Re: Report: Arm cancelling contract with Qualcomm

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Nothing in the document you linked to says it can't run on Apple
metal, just implying that it isn't supported by M$.

>
I assume Microsoft “supports” those techniques because they are the
only ones that offer anything approaching a quality user experience.
>
Obviously trying to run Windows-on-ARM on bare Apple metal does not.

 
It's not obvious.

>
You think Microsoft would forego an opportunity to tout the richness of
its Windows user experience?

 
They haven't done testing of Win11 on the new Macs, that doesn't mean it
wouldn't work.

>
This is Microsoft. There is stuff they *did* test that doesn’t work.

Here's a clue, for you.  In 2010, I purchased a MacBook, with a two-
core CPU, 2 GB RAM, and the novelty of OS X AKA macOS wore off before
long, and I tried using Boot Camp, which sucked because to switch
between them required fully shutting down one, to boot the other, so I
put Win7 on it alone.  I then ended up wanting it out of my house, and
gave it to a friend who favored laptops.  She loved it.  But a few
months later, it croaked, less than a year old.  Windows was a beast
for that Apple hardware, even though it was entirely compatible as far
as using it.  It's not about whether it'd boot and operate, it's about
the long-term stability of the *hardware*.  That's why M$ is implying
that you're on your own, if you put Win11 ARM on a newer Mac.

The only obvious thing is that they don't want to tell you it's OK,
to do it.

>
Because they know that only disappointment lies in that direction.

 
How do you know?

>
Because Windows is a complex piece of software. And Microsoft is a profit-
driven company.

It's not anything about that, they just don't wanna be responsible
when you fry your computer, with their bloated crapware.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.