🚀 go-pugleaf

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:39:17 -0400, Richard Thiebaud
> <thieba...@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/21/2018 10:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:47:13 -0400, Peter Flass
>>> <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-06-20, Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/20/2018 12:30 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:35:51 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ... by its monopolistic attitude towards the PC now
>>>>>>>> that the World and its family are moving en masse to the
>>>>>>>> ARM processors?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is the PC also dying in the light of the RPi3, a 64
>>>>>>>> bit processor available for the price of a few bananas?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Although I thought Microsoft was doing just fine with its x86
>>>>>>> orientation - it has a foot in the ARM camp too, but there it
>>>>>>> doesn't offer the ability to run all those old applications...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> apparently they agree with you in part at Microsoft.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/18/microsoft_e2_edge_windows_10/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So Microsoft *can* move to other processors! I'd like to see the DEC
>>>>>> Alpha chip updated to the current micron state of the technology...
>>>>>> IMHO we need realistic alternatives to the x86 architecture.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once we have a realistic alternative to Microsoft, the problem
>>>>> solves itself.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We have had realistic alternatives since the 80's. What re need is a
>>>> realistic alternative to the sheeple who won't see it.
>>> 
>>> First you need to make a case that it's actually a realistic
>>> alternative.  If it makes us replace our current staff with one ten
>>> times the size in order to do manually all the stuff that we now do
>>> using features unique to Windows that are not replicated on other
>>> platforms, then it is not a win.
>>> 
>> What features are unique to Windows?
> 
> The whole Component Object Model for one thing.  There may be
> equivalents on other platforms but if we can't take our existing code
> and plunk it onto the new system and have it work the same way then
> it's a net cost for us.
> 

As I said, if it's working there's no money to be made by switching to
something else, even something better. 

-- 
Pete