The ex-Apple team who started Nuvia (which was acquired by Qualcomm and maker of this chip), is really giving Apple a run for their money - especially given that these chips are fab’ed on 2 gen order nodes than what Apple gets from TSMC.
I'd like this to work out. Objectively I'd prefer to use Windows than MacOS (there I said it!) but the hassle is not worth it any more to take on the software.
What I'd like is the windows user experience but not broken as fuck and with the breadth of default high quality applications you get on macOS and the hardware flexibility of a PC.
Not the person you asked, but for me short version: it just works and covers 100% of my uses cases and never caused me any issues, so why should I needlessly complicate my life by using something else?
Long version: most EE tinkering and embedded tooling is almost Windows exclusive especially retro ones, plus the much better window management out of the box, plus support for all games and modding tools ever released without having to think of emulation or compatibility, plus 20 years of muscle memory and know-how on how maintain the system, plus high quality tools like Notepad++ , ClickDDC & such, plus it runs on every HW from 50$ second hand laptops to latest Intel & Ryzen machines meaning I can pick the exact laptop with the HW features that fit me, and not forced to buy exclusively Apple's expensive and restrictive HW like a screen that only opens ~130 degrees.
When I'm moving away from it it will be to Linux, not another commercial sollution that comes with extra expense, downsides and limitations.
That's an exaggeration. There are definitely games where you might consider working better in Proton but for the most part Windows is still the far more seamless option. On Proton, ive still hit things like, really bad frametimes, game patches that break things for a bit, can't get VRR to work ever, and the lack of anti cheat support in multiplayer games.
That's mostly only an exaggeration for games made in the last 5 years with the heavier concentrations of DRM, online-only, micro transactions.
I am curious how well proton works under ARM, both for apple silicon and whatever alternatives.
Similarly, an "Apple for datacenters" like Oxide but larger scale (by the rack as a demo and intermodal container-scale customarily) with integrated, observable, resilient, multi-tenant {bare metal, I, k8s, P, GPU, network, storage}aaS.
Do most computers "break" just after the warranty or people just desire something newer or faster because of the shifting landscape of software and the web?
>It is more ethical and respectable to craft excellent things that are "too durable" that people will treasure for many years because it's better than creating overpriced, pretty, fragile, incompatible e-waste.
How do you care to make this paradigm compatible with the ever changing nature of software? Software which is made by others who dont share the same values as you do? Because without that, these "excellently crafted" items will just take up space and provide little to no value.
I restore "vintage computers" for fun and I am finding it to be a waste of time because the value proposition for most old computers tends towards 0 for most people. The purpose of a computer is to run software period. Without software, the computer is an ornament made of various metals.
The only hold outs are computers that have a specific characteristic to them that provides value. Things such as the ability to run software new computers struggle with(pre Win XP machines with ISA sound cards, SUN SPARC machines), a visual component(SGI Computers), or just a specific historic nature(NEXT Cube, a lot of the 90s, early 00s Apple computers).
The majority of computers from the last 10-15 years don't add any of that value, and thus will eventually only have scrap value.
This is different from old well crafted furniture. Those items in a way can still run modern "software". (Humans born in 2024 can sit in them and enjoy them the same way humans born in 1960). This thinking applies to many other well crafted items. Their value proposition is different.
In a way the tech industry has really pulled the wool over peoples eyes. Convincing people that this tech is "essential" to modern day life because of "efficiency" or the faster moving nature of the world or whatever else has locked in this disposable reality. The only move if you wish to follow your ideology is to not play and accept the consequences.
Presumably the claimants would not seek to enjoin distribution of the new design, that would be suicide. They probably just want royalties that Qualcomm would ordinarily have negotiated on their own as an architectural licensee. Or perhaps, what they previously paid as an architectural licensee.