MudMan

Hah. You do you. I get how it’d be obnoxious to be called out, but man, it’s not my fault that you chose the worst possible example for this. Like, literally the worst iteration of Windows for the specific metric you called out, in a clearly demonstrable way that a ton of people measured because it was such a meme.

You can block me, but “they are what they are” indeed.

Incidentally, this is a classic opportunity to remind people that blocking on AP applications sucks ass and the only effect it has is for the blocker to stop being able to see what the blockee is saying about them while everybody else still gets access to both. Speaking of software degradation, somebody should look into that.

Myyyyyeeeeh. A lightweight distro or a conemporaneous distro sure.

If I’m running GPU accelerated Steam, tons of tabs on Firefox and the same highly customized KDE desktop full of translucent components and extra animations I am willing to bet they’d both chug.

Which is what the conversation is about: new software doesn’t suck, it’s doing more stuff.

For sure, all things being equal Linux does run ligher on RAM and VRAM, so if you’re using something that is speficially memory-limited so Windows and Linux fall on opposite sides of overflowing the available memory you’ll definitely see better performance on Linux, but that’s not an inherent issue with poorly made software having a huge performance overhead.

Then you’re either lying about it or haven’t booted a newer PC. Fast Boot was a back of the box feature for Windows 8 for a reason. It was becoming a huge meme at the time how slow Win7 was to boot.

If your 2020s PC with Windows 11 is taking 45 seconds to boot on the Windows logo like Win 7 does (as seen in the benchmarks above) then you need some tech support because something is clearly not working as expected. I don’t think even my weaker Win11 machines take longer than 10 secs from boot starting to the password screen.

That may be true anyway, because the tiny hybrid laptop I’m using to write this is reporting 2-5% CPU utilization even with a literal hundred tabs open in this browser. So… yeah, either you have a knack for hyperbole or something broken.

Except the Linux userbase has been saying that exact thing for the past ten years, so again, has Linux also degraded in sync or, hear me out here, is this mostly a nostalgia thing that makes you forget the cludgy performance issues of the software you used when you were younger and things have mostly gotten snappier over time across the board?

As a current dual booter I’ll say that Windows and Linux don’t feel fundamentally different these days, for good and ill. Windows has a remarkably crappy and entirely self-inflicted issue with their online-search-in-Start-menu feature, which sucks but is toggleable at least. Otherwise I have KDE and Win11 set up the same way and they both work pretty much the same. And both measurably better than their respective iterations 10, let alone 15 or 20 years ago.

That’s… not really true, and not what that link shows. Those latency tests still show then-modern devices topping the list. They’re arguing that some then-modern low end devices have more button-to-screen latency than older hardware (which they would, given he’s comparing to single-threaded, single-tasking bare metal stuff from the 80s spitting signals out to a CRT to laptops with integrated graphics). And they’re saying that at the time (I presume the post dates from 2017, when the testing ends), this wasn’t well understood because people were benching the hardware and not the end to end latency factoring the I/O… which was kinda true then but absolutely not anymore.

I’d get in the weeds about how much or little sense it makes to compare an apple 2 drawing text on a CRT to typing on a powershell/Linux terminal window inside a desktop environment, but that’d be kind of unfair. Ten years ago this wasn’t a terrible observation to make with the limited tools the guy had available, and this sort of post made it popular to think about latency and made manufacturers on controllers, monitors and GPUs focus on it more.

What it does not show, though, is that an apple 2 was faster than a modern gaming PC by any metric. Not in 2017, and sure as hell not in 2026, when 240Hz monitors are popular, 120Hz TVs are industry-standard, VRR is widely supported and keyboards, controllers, monitors and GPU manufacturers are obsessed with latency measurements. It’s not just fallacious, it’s wrong.

When was the last time you booted a 2011 machine? Because man, is that not true.

And that’s a 2016-2017 era PC.

Windows 7 didn’t even have fast boot support at all. I actively remember recommending people to let their PCs sit for a couple of minutes after booting so that Windows could finish whatever the hell it was trying to do in the background faster instead of clogging up whatever else you were trying to do.

Keeping my old hardware around compulsively really impacts my perception of this whole “things were better when I was a teenager” stuff.

That’s some nonsense, though.

