3 ms·

Now if a fresh macOS install on a common 5-year-old laptop could be set up out of the box with a working swap (8gb ram is not enough) and working power manageme

by pxc 5y ago

Now if a fresh macOS install on a common 5-year-old laptop could be set up out of the box with a working swap (8gb ram is not enough) and working power management (staying on until battery dies is not an option) as well as working suspend and hibernate, perhaps we could some day declare the year of the Mac desktop.

smoldesu 5y ago
Now if a fresh Windows 11 install on a common 5-year-old laptop could be set up out of the box with perpetual updates (Skylake CPUs aren't new enough) and working power management (microsoft deleted my acpi tables =C) as well as working suspend and hibernate, perhaps we could some day declare the year of the Windows desktop.
- pxc 5y ago
  > microsoft deleted my acpi tables =C My first Linux experience was on a garbage-picked laptop I got for free because it had broken power management on Windows I think in its case, the hardware was somehow damaged and Linux just fell back to APM instead of ACPI, so the technical details are different but there's something nostalgic and funny to me about the prospect that this kind of thing could become a pattern :)
- ant6n 5y ago
  The Windows Desktop had many years. It may be in decline now, we'll see.
phendrenad2 5y ago
Haha. It's funny because it really actually does "just work". (Sure you can't run the latest MacOS, but that would be moving the goalposts).
- pxc 5y ago
  I'm afraid you've already moved the goalposts, yourself! Let me help you put them back: > a common 5-year-old laptop doesn't mean 'a 5-year-old Mac laptop'. The point isn't about macOS, but the proposed standard. It's this: if working on whatever random piece of hardware you happen to have lying around is a requirement for being a viable desktop operating system, macOS is not a viable desktop operating system... but of course, macOS is not only viable as a desktop OS but quite successful in its niche. So this tells us that the proposed standard is no standard at all— running without any tweaks or compromises on random hardware which was not designed, marketed, or sold as compatible is not necessary for a desktop OS to viable or a reasonable choice or whatever. (And as a sibling poster to you points out, in the case of older hardware, it's a test that Windows may sometimes fail as well, if for entirely different reasons.)

by pxc 5y ago

smoldesu 5y ago

Now if a fresh Windows 11 install on a common 5-year-old laptop could be set up out of the box with perpetual updates (Skylake CPUs aren't new enough) and working power management (microsoft deleted my acpi tables =C) as well as working suspend and hibernate, perhaps we could some day declare the year of the Windows desktop.

pxc 5y ago
> microsoft deleted my acpi tables =C My first Linux experience was on a garbage-picked laptop I got for free because it had broken power management on Windows I think in its case, the hardware was somehow damaged and Linux just fell back to APM instead of ACPI, so the technical details are different but there's something nostalgic and funny to me about the prospect that this kind of thing could become a pattern :)
ant6n 5y ago
The Windows Desktop had many years. It may be in decline now, we'll see.

phendrenad2 5y ago

Haha. It's funny because it really actually does "just work". (Sure you can't run the latest MacOS, but that would be moving the goalposts).

pxc 5y ago
I'm afraid you've already moved the goalposts, yourself! Let me help you put them back: > a common 5-year-old laptop doesn't mean 'a 5-year-old Mac laptop'. The point isn't about macOS, but the proposed standard. It's this: if working on whatever random piece of hardware you happen to have lying around is a requirement for being a viable desktop operating system, macOS is not a viable desktop operating system... but of course, macOS is not only viable as a desktop OS but quite successful in its niche. So this tells us that the proposed standard is no standard at all— running without any tweaks or compromises on random hardware which was not designed, marketed, or sold as compatible is not necessary for a desktop OS to viable or a reasonable choice or whatever. (And as a sibling poster to you points out, in the case of older hardware, it's a test that Windows may sometimes fail as well, if for entirely different reasons.)