But Can It Run Nytimes.com?(fabiensanglard.net)
fabiensanglard.net
But Can It Run Nytimes.com?
https://fabiensanglard.net/carbon/index.html
24 comments
Lenovo now offers the X1 Carbon and some other models with Linux, either Fedora or Ubuntu, out of the box. Maybe the author was unaware or ordered shortly before that became available.
"The crucial question about a computer used to be "But can it run DOOM?". Later it became "But can it run Crysis?". These day it is "But can it run nytimes.com?". To which I am happy to report I was able to browse newspaper websites without burning myself."
Is there something I am missing with newer laptops? I have a 2008 Thinkpad x200, and I was able to do this just fine.
Is there something I am missing with newer laptops? I have a 2008 Thinkpad x200, and I was able to do this just fine.
But did you also use Ublock Origin?
With ads sites can be very CPU intensive.
With ads sites can be very CPU intensive.
Ohh good point! I usually forget about ublock origin.
> The advantage Apple still holds over its competitors is its willingness to break backward compatibility.
This is a disadvantage, not a feature. There has never been an instance where I have not wanted backwards compatibility, but there have been many where it was lacking and I did want it.
This is a disadvantage, not a feature. There has never been an instance where I have not wanted backwards compatibility, but there have been many where it was lacking and I did want it.
I think Windows is a pretty good example of why backwards compatibility is great and why is also sucks.
On one hand, you can probably still run your Windows software that you bought 20 years ago. That's the good.
That bad is that many things in Windows still work the same way that they did 20 years ago even if better solutions have been developed because they want to maintain the backwards compatibility. For example, programs are responsible for installing and uninstalling themselves. So if you have a program that doesn't ship with an uninstaller (or the uninstaller is broken) then there is basically no official way to remove it outside reinstalling Windows. There's no sandboxing and apps can do whatever they want to your system. You also have quirks like not being able to add more than 26 drives (because you run out of letters) and having to deal with multiple different settings apps.
I think if it weren't for its massive software catalog (which it has because of backwards compatibility) basically nobody would choose Windows over any of the less clunky operating systems out there. This is the reason that I attribute to the failure of every Windows version that Microsoft has tried to release that didn't have 100% backwards compatibility (Windows RT, Windows Mobile, Windows for ARM, Windows 10 S, Windows 10 X, etc).
So just to be clear, what I'm saying is that maintaining backwards compatibility at all costs will produce a clunky operating system that is not pleasant to use.
On one hand, you can probably still run your Windows software that you bought 20 years ago. That's the good.
That bad is that many things in Windows still work the same way that they did 20 years ago even if better solutions have been developed because they want to maintain the backwards compatibility. For example, programs are responsible for installing and uninstalling themselves. So if you have a program that doesn't ship with an uninstaller (or the uninstaller is broken) then there is basically no official way to remove it outside reinstalling Windows. There's no sandboxing and apps can do whatever they want to your system. You also have quirks like not being able to add more than 26 drives (because you run out of letters) and having to deal with multiple different settings apps.
I think if it weren't for its massive software catalog (which it has because of backwards compatibility) basically nobody would choose Windows over any of the less clunky operating systems out there. This is the reason that I attribute to the failure of every Windows version that Microsoft has tried to release that didn't have 100% backwards compatibility (Windows RT, Windows Mobile, Windows for ARM, Windows 10 S, Windows 10 X, etc).
So just to be clear, what I'm saying is that maintaining backwards compatibility at all costs will produce a clunky operating system that is not pleasant to use.
I mean, you can install apps with the appstore if you really want sandboxing and apps that can't work like applications, and an extra dependence on Microsoft.
I thought there was a way to mount a drive without a letter these days? But I've never run out of letters, so I can't say I paid much attention.
Windows 10 is clunky because of lack of attention to detail and a drastic reduction in testing without a reduction in scope, not so much because of backwards compatability. Windows Phone 7 lost Google because of no backwards compatability though (they had excellent CE apps, I'm told).
I thought there was a way to mount a drive without a letter these days? But I've never run out of letters, so I can't say I paid much attention.
Windows 10 is clunky because of lack of attention to detail and a drastic reduction in testing without a reduction in scope, not so much because of backwards compatability. Windows Phone 7 lost Google because of no backwards compatability though (they had excellent CE apps, I'm told).
>I thought there was a way to mount a drive without a letter these days?
You've been able to mount drives to subdirectories of existing drives since at least Windows 7. So yes you can certainly have more than 26 drives.
