorola CPUs to Intel, gaining the ability to run Windows on Apple
>> desktop and laptop computers. But the Intel architecture had become
>> too hide-bound, and Apple was more or less forced to escape.
>>
>> But I wonder how well and how long Apple's new M1 architecture will be
>> able to support running Windows OS and software, which is exactly what
>> I'm using as I type these words. (iMac (with lots of memory),
>> Parallels, Win10, Forte Agent.)
>>
>> I may stay on Intel for that reason, for desktops, but iPhones and
>> iPads will go M1, because I have no reason to retain Intel there. But
>> I will wait for the few apps I use to have become mature on M1 first.
>
>So a speed change but no compatibility? Bit of a bugger to change every program's coding.
>
>Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?

Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.

Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
market research firms to run focus groups sessions, one of which I was
in. One long wall of our meeting room ad a very large mirror, one
that looked a bit odd. It was half-silvered, and there were observers
watching the from behind that "mirror".

The questions wandered around, then eventually converged. We all knew
that Apple was moving to Intel, as this had bee reported extensively
in the trade press. The question to be answered was if there had to
be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
exactly what happened.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 18:11:56 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:03:59 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:20:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
>>> <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
>>>>>>>>>>> Like aircraft and cars in general.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they're
>>>>>>>>>> constantly proved wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
>>>>>>>>> faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
>>>>>>>>> is add more cores.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
>>>>>>>> the power used by an Intel equivalent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That by itself, says nothing
>>>>>>> A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
>>>>>>> A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer things designed for adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.
>>>>
>>>> It's not Apple vs Intel it's TSMC vs Intel.
>>>>
>>>> Apple's processor is an ARM so it's going to be more efficient than
>>>> intels X86
>>>
>>> The long-term problem with Intel is that they cannot let go of the x86
>>> architecture, and over time this has become severely limiting.
>>>
>>> Apple had the same problem, but eventually did transition from
>>> Motorola CPUs to Intel, gaining the ability to run Windows on Apple
>>> desktop and laptop computers. But the Intel architecture had become
>>> too hide-bound, and Apple was more or less forced to escape.
>>>
>>> But I wonder how well and how long Apple's new M1 architecture will be
>>> able to support running Windows OS and software, which is exactly what
>>> I'm using as I type these words. (iMac (with lots of memory),
>>> Parallels, Win10, Forte Agent.)
>>>
>>> I may stay on Intel for that reason, for desktops, but iPhones and
>>> iPads will go M1, because I have no reason to retain Intel there. But
>>> I will wait for the few apps I use to have become mature on M1 first.
>>
>> So a speed change but no compatibility? Bit of a bugger to change every program's coding.
>>
>> Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>
> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.

But below you say you can emulate.

> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
> market research firms to run focus groups sessions, one of which I was
> in. One long wall of our meeting room ad a very large mirror, one
> that looked a bit odd. It was half-silvered, and there were observers
> watching the from behind that "mirror".
>
> The questions wandered around, then eventually converged. We all knew
> that Apple was moving to Intel, as this had bee reported extensively
> in the trade press. The question to be answered was if there had to
> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
> exactly what happened.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>
> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>The question to be answered was if there had to
> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
> exactly what happened.
>
> Joe Gwinn

It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
and then Power code in the Intel years.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:39:32 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>>
>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>> The question to be answered was if there had to
>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>> exactly what happened.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
> It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
> rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
> be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
> a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
> cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
> the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
> and then Power code in the Intel years.