For one thing, it’s one of those tropes that people have been saying for 30 years, so it kinda stops making sense after a while. For another, the reason it doesn’t make sense is it doesn’t account for modern computers doing more now than they did then.

In 2016 I had a 970 that’s still in an old computer I use as a retro rocket, and I can promise you that wonderful as that thing was, I couldn’t have been playing Resident Evil this week on that thing. So yeah, I notice.

And I had a Galaxy S7 then, which is still in use as a bit of a display and I assure you my current phone is VERY noticeably faster, even discounting the fact that its displaying 120fps rather than 60.

Old people have been going “things were better when I was a kid” for millennia. I’m not assuming we’re gonna stop now, but… maybe we should.

But… 2016 was a decade ago. If it feels quick and snappy that way that means the post is right.

Which it kinda isn’t but hey.

After today, of all days, I will be taking no memes/strips about this from anybody that doesn’t keep blood-soaked ties, scalped hair inserts and shattered cufflinks as serial killer trophies.

Or is running for office, at the absolute least. But bloody ties are better.

Eden/Azahar seem to be the current meta replacement for the newer Nintendo platforms. I wonder how much of that is a crowdfunded assessment of quality and how much is a result of modern emu communities being driven by preinstalled bundles in launchers, handhelds and install scripts (think ES-DE standards or Retrodeck/Emudeck defaults).

Either way, hey, they work fine, so… yay?

Somehow still accurate.

I didn’t say it looks like a flash game, I said it looks like the logo for a flash game portal.

Twitter has an aggressive character limit, a focus on a streaming feed and historically it’s been built on fast, trending content updated in real time via reposts and this sort of atomized discussion using unthreaded quotes.

Tumblr has changed a bunch trying to stay relevant in a MySpacey kinda way, but it’s ultimately more of a blog platform where the main post is expected to be bulkier and more readable while the threaded responses are framed as more of a comments section you don’t even get to see in full by default, so it more or less splits the difference between Twitter and Reddit, or between Masto and here.

“A different CSS” can impact how you interact with things a bunch, along with how you present trends and follows. Which I guess was my original point.

It’s less the design itself and more that it makes the entire proposition seem like a flash game portal circa 2006, so it just screams “stay away” at unsafe volumes. It’s not even a bad drawing, it’s just branding the wrong thing at the wrong time.

It’s all just little text packets, this place included.

But hey, that’s all social media. The slight differences in threading, text limits, media embeds and share mechanics do matter.

Well, yeah, but those principles don’t typically relate to videogame companies nor to purchase habits regarding 30 year old videogames.

Voting with your wallet is ultracapitalist, self-serving non-activism people deploy performatively to make themselves feel better about stuff they don’t care that much about, not “principles”. No offense.

I can already tell this is going to be one of those conversations you get online where people are just itching for somebody to defend the position they want to argue against and will just have that argument regardless of what the other side says.

But because I’m a very flawed person I’ll still go for it and note that technically if F-Droid is the one signing all the apps and Google doesn’t like one of them, they’d have to ban F-Droid’s entire account, not just the one app. Anything else would require them to look at the apps in the first place, which in this scenario they are not doing.

But it’s certainly possible that they’ll ban a specific developer (or a store if the store is doing the signing), and that’s one of the reasons why this scheme is unacceptable.

What it is not is an approval process, since… you know, they’re not looking at the apps themselves. Words mean things.

Presumably, at least nominally, Google wants the signatures to be able to tie an app to a developer. Whether they are going to ban people proactively or not we simply don’t know because their stupid policy is barely communicated and they seem to intend to get it rolling before addressing any of these because Apple already used this loophole successfully so why the hell not, I suppose.

“Principles”? Man, is that self-indulgent.

Not “non-approved apps”, unsigned apps. They’re not running approval on the software itself. And technically you can still sideload signed software. And you can sideload unsigned software in non-Google certified Android devices, too.

Hey, I hate their stupid power grab, it sucks and I hope regulators intervene, but if you’re gonna get all pretentious and uppity about everybody else’s responses you’re gonna get fact checked. I don’t make the rules.

It’s been EA since a different millenium. I think it’s time to get over it.

FWIW, the remake itself was made by an external studio including members of the original team and they apparently collaborated closely with some sort of consulting group of modders and preservation-focused community people.