It might confuse poorly-written software, though. I remember Steam won't let me install a game under C:\Stuff because it thought C: didn't have enough free space, even though C:\Stuff was a different drive with plenty of space.
You've been able to mount drives to subdirectories of existing drives since at least Windows 7. So yes you can certainly have more than 26 drives.
It might confuse poorly-written software, though. I remember Steam won't let me install a game under C:\Stuff because it thought C: didn't have enough free space, even though C:\Stuff was a different drive with plenty of space.
The settings are what kill me. Are there like three different systems swimming around in there? And the fact that I have to rely on either a third-party tool or registry hacking to make caps lock a ctrl key is just flabbergasting in 2020.
> There has never been an instance where I have not wanted backwards compatibility
There have been plenty of times where I have wanted to break backwards compatibility. Breaking backwards compatibility is always a cost-benefit analysis. I'll absolutely take a USB Type-C port on a new phone even if it means it wont be compatible with my existing Micro USB cables. At the same time, I do not value the tiny bit of extra thinness and waterproofing afforded by removing the 3.5mm headphone jack over the utility of the jack.
Breaking backwards compatibility is not inherently good or bad. It's a difficult decision which must be considered carefully. Sometimes it's great. Sometimes it's terrible. Sometimes it's a mixed bag.
There have been plenty of times where I have wanted to break backwards compatibility. Breaking backwards compatibility is always a cost-benefit analysis. I'll absolutely take a USB Type-C port on a new phone even if it means it wont be compatible with my existing Micro USB cables. At the same time, I do not value the tiny bit of extra thinness and waterproofing afforded by removing the 3.5mm headphone jack over the utility of the jack.
Breaking backwards compatibility is not inherently good or bad. It's a difficult decision which must be considered carefully. Sometimes it's great. Sometimes it's terrible. Sometimes it's a mixed bag.
I may be an outlier, but I like this approach. I see it as taking away bad choices; fewer things to worry about, fewer things to suck battery, fewer things to break.
A simpler design often correlates with a sturdier design, too.
To take the AppleTV NTSC/composite plug as an example: I won't ever have to worry about having to explain to my mom which cable and connector to use when plugging it in.
That said, their "simplicity" should not come at the cost of repairability (replacing batteries, …) and openness (running Linux, …).
Currently looking for a clean, thin, sturdy, compact 12" ultrabook with just a couple of TB4 ports and proper Linux support. Dell XPS 9310 comes closest at the moment.
A simpler design often correlates with a sturdier design, too.
To take the AppleTV NTSC/composite plug as an example: I won't ever have to worry about having to explain to my mom which cable and connector to use when plugging it in.
That said, their "simplicity" should not come at the cost of repairability (replacing batteries, …) and openness (running Linux, …).
Currently looking for a clean, thin, sturdy, compact 12" ultrabook with just a couple of TB4 ports and proper Linux support. Dell XPS 9310 comes closest at the moment.
Yeah I don't get the author's point either. Is having to always buy the latest software/peripheral an advantage? Maybe for Apple, not for the user.
One of the few breaking compatibility stories that I would consider positive would be Apple's (temporary) restriction on Flash, which was definitely good for the Internet and mobile ecosystem.
The unboxing thing is kinda weird. Why waste paper and trees for the sake of it?
Packaging flourish always feels like a haughty waste of resources on something that's getting thrown away in 30 seconds. Maybe that's what people like about it.
Also money. It may not be much, but it surely factors into the Apple tax.
I'd rather have more effort and energy spent on the device.
I'd rather have more effort and energy spent on the device.
I like Macbook but I don't love them. However I am not going back to either Windows or desktop Linux.
How was his laptop oriented at the time such that a vertically falling pen managed to punch a hole in the screen?
Took a quick look at the X1 line on Lenovo's site. Quite a few of "Gen {x}" labels on the products. Why is a Gen 2 $400 more than a Gen 8?
The X1 Carbon/Extreme series used to be the only products labeled Gen x instead of a 2/3 digit code, e.g. T490.
Starting this year they rebranded all ThinkPad products to use generation numbers (presumably because rolling from something like T490 to the next number would be a little difficult, kind of like when GPUs hit the 9xxx branding mark), so X390 -> X13 gen 1, P53 -> P15 gen 1 etc.
Apple fans really live in a peculiar world, the whole intro made it seem like the author isn't even aware that non-Mac laptops exists so I was surprised with his purchase and even satisfaction with the X1 (I have the same one but one gen older with the same OS).
As if thousands of laptops are just copycats.
As if thousands of laptops are just copycats.
[deleted]