Incompatibilities is a very big reason why I would never touch an Apple with a bargepole. Even their stupidity of dropping serial ports when adding USB instead of having a crossover time was absurd.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 18:13:56 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 18:11:56 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:03:59 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:20:48 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
>>>> <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-04-16, Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:31:06 +0100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:52:08 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/04/2022 11:35, RJH wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 16 Apr 2022 at 11:06:34 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2022 21:28, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-15, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BEVs are very mature technology. There is only a bit left to improve.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like aircraft and cars in general.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, they keep saying that about computers, too. And they're
>>>>>>>>>>> constantly proved wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are completely right about computers. They cant be clocked any
>>>>>>>>>> faster, they cant be made to work with much less power - all they can do
>>>>>>>>>> is add more cores.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The new(ish) Apple processors use a fraction (between and half and a third) of
>>>>>>>>> the power used by an Intel equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That by itself, says nothing
>>>>>>>> A Z80 uses way less power than a pentium
>>>>>>>> A motorcycle uses way less power than a ferrari.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It says everything. Less power for the same load - google Apple M1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer things designed for adults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I very much doubt Apple can beat Intel anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not Apple vs Intel it's TSMC vs Intel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple's processor is an ARM so it's going to be more efficient than
>>>>> intels X86
>>>>
>>>> The long-term problem with Intel is that they cannot let go of the x86
>>>> architecture, and over time this has become severely limiting.
>>>>
>>>> Apple had the same problem, but eventually did transition from
>>>> Motorola CPUs to Intel, gaining the ability to run Windows on Apple
>>>> desktop and laptop computers. But the Intel architecture had become
>>>> too hide-bound, and Apple was more or less forced to escape.
>>>>
>>>> But I wonder how well and how long Apple's new M1 architecture will be
>>>> able to support running Windows OS and software, which is exactly what
>>>> I'm using as I type these words. (iMac (with lots of memory),
>>>> Parallels, Win10, Forte Agent.)
>>>>
>>>> I may stay on Intel for that reason, for desktops, but iPhones and
>>>> iPads will go M1, because I have no reason to retain Intel there. But
>>>> I will wait for the few apps I use to have become mature on M1 first.
>>>
>>> So a speed change but no compatibility? Bit of a bugger to change every program's coding.
>>>
>>> Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>>
>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>
>But below you say you can emulate.
>
>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions, one of which I was
>> in. One long wall of our meeting room ad a very large mirror, one
>> that looked a bit odd. It was half-silvered, and there were observers
>> watching the from behind that "mirror".
>>
>> The questions wandered around, then eventually converged. We all knew
>> that Apple was moving to Intel, as this had bee reported extensively
>> in the trade press. The question to be answered was if there had to
>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>> exactly what happened.

Making an emulation _that_ good is a very big deal, and there has been
no talk from Apple of doing any such thing.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:39:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>>
>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>>The question to be answered was if there had to
>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>> exactly what happened.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
>It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
>rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
>be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
>a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
>cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
>the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
>and then Power code in the Intel years.

Yes, but never mind the details, Apple did get it to work very well,
and maintained it for about ten years, then ceased to support it. By
then, most of those critical apps wee no longer critical, or had been
killed off by something else.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:15:57 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:39:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>>>
>>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>>> The question to be answered was if there had to
>>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>>> exactly what happened.
>>>
>>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>> It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
>> rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
>> be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
>> a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
>> cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
>> the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
>> and then Power code in the Intel years.
>
> Yes, but never mind the details, Apple did get it to work very well,
> and maintained it for about ten years, then ceased to support it. By
> then, most of those critical apps wee no longer critical, or had been
> killed off by something else.

Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 3:36:35 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.

Not an uncommon view, but inaccurate. Excel, for example, started life
as macintosh-only code; the Windows version was an afterthought, ported
over.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 01:20:29 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 3:36:35 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.
>
> Not an uncommon view, but inaccurate. Excel, for example, started life
> as macintosh-only code; the Windows version was an afterthought, ported
> over.

Gotta start somewhere. Things tend to improve.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:36:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:15:57 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:39:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>>>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>>>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>>>>
>>>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>>>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>>>> The question to be answered was if there had to
>>>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>>>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>>>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>>>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>>>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>>>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>>>> exactly what happened.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>
>>> It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
>>> rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
>>> be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
>>> a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
>>> cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
>>> the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
>>> and then Power code in the Intel years.
>>
>> Yes, but never mind the details, Apple did get it to work very well,
>> and maintained it for about ten years, then ceased to support it. By
>> then, most of those critical apps wee no longer critical, or had been
>> killed off by something else.
>
>Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.

