Please MS just go to hell...

[Karel]

I prefer KDE & Plasma desktop. You can tweak almost everything, it's the most configurable desktop.
After a fresh install it takes me 20 min. or so to change all kinds of settings in order to make it look like win2000 
In system settings, select "MS Windows 9x" as application style and "Plastik" for window decorations.
Right-click on the startmenu button and change to a traditional startmenu (cascading).

The same with Dolphin, the filemanager. Spend some time to set it up and configure it.
No need to install plugins or tools.

The only problem of KDE & Plasma desktop is that the default settings looks shitty.
But I can live with that as long as I can configure the things I want to change.
A small prise to pay for the best desktop available at the moment.

[Just_another_Dave]

Linux on the desktop will never be a thing so I wouldn’t worry. I said that in 1998 and have been right for 23 years so far 

Things have changed. Desktop Linux is increasingly usable these days, even for non-tech-savvy people. That may never be a significant market share, but I wouldn't be that confident thinking that MS will never care about it and will essentially leave Linux alone. That's what I'm a bit worried about. I have no certainty that in some point in the future, they won't try to make life miserable for people willing to use Linux. They already sort of tried with all this secure boot thing that could prevent people from booting Linux unless you disabled it. There are tons of ways that could make it very hard to run Linux on regular computers, probably always with the same excuse: security.

If you think being able to use free software tools, if you so wish, is guaranteed forever, well. I'm not all that sure myself anymore. And if that ever effectively gets compromised, MS probably won't be last to contribute.

They may not feel threatened by desktop Linux whatsoever at this point, but they certainly don't want to risk that. And they don't want people to have alternatives either. And even if it's still a small minority, it's becoming clear lately that a fraction of Windows users is actively looking for alternatives.

Taking into account how difficult changing the operating system of most tablets and mobile phones, it’s a matter of time that the same practices of impeding the user to change it and not having drivers publicly available extends to computers. Profesional workstations may probably still allow to use Linux (some companies need to be able to run programs that just run in UNIX environments), but I won’t be surprised if at some point small laptops like chromebooks stop allowing to install whichever OS you want

[madires]

Next hype: Windows 365 - your personal virtual Windows PC

[bd139]

Linux on the desktop will never be a thing so I wouldn’t worry. I said that in 1998 and have been right for 23 years so far 

Things have changed. Desktop Linux is increasingly usable these days, even for non-tech-savvy people. That may never be a significant market share, but I wouldn't be that confident thinking that MS will never care about it and will essentially leave Linux alone. That's what I'm a bit worried about. I have no certainty that in some point in the future, they won't try to make life miserable for people willing to use Linux. They already sort of tried with all this secure boot thing that could prevent people from booting Linux unless you disabled it. There are tons of ways that could make it very hard to run Linux on regular computers, probably always with the same excuse: security.

If you think being able to use free software tools, if you so wish, is guaranteed forever, well. I'm not all that sure myself anymore. And if that ever effectively gets compromised, MS probably won't be last to contribute.

They may not feel threatened by desktop Linux whatsoever at this point, but they certainly don't want to risk that. And they don't want people to have alternatives either. And even if it's still a small minority, it's becoming clear lately that a fraction of Windows users is actively looking for alternatives.

Taking into account how difficult changing the operating system of most tablets and mobile phones, it’s a matter of time that the same practices of impeding the user to change it and not having drivers publicly available extends to computers. Profesional workstations may probably still allow to use Linux (some companies need to be able to run programs that just run in UNIX environments), but I won’t be surprised if at some point small laptops like chromebooks stop allowing to install whichever OS you want

I doubt that. There are no PCs or macs on the market that you can’t replace the OS on. Even the new M1 macs have an open boot loader.

[bd139]

Next hype: Windows 365 - your personal virtual Windows PC

This is a really good thing because it means I can use one as a control machine from my Mac circumventing the security policy which means I have to have a windows laptop. And I don’t need some rancid x86 VM poisoning my ARM laptop.

[rsjsouza]

And I don’t need some rancid x86 VM poisoning my ARM laptop.

I love VMs, but that was too funny

[edy]

I just read part of the thread, very interesting. Just went through buying a couple of refurbed i5 machines (HP EliteDesk 800G1 SFF i5-4570 and Lenovo M90P USFF i5-650) made sometime around 2013 and 2010 respectively. They both came with Win10 64 bit PRO installed on them (NOT ORIGINALLY... I can see by the history that they were both upgraded to Win10 sometime along from either Win7 or 8, and being both OEM channel machines they *DO* allow license transfers).

I needed to wipe them, put Win10 32 bit PRO on both to support a couple legacy hardware devices that only come with 32 bit drivers. I was able to transfer the licenses from the pre-installed 64-bit OS's to my installs of the 32-bit OS, so all is activated (as mentioned previously, it appears even OEM licenses can be transferred once but in this case hardware DID NOT CHANGE, I just needed to reinstall the OS and decided on 32 vs 64 bit - so technically shouldn't even register on the "transfer" count). Bummer is that even though both machines have 8 GB RAM, it's mostly useless due to 32 bit limit. But these were the cheapest "business class" i5 machines I could buy.

I asked the store if I could get the refurbs OS-less, but they don't sell any, which means I just bought 2 licenses from Microsoft essentially without needing them (as I could just as easily have activated Windows by pulling the licenses from the older Celeron computers these are replacing). NOTE: The older computers also run Win10 PRO and they are maybe 13 years old, no problems. The *ONLY* reason I even upgraded them is because they are pulling support from the current version of the proprietary software I am using, and insisting on everyone upgrading to the next version... and I need to meet minimum requirements of i5 machines. I can't refuse because this mission-critical software needs to communicate with 3rd parties as part of it's main function, and protocols keep changing so they make sure their software is up to date with changes. Otherwise if it was stand-alone I wouldn't care.

Personally I use LINUX at home and set up all my kids laptops with it. All on machines as old as these, or older. However, in my small office I need to run proprietary software that requires Windows networking and specific hardware that only works on Win 32 bit (due to drivers). So I'm stuck dealing with Windows. If it wasn't for that, I would be rid of Windows long ago.

I've tried to virtualize some of my office to some extent. Before I needed to upgrade to Win10, I was actually virtualizing a few WinXP Mode machines on Linux and they were playing nicely with the rest of the Windows machines in the office. The VM's had no problem running this proprietary Win-only software I am using, and also connected fine to the specialized hardware using those 32-bit drivers. I just gave the VM access to the USB ports and it ran fine. However, to put Linux on every computer in my office and expect my entire staff to work out of VMs running Win10 and expecting all to work efficiently (using SQLServer database within the VM that my Windows-only software uses) would be too much to ask.

So for now at least, I'll just have to work around all of Microsoft's B.S., until I find a replacement of my proprietary software that is either cloud-based or available for Linux. By the way, the cost to get set up with it costs $16,000 and annual upkeep which is mandatory is another $2500-3000, but so are all of the competitors too (none of which offer a Linux version as far as I know), and the market is fairly small so that's why they charge so much. Nevertheless, this mission-critical software helps you run your business so compared to all the other costs, it's really nothing for such an important role. And now that it has all of our stuff in it... it's a pain and costly exporting/importing data if you want to migrate to a different software package. Which means that it is still CHEAPER for me to buy a bunch of new computers that meet Windows requirements if I'm forced an upgrade, vs. changing to another specialized software vendor!

[PKTKS]

geez... what to conclude.. 

MS is a total  spherical liability ...

There is not possible best angle to view otherwise.

In our buz our home our life...

I am  very worried to see their filthy hands on LINUX.. 
it already stinks MS in several new changes.

Paul

[bd139]

No offense intended but that stinks of mismanagement rather than anything vendor specific.

When you optimise for lowest cost, you eventually always end up spending maximum time. And that's where you are now hacking around with all that shit rather than delivering business value.

I've dealt with my fair amount of Windows legacy and the only problem has been that the people who provisioned it didn't do a proper TCO analysis and a what if. They bought something shiny and assumed it'd work forever.

It's not like this doesn't happen on Linux either. I had some dedicated hardware (specialist serial interface) the vendor only supported on Linux 2.4 binary modules. Contacted vendor and they told us to fuck off. Well that meant we had to drag an ancient version of Linux around. Or not. The module was only 24k so I disassmbled it, reverse engineered it over the space of 3 months and wrote a new driver from scratch. It was about 5000 lines of C.

I did exactly the same thing 5 years before on NT...

[PKTKS]

I have been on this trail countless times...

Even before I could tell MS to fuck off .. they had already changed everything.

Made everything unsupported buggy and requiring new hardware and license.

So what.. to say the least it is indeed more "manageable" to have the sources..
To craft our/your buz in solid base (instead of MS vanished ones)

Once you have control over your hardware and assets and code..
you do have control of value and options ahead

They gave me deep prejudice by just telling me to fuck off and pay gain..

Countless times over 1/2/3 decades? since 80s....

One day .. I just told them to fuck off.

Never regretted

Paul

[bd139]

This is my point about mismanagement.

If you have a requirement to be in control of your hardware and assets you should put that in as a use case at the start of the purchasing cycle and include that in the TCO calculation over the expected lifecycle of the software. In fact the company I work for pays escrow for commercial software, so that if the vendor goes under, the source code is made available.

As for new hardware, stuff changes. Keep it old or buy new stuff. On the software front I've got shit that I wrote for Windows NT4 that still runs today. That's 25 year old binaries that work today on brand new hardware with latest software. There have been API and ABI changes in Linux in that time that make compatibility an issue. Sure you can just recompile it. Oh no wait, GCC won't compile some source written back then due to proprietary extensions used (no shit!), even if you run it with -fpermissive ...

My point is that everything is shit and full of compromises. There are different ones. The only way you win in the IT business is to thoroughly understand the consequences of a compromise you are selecting and pick one for your organisation.

You just like shitting on Microsoft which is tinfoil hat extremism, nothing more.

[PKTKS]

You are right on one point:
- there is no infinite ahead solution..

Some point in the future we need to change all things...
Hardware got obsolete and software as well.

But one thing I have learned the hard way w/MS:
-  They gave me 10x more prejudice with their  buz model.

ON the paper - black and white -  I just sent them to fuck off in hell

All about the final budget.
They do not worth that much

Paul

[Simon]

Things were different then though. A 2 year old PC was getting pretty slow and would struggle to run some of the latest software. A 5 year old PC was hopelessly obsolete and would not run most modern software, it just wasn't fast enough, didn't have enough memory, hard drive was too small, things really moved fast back then. It isn't like that anymore, a 10 year old PC may not provide an optimal experience but for most typical use it is just fine, even the latest games will generally run, if not great. Computers have gotten so powerful that most people simply don't need the latest or anything close to it, and there is no excuse for an operating system to require something new just for the sake of it being new. Not that it really matters, I don't like the direction Windows has gone and can't see myself using it in the future outside of a VM.

The simple fact is that processors are not getting that much more powerful, they have hit the speed limit and multithreading is only of any value on tasks that can use it, after 4 cores you don't get any added processing speed from general tasks just the ability to run more tasks.

[bd139]

Yep. We need to turn to the software.

Unfortunately software engineers are idiots. Discuss 

[PKTKS]

Things were different then though. A 2 year old PC was getting pretty slow and would struggle to run some of the latest software. A 5 year old PC was hopelessly obsolete and would not run most modern software, it just wasn't fast enough, didn't have enough memory, hard drive was too small, things really moved fast back then. It isn't like that anymore, a 10 year old PC may not provide an optimal experience but for most typical use it is just fine, even the latest games will generally run, if not great. Computers have gotten so powerful that most people simply don't need the latest or anything close to it, and there is no excuse for an operating system to require something new just for the sake of it being new. Not that it really matters, I don't like the direction Windows has gone and can't see myself using it in the future outside of a VM.

The simple fact is that processors are not getting that much more powerful, they have hit the speed limit and multithreading is only of any value on tasks that can use it, after 4 cores you don't get any added processing speed from general tasks just the ability to run more tasks.

TRUE. 

Even *IF* you have 8 or 12 cores..  things do not scale unless you invest on it.

Example:  I was trying to speed a BACKUP using plain TAR over XZ (or PV over XZ)

and XZ is a total multithreaded applet but a memory PIG..

As soon as you ask it to use 4 or 6 threads ir puts an impossible memory scale problem, it asks to scale the memory more than proportionally over the threads.. result is a trashed swap in /out system.

Investing on a system with 12 cores.. 64b w/memory up to 12 cores is insanely expensive.
Add that a power hungry GPU over 500W  at least of bottom line power per day..

Things are about to change..
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-just-blew-up-the-only-reason-you-cant-use-a-linux-desktop/

Even coming from ZDNet the header do not surprises me ..

But the contents although predictable for some time is true.

The bottleneck will soon be the BANDW. we afford to pay.
As soon as the datacenters with multi-servers start to push data onto these small portable gizmos.

Things are about to enter a new hype

No idea what pops out from this
Paul

[bd139]

Talking of which, this the reason I use an M1 Mac. I have a fanless laptop that does the following single threaded… see attachment.

Genuinely rips a new asshole in my desktop PC

[Raj]

Talking of which, this the reason I use an M1 Mac. I have a fanless laptop that does the following single threaded… see attachment.

Genuinely rips a new asshole in my desktop PC

what tool did you use to benchmark?

What's funny, is even if you have that performance, where are you gonna use it?
All the games and high demand applications are on the windows and linux. (unless you write your own programs and can adapt the source code to run anywhere) Except for photo and video editing software. But even in those areas, 3D animators like to use a lot of graphics cards and often use windows.

[bd139]

Passmark ranking.

I’m compiling a lot of code on a regular basis. It’s 20% less time than my Ryzen 3700X doing that. And only sucks 12 watts or so doing it.

Also it has dedicated hardware codec which makes it chunk through h264/265 transcodes.

[Raj]

Passmark ranking.

I’m compiling a lot of code on a regular basis. It’s 20% less time than my Ryzen 3700X doing that. And only sucks 12 watts or so doing it.

Also it has dedicated hardware codec which makes it chunk through h264/265 transcodes.

I really wonder what makes it faster. An ARM machine needs to go through several clock cycles to do the same job as x86.
Sure the extra bits doing hardware acceleration matters too, but for ARM, in most cases you're stuck with what the manufacturer gives you, (can't just upgrade the GPU on M1).

Intel 11900KF has higher clock speed and same no of cores, yet is barely behind in passmark.

If it's because M1 does out of order execution better, properly written multithreaded tasks should run faster on other processors.

[bd139]

Three things. Firstly IPC is better on M1. It’s not a reference design. Secondly huge pipeline. Thirdly huge memory bandwidth.

You’re right about GPU. I don’t  need that. Also you can’t get the damn things at the moment anyway.

[rsjsouza]

Reading some articles here and there, it seems the single thread memory bandwidth is quite excellent (multiple cores will choke the memory, but that is nothing new on this arena). Having the LPDDR integrated into the CPU saves on latency cycles - prior instances of this were the Pentium II and the Package-on-Package common in the mobile industry.

All that comes at a cost, especially the manufacturing yield of these processors, which need to keep both leakage and power at manageable levels. I imagine there'll be less powered variants along the way in case Apple feels the need to reap more $$ per wafer (perhaps to feed their mobile handsets).

[Simon]

The simple fact is that processors are not getting that much more powerful, they have hit the speed limit and multithreading is only of any value on tasks that can use it, after 4 cores you don't get any added processing speed from general tasks just the ability to run more tasks.

TRUE. 

Even *IF* you have 8 or 12 cores..  things do not scale unless you invest on it.

Example:  I was trying to speed a BACKUP using plain TAR over XZ (or PV over XZ)

and XZ is a total multithreaded applet but a memory PIG..

As soon as you ask it to use 4 or 6 threads ir puts an impossible memory scale problem, it asks to scale the memory more than proportionally over the threads.. result is a trashed swap in /out system.

Investing on a system with 12 cores.. 64b w/memory up to 12 cores is insanely expensive.
Add that a power hungry GPU over 500W  at least of bottom line power per day..

Things are about to change..
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-just-blew-up-the-only-reason-you-cant-use-a-linux-desktop/

Even coming from ZDNet the header do not surprises me ..

But the contents although predictable for some time is true.

The bottleneck will soon be the BANDW. we afford to pay.
As soon as the datacenters with multi-servers start to push data onto these small portable gizmos.

Things are about to enter a new hype

No idea what pops out from this
Paul

No it will never get better. Running a word processor will never be faster on more cores as it will only ever use 1. This is why processor benchmarking is unrealistic as it gets the numbers from video encoding speeds. What percentage of users do video encoding?

Why does boinc not have projects on CPU's that use multiple cores? because it is futile and esier to just crunch more jobs simultaneously. If you really can do parallelism, they just put it on a GPU.

[bd139]

When they finish porting it to typescript it’ll benefit from multiple threads. The key issue at the moment is the extensions API is COM based and the threading model does not support parallelisation. There’s a butt load of stuff that can benefit from threaded code including document rendering, sync, spelling and grammar checking  etc.

On M1 core yield they sell a lesser M1 (7 core GPU). I assume the GPU reliability affects yield so the ass end one has a broken GPU core.

[Simon]

Yea but there comes the point where its pointless having 64 cores just to open a PDF.... how much hardware and resources do we waste just to keep companies in business? 99% of machines just need 4 cores at most foe everyday office work. If an employer thinks that having a workforce equipped with machines that can open a document in 10ms instead or 100ms is going to make them more productive they need shooting!

[bd139]

Yeah that’s why they mostly have 4 cores.

I like Apple’s approach. They have 4 performance optimised cores and 4 energy efficient cores and schedule the work according to requirements. If you’ve got crap ticking over not doing anything important it goes on the energy efficiency cores. Result - I charge this laptop every 2-3 days. That’s the game changer.

See: https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=vk3m204o