Intel’s 18A is closer to availability (functional, ramping to production) than Samsung’s SF2 (still in dev/testing phase); which is roughly analogous to TSMC N2.
TSMC is ahead, as usual, but Intel is closer than Samsung (in this specific case).
“ Such metrics are often closely guarded trade secrets. But according to the Dailian report, Samsung's yields for SF2 are in the 50% to 60% range, just high enough for commercial production. The same report puts