Well I've never been accused of being arty, but OK.

But for really critical stuff, nobody uses Windows for sure. It's
Linux all the way, often controlling bespoke FPGA hardware.

Why no Windows? Well, the US Navy tried, in the SmartShip IT-21
program, for which the USS Yorktown was the testbed.

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)>

Long story short, someone in the engine room entered a bad value of an
input form for pump performance recording, and crashed the Windows
computer system and all associated shipwide networks. The ship was
dead in the water, without propulsion, steering, or weapons. What
could go wrong?

Fortunately they were far from land, and not in a battle, so they
didn't get sunk or blunder into anything. They had to reboot the
entire ship. This all took about three hours.

That was the end of SmartShip - only the name survived, used only for
administrative activities, isolated from all tactical networks.

UNIX was the follow-on answer, but the various big platform vendors
became too expensive and too inflexible, and over time everything
migrated to Linux, mostly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which IBM
subsequently acquired. Wonder if IBM has learned anything since DoD
abandoned AIX.

Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 02:36:21 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:36:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:15:57 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:39:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>>>>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>>>>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>>>>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>>>>> The question to be answered was if there had to
>>>>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>>>>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>>>>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>>>>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>>>>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>>>>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>>>>> exactly what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>>
>>>> It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
>>>> rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
>>>> be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
>>>> a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
>>>> cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
>>>> the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
>>>> and then Power code in the Intel years.
>>>
>>> Yes, but never mind the details, Apple did get it to work very well,
>>> and maintained it for about ten years, then ceased to support it. By
>>> then, most of those critical apps wee no longer critical, or had been
>>> killed off by something else.
>>
>> Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.
>
> Well I've never been accused of being arty, but OK.
>
> But for really critical stuff, nobody uses Windows for sure. It's
> Linux all the way, often controlling bespoke FPGA hardware.
>
> Why no Windows? Well, the US Navy tried, in the SmartShip IT-21
> program, for which the USS Yorktown was the testbed.
>
> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)>
>
> Long story short, someone in the engine room entered a bad value of an
> input form for pump performance recording, and crashed the Windows
> computer system and all associated shipwide networks. The ship was
> dead in the water, without propulsion, steering, or weapons. What
> could go wrong?
>
> Fortunately they were far from land, and not in a battle, so they
> didn't get sunk or blunder into anything. They had to reboot the
> entire ship. This all took about three hours.
>
> That was the end of SmartShip - only the name survived, used only for
> administrative activities, isolated from all tactical networks.
>
> UNIX was the follow-on answer, but the various big platform vendors
> became too expensive and too inflexible, and over time everything
> migrated to Linux, mostly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which IBM
> subsequently acquired. Wonder if IBM has learned anything since DoD
> abandoned AIX.

Windows 3 decades ago is not equal to Windows today.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:53:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 02:36:21 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:36:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:15:57 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:39:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>>>>>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>>>>>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>>>>>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>>>>>> The question to be answered was if there had to
>>>>>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>>>>>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>>>>>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>>>>>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>>>>>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>>>>>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>>>>>> exactly what happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
>>>>> rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
>>>>> be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
>>>>> a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
>>>>> cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
>>>>> the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
>>>>> and then Power code in the Intel years.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but never mind the details, Apple did get it to work very well,
>>>> and maintained it for about ten years, then ceased to support it. By
>>>> then, most of those critical apps wee no longer critical, or had been
>>>> killed off by something else.
>>>
>>> Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.
>>
>> Well I've never been accused of being arty, but OK.
>>
>> But for really critical stuff, nobody uses Windows for sure. It's
>> Linux all the way, often controlling bespoke FPGA hardware.
>>
>> Why no Windows? Well, the US Navy tried, in the SmartShip IT-21
>> program, for which the USS Yorktown was the testbed.
>>
>> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)>
>>
>> Long story short, someone in the engine room entered a bad value of an
>> input form for pump performance recording, and crashed the Windows
>> computer system and all associated shipwide networks. The ship was
>> dead in the water, without propulsion, steering, or weapons. What
>> could go wrong?
>>
>> Fortunately they were far from land, and not in a battle, so they
>> didn't get sunk or blunder into anything. They had to reboot the
>> entire ship. This all took about three hours.
>>
>> That was the end of SmartShip - only the name survived, used only for
>> administrative activities, isolated from all tactical networks.
>>
>> UNIX was the follow-on answer, but the various big platform vendors
>> became too expensive and too inflexible, and over time everything
>> migrated to Linux, mostly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which IBM
>> subsequently acquired. Wonder if IBM has learned anything since DoD
>> abandoned AIX.
>
>Windows 3 decades ago is not equal to Windows today.

True, but even today's Windows is not suited to anything truly mission
critical, like a ships weapon systems. A ships self-defense system
(defending against Mach 0.8 cruise missiles like the Neptunes recently
used to sink the Moskva in the Black Sea) is instructive: From
appearance (at the horizon about 20 miles away) to impact is about 20
seconds. Use them wisely.

And by the way, if the self-defense missile isn't moving on the launch
rails in maybe 5 seconds, intercept becomes impossible, so pray that
the CIWS succeeds.

Nor does Microsoft claim otherwise, even today.

It's also too late. All the Navy folk and consultants who sold IT-21
to the Brass suffered severe career damage, many succumbing to wounds
received in The Yorktown Incident. And the survivors were badly
scalded.

It will take more decades than Windows will last for the Navy to get
over its Windows aversion.

And Linux does work, so there is little pressure.

Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 19:03:22 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 15:53:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 02:36:21 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:36:26 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 23:15:57 +0100, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 14:39:32 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 10:12:09 AM UTC-7, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 13:55:55 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>>> <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Anyway, within the x86 architecture they keep adding instructions etc. Can't it be improved out of the mess?
>>>>>>> Not without giving up un backward compatibility and making a clean
>>>>>>> break. Which has been against Intel theology for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple went through the same thing, and eventually hired a bunch of
>>>>>>> market research firms to run focus groups sessions...
>>>>>>> The question to be answered was if there had to
>>>>>>> be a Motorola processor on the motherboard, or would a really good
>>>>>>> emulator suffice. The vast majority of those in the focus (myself
>>>>>>> included) said that no Motorola hardware was needed, so long as the
>>>>>>> emulation was in fact that good, because we all had essential software
>>>>>>> that could not be replaced for one reason or another. I assume that
>>>>>>> most of the focus groups came to the same answer, because that's
>>>>>>> exactly what happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was a stretch, though; there was a 'toolbox' runtime library, and the
>>>>>> rewrite of that was probably the first need, because it would normally
>>>>>> be cached, and a two-stage emulator-plus-toolbox requirement used
>>>>>> a LOT of cache. Apple had some PowerPC processors made with extra-large
>>>>>> cache in the early days of the 68k-to-Power changeover, and eventually
>>>>>> the OS'es became incompatible as emulations were dropped, first 68k
>>>>>> and then Power code in the Intel years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but never mind the details, Apple did get it to work very well,
>>>>> and maintained it for about ten years, then ceased to support it. By
>>>>> then, most of those critical apps wee no longer critical, or had been
>>>>> killed off by something else.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.
>>>
>>> Well I've never been accused of being arty, but OK.
>>>
>>> But for really critical stuff, nobody uses Windows for sure. It's
>>> Linux all the way, often controlling bespoke FPGA hardware.
>>>
>>> Why no Windows? Well, the US Navy tried, in the SmartShip IT-21
>>> program, for which the USS Yorktown was the testbed.
>>>
>>> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)>
>>>
>>> Long story short, someone in the engine room entered a bad value of an
>>> input form for pump performance recording, and crashed the Windows
>>> computer system and all associated shipwide networks. The ship was
>>> dead in the water, without propulsion, steering, or weapons. What
>>> could go wrong?
>>>
>>> Fortunately they were far from land, and not in a battle, so they
>>> didn't get sunk or blunder into anything. They had to reboot the
>>> entire ship. This all took about three hours.
>>>
>>> That was the end of SmartShip - only the name survived, used only for
>>> administrative activities, isolated from all tactical networks.
>>>
>>> UNIX was the follow-on answer, but the various big platform vendors
>>> became too expensive and too inflexible, and over time everything
>>> migrated to Linux, mostly Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), which IBM
>>> subsequently acquired. Wonder if IBM has learned anything since DoD
>>> abandoned AIX.
>>
>> Windows 3 decades ago is not equal to Windows today.
>
> True, but even today's Windows is not suited to anything truly mission
> critical, like a ships weapon systems.

