Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | naikrovek's commentslogin

Agreed.

Even WinXP had goofy web technology tied into File Explorer (called “Windows Explorer” then, I believe). Win2K was just optimal, for me, for what I was doing at the time.


I think Win2k already had that. As far as I remember, the explorer sidebar, the white box with the colored line under the heading, already being HTML. I loved hacking on that back then to customize my windows experience.

Yes, it was called Active Desktop and it was much older than Win2K: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Desktop

If you changed the colour scheme on Windows 98, none of the cloud images were transparent in Explorer (they assumed the background was white) so you'd end up with these weird clouds/sky fading into a white background and then a hard line into whatever colour you'd set your background to.

The desktop was very sluggish if you added an active desktop to it, as IE4 had to run; at least it was on my underpowered machine. Additionally it came with a screensaver that you could interact with, which was odd because normally moving the mouse dismissed the screensaver.


Active Desktop was a different thing, on top of what I was talking about.

But the post parent to yours was correct about HTML being in Win2k: https://imgur.com/ncvvBY0

That infopanel on the left is HTML.


Ah ok. Unfortunately I cannot look at that page on imgur as I am in the UK and it's blocked here.

“Still Kicking” is a fantastic name for that.

They are likely scared of people who would run MacOS virtual desktop farms, without also buying an appropriate number of Apple machines.

That’s what I would be worried about if my primary source of income was hardware sales.


Apple had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the world of virtualization and the idea of macOS running on anything besides "metal built by Apple." They've been pretty clear for decades that they only care about customers who buy Apple aluminum and silicon.

Well, but their customers are those that buy Apple hardware.

IMO they should sell appropriately priced licenses that allow the use of more VMs. Make the licenses expensive enough so that it doesn't eat into hardware sales, or explicitly prohibit VDI/virtual seats in the license agreement.

Currently services like Github Actions painfully and inefficiently rack thousands of Mac Minis and run 2 VMs on each to stay within the limits. They probably wouldn't mind paying a fee to run more VMs on Mac Studios instead.


Imagine buying a mac studio with 500+ GB of memory and being limited to 2 vms.

Yeah that is what I was going to do until I discovered the two VM limit. I was building a MacOS GitHub Actions farm, or rather, looking into it. I had written most of the code but my inertia screeched to a halt when I discovered the two VM limit for MacOS VMs.

You are not Apple's target market, and never will be.

They don't care what you want to do with the hardware you own.


No kidding.

You realise you can run VMs for any other os right? It's a limit on running macOS not a limit on running VMs.

Yes we all realize that.

It’s MacOS VMs that we want to run.


Maybe I should have used the same dismissive tone.

Imagine thinking everyone who buys a Mac and runs VMs wants to run heaps of macOS VMs.


They discontinued the 512GB Studio, and the Pro is gone, so no fear there now.

They still EXIST though. And I saw one the other day on the Refurbished store. They’re definitely still around.

Even a 256GB model would run a load of 16GB VMs


MIT or Apache2 or FreeBSD licenses would be preferable in my case, but GPLv2 or even AGPLv3 (if you have to) would work.

If you’re taking requests…


This is awesome because I flippin love tart.

Well, the UI leader behind Liquid Glass is no longer with the company, replaced by a long time Apple employee known for his eye for detail.

I do t think Liquid Glass is going to go away soon, Apple doesn’t seem to reverse itself ever, but I do expect Liquid Glass to become better over time. We’ll see what WWDC brings on that front I guess.


My take on it is that in my own work I really like transparency effects but it is always a chore to tune up the foregrounds, backgrounds and alpha blending to keep everything legible. If you control all the content it is one thing, but for a general-purpose OS where the content is supplied by the user and applications you have to dial the intensity way back.

When I first saw the prototype images I thought they were really cool and it was a bold idea though people on this site were complaining about it already for the predictable reasons.

When it came out I was thinking that they dealt with the legibility of the content by dialing down the legibility of the design -- like it looks like "anti-anti-aliasing" more than it looks like "bold transparent vision"

One reason I don't think I read it as "refraction" is that one of my tells for refraction is chromatic aberration and without that it doesn't seem real to me. I think it would triple the texture lookup rate (at least) and make content legibility worse and I think you would see a lot of people say it is was an ugly gimmick.


Technically, I’m awed by it. Very cool visually. It’s just when you go to use it that it all falls apart. As you say, they can’t control the content it’s flying over, and thus sometimes it does bad things. But also they rearranged navigation and some other things. I try to keep from rejecting new things just because they are new, but there were some serious usability gaffes in both iOS and iPadOS. Interestingly, macOS doesn’t have the same issues and I’m actually somewhat ambivalent about it.

> Apple doesn’t seem to reverse itself ever

I agree, but also they broke that rule very recently when they lowered the price of a display and issued refunds one month after intro. The VESA price dropped $400. I learned about it from Accidental Tech Podcast.

https://www.apple.com/us-edu/shop/buy-mac/studio-display-xdr


And they did give up on the butterfly keyboard and the touch bar. So, there’s hope.

And they bought NeXT!

Cool.

Why did you post this? Genuinely asking. I’m autistic and I don’t understand why people do things.


Random != unexpected

Because like all other modern Macs, the GPU in my Mac uses the same API as the GPU in your Mac.

Also, on a Mac with 32GB of RAM, 24GB of that (75%) is available to the GPU, and that makes the models run much faster. On my 64GB MacBook Pro, 48GB is available to the GPU. Have you priced an nvidia GPU with 48GB of RAM? It’s simply cheaper to do this on Macs.

Macs are just better for getting started with this kind of thing.


Fair enough for GPU-intensive stuff like running Qwen locally. But do you really need a GPU for decent local TTS? I run parakeet just on CPU.

show me any that have claimed that they were for entertainment purposes only. sql server has never had that in its EULA. The GPL does not say that the software is for entertainment purposes only.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: