Especially now that the consumer SSD market has entirely moved on to TLC and QLC, there isn't a new SLC drive you can buy for a reasonable price anymore. Even if a TLC drive would wear out more quickly in an old SSD-unaware system, they are so cheap at this point that it's not really worth worrying about.
I think it’s worth worrying about on an iBook. The hard drive is in between the motherboard and the palmrest, so replacing it basically involves taking the entire machine completely apart (including having to deal with a ton of really tight snap points). It’s definitely not something you want to do more than once, and I’m not sure how many disassembly cycles the 20 year old plastic can take.
If you do want some insurance, the old over-provisioning trick should still work to prolong the life of the drive when used in a system that doesn't support TRIM. Format the drive on a modern system that does support TRIM, or secure erase it with the manufacturers utility, then create a partition which doesn't fill the entire drive and use that on the classic system that doesn't support TRIM. As long as the system never writes to the unpartitioned area it will remain in the TRIMed state and allow the SSD controller to use it as slack space.
Particularly if you’re running OS 9 or older Classic Mac OS, as it barely does anything that isn’t user-initiated, which naturally means a lot less disk activity.
Old tryhard MLC/TLC controllers tended to lock up and/or slow down when used for boot disks and/or used with OS that had no ATA TRIM command support to explicitly unallocate disk sectors. For this reason, SLC disks and CompactFlash under 8GB were used to be recommended. But that's like 10 years ago.
z1d is ancient, from 2017.
My theory is that they keep it around because of corporates not switching, and wasting $ on slow and more expensive compute?
> Whatever method you use to prevent tampering with your backups (e.g., when a cryptovirus silently corrupts your data) should catch the RAM problem too. If it does not, you need to change the method rather than rely on ECC RAM.
> If your backup and recovery strategy relies on ZFS using ECC RAM, you should rework your backup strategy. After you do not need ECC RAM, you can buy it as a matter of convenience to save time troubleshooting and/or restoring from the backup.
Didn't Microsoft try to do something with the Surface laptops? Did that pan out?
But yes, it's mindboggling how bad trackpads are on PCs. I've had corporate Lenovo T-series, X1 Carbon, and Yoga for more than a decade, and while things have gotten slightly better I still need an external mouse
I may need to travel a lot by bus to my new job, and I'm now actually considering a Mac again even though Excel/PowerPoint is horrible due to missing hotkeys
Yeah, Windows has gotten better in recent years with “Precision Touchpad” support. If you use an Apple Magic Trackpad on Windows (not supported but works on normal PCs, not just Boot Camp) Windows recognizes it as a Precision Touchpad.
I’d say—yes, very much so. Pointer movement is damn near perfect now on the Dell Precision I have at work. Clicking unfortunately not so much, but it’s mostly bearable.
Also, at 15×9 cm, it has over 5 times the area of the teensy trackpad on my old ThinkPad R61, which is just 5.5×4.8 cm.
I have not been able to find instances powered by the 4th (Q1 2023) or 5th generation (Q4 2023) Xeons?
We solve large capacity expansion power market models that need as fast single-threaded performance as possible coupled with lots of RAM (32:1 ratio or higher ideal). One model may take 256-512 GB RAM, but not being able to use more than 4 threads effectively (interior point algorithms have very diminishing returns past this point)
Our dispatch models do not have the same RAM requirement, but you still wish to have the fastest single-threaded processors available (and then parallelize)
I replied a longer reply to the other reply to your comment, but in terms of battery life 13th gen and lower intels are poorer to zen4 (7x4x) u series cpus, however apparently the intel hs/hx versions are slightly more efficient than their amd counterparts.
I highly recommend going through some youtube battery life videos and looking up notebook check reviews for whatever you're planning to buy/compare.
Recent intel systems unfortunately often push higher power to "beat" amd on performance metrics. Single core intel perf is still higher and likely will be, but multicore and efficiency of zen 4 is generally similar if not better than intel 13th gen. 14th gen helps efficiency but is barely available. Oh, and the amd igpu is quite performant, much better than the 13th gen and lower intels.
Btw as someone with a skylake laptop that also used to sip power, I suspect there's been a mild across the board power increase especially as newer chips clock much higher. My ryzen 7 iirc goes till 5.1ghz and is noticeably faster (i'm at 392 tabs in edge right now) than my skylake. I suspect your older laptop wouldn't clock so high, and a 3ghz limited intel/amd would have great battery.
Colder and hotter are temperatures and not measures of power consumption. A soldering iron can put out 75w at 800F, a cpu can put out 200w and top out at 175F.
In the modern era, AMD chips are actually known for running hotter for quite a number of reasons (much thicker IHS on AM5, stacked v-cache on X3D, boost algorithm deliberately saturating thermals, etc), even though the intel chips pull more power.
Akktually, according to the second law of thermodynamics you cannot get hotter with lower consumption of energy (with equivalent heatsinking, in terms of thermal resistance, measured in K per Watt) , at idle, as idle is a state of thermal equilibrium (and at rather low sustained power of 3-5w, well within ability of heatsink to dissipate), where none of your reasons are applicable.
> according to the second law of thermodynamics you cannot get hotter with lower consumption of energy (with equivalent heatsinking, in terms of thermal resistance, measured in K per Watt
cpus are not an ideal thermal system and do have their own internal thermal resistance. a 7800X3D runs hotter than a 7700X at equivalent (limited) PPT, which runs hotter than a 13900K at the equivalent (limited) PPT, because the thermal resistance is higher. these are objectively measurable things!
Also, generally, surface area is a component of thermal intensity as well and if you take the same flux and spread it out over more surface area you will get a lower temperature too. A threadripper putting out 250W does so with less thermal intensity than a 7800X3D putting out 250W and will run at a lower temperature too.
like yes, you are correctly describing the measurements in which these cpus are not the same thing, but then making the incorrect leap that "because in a spherical-cow world they would be equal" that these cpus are equivalent in these metrics in real life, which they are not. different cpus have different thermal resistances, and AMD's is generally higher right now because of the decision to go with a thicker IHS (to maintain cooler compatibility) and the move towards stacking (more silicon in the way = more thermal resistance).
and again, don't pretend this is some absurd or unknown concept, we literally spent years and years with amd fans making memes about "intel toothpaste"... thermals and wattage dissipated are not the same thing. you can have a great, efficient product with terrible thermal resistance, there have been a number of them!
it's just that AMD isn't on the top this time, so everyone pretends not to get it... or volunteers a bunch of theoretical reasons it doesn't matter... or ...
just like "thermal watts aren't the same thing as electrical watts!" etc
$150 PC Engines APU2 (RIP) has 4GB ECC soldered RAM, SATA, mSATA and mPCIE.
$650 QNAP TS435XeU 1U NAS supports 4GB-32GB ECC SODIMM, 4xSATA, 2xNVME, based on Marvell/Armada CN9130 Arm SoC. Debian for Arm64 can be installed via serial console.
E.g., most apartment buildings in Europe, where our windows are not even designed to be used with even portable ACs