I couldn't crash Windows 11 if I tried.

> A ships self-defense system
> (defending against Mach 0.8 cruise missiles like the Neptunes recently
> used to sink the Moskva in the Black Sea) is instructive: From
> appearance (at the horizon about 20 miles away) to impact is about 20
> seconds. Use them wisely.
>
> And by the way, if the self-defense missile isn't moving on the launch
> rails in maybe 5 seconds, intercept becomes impossible, so pray that
> the CIWS succeeds.
>
> Nor does Microsoft claim otherwise, even today.
>
> It's also too late. All the Navy folk and consultants who sold IT-21
> to the Brass suffered severe career damage, many succumbing to wounds
> received in The Yorktown Incident. And the survivors were badly
> scalded.
>
> It will take more decades than Windows will last for the Navy to get
> over its Windows aversion.
>
> And Linux does work, so there is little pressure.

Only if you can understand it, and you need really thick glasses and a weird haircut to do so.

On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:52:51 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:20:33 AM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 3:36:35 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >
> > > Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.
> >
> > Not an uncommon view, but inaccurate. Excel, for example, started life
> > as macintosh-only code; the Windows version was an afterthought, ported
> > over.
> Isn't Excel just a Windows steal of Viscalc? Lotus 1-2-3 came next, so Excel is more a Chinese copy of that that exploited the Widows graphical user interface - and of course the MacIntosh had the first commercial graphical user interface, copied from the Xerox PARC Alto machines (of which there were a couple of thousand, although it was never marketed).
>
> Visicalc was the killer application for the original Apple 2 computer. Dan Flystra made a lot of money out of it - I had an acquaintance at MIT at the time, who had run into Flystra who was also active in starting up Byte (which was how I got to be foundation subscriber to the magazine).

The Visicalc clone by Microsoft was MultiPlan; it was Mac users of Excel that convinced 'em to start over
as they Windows-ed up their application, and Excel 2 for Windows was their first Intel-processor release.
Apple's big win came with LaserWriters that could do the WYSIWYG thing, along with inexpensive
local networking.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 03:21:52 +0100, whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 7:52:51 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:20:33 AM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
>> > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 3:36:35 PM UTC-7, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> >
>> > > Nobody does anything critical with a Mac anyway. They're just for arty folk.
>> >
>> > Not an uncommon view, but inaccurate. Excel, for example, started life
>> > as macintosh-only code; the Windows version was an afterthought, ported
>> > over.
>> Isn't Excel just a Windows steal of Viscalc? Lotus 1-2-3 came next, so Excel is more a Chinese copy of that that exploited the Widows graphical user interface - and of course the MacIntosh had the first commercial graphical user interface, copied from the Xerox PARC Alto machines (of which there were a couple of thousand, although it was never marketed).
>>
>> Visicalc was the killer application for the original Apple 2 computer. Dan Flystra made a lot of money out of it - I had an acquaintance at MIT at the time, who had run into Flystra who was also active in starting up Byte (which was how I got to be foundation subscriber to the magazine).
>
> The Visicalc clone by Microsoft was MultiPlan; it was Mac users of Excel that convinced 'em to start over
> as they Windows-ed up their application, and Excel 2 for Windows was their first Intel-processor release.
> Apple's big win came with LaserWriters that could do the WYSIWYG thing, along with inexpensive
> local networking.

I'm guessing you never tried to use appletalk.