Re: MacOS Sequoia vs. Linux Mint

On 2024-12-16, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

Le 2024-12-16 à 05:37, RonB a écrit :

On 2024-12-15, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

Le 2024-12-14 à 11:21, RonB a écrit :

On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

Le 2024-12-13 à 22:07, DFS a écrit :

On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>

It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.

>
>
Maybe, maybe not.
>
The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.  Absolutely no
other user input was required.

>
Actually, I would challenge Scotty the Hutt's accessment there. If you
update daily, Linux is vastly superior to Windows in that area. However,
if you're like my wife and reject updates months at a time, there is a
great chance that you will damage your operating system the moment you
decide to go through with them on the Linux side. Windows is generally
better with seldom-used machines.

>
I'll challenge that statement. I know better. I've updated many Linux
machines after months of not turning them on. Even "ancient" computers from
pre-2010 update quickly and cleanly when using Linux and fast Internet.
>
As I've mentioned before (several times) this assumes you're using a
business machine with an Intel GPU. I have read about (not personally
experienced) issues with Nvidia GPUs and Linux upgrades. But I've also seen
upgrades cause BSODs in my wife's laptop that used a Nvidia (I always just
disabled the Nvidia GPU, since it also had an Intel GPU) — so I'm putting
some of that on Nvidia.

>
That's pretty fair. I think that most people who face issues in Linux
are going to be the ones using an NVIDIA GPU. Unfortunately, that's the
default for a machine capable of producing enough teraflops to play
today's game. You can get AMD-equipped machines, but they're generally
mid-range. I know that the version of this laptop produced a year after
this one released had all its internals made by AMD, but it apparently
suffered disgusting heating issues as a result. I imagine it was
fantastic under Linux though.

 
I don't play Windows video games, so I'll take your word for it. It's odd,
though, that more gaming laptops wouldn't use Ryzen CPUs and AMD GPUs —
which seem to be the preference in gaming desktops. Maybe they use too much
power for laptops?

>
AMD CPUs offer excellent performance while they're plugged in, but run
rather underwhelmingly the moment they are forced to rely on the
battery. Intel is better in that regard. There are tons of laptops using
AMD CPUs though. However, even then, they tend to use NVIDIA GPUs.

That makes sense. As I mentioned in another thread, I purposely look for
lower-powered machines. Mostly because I don't like the sound of fans (and I
don't need high powered ones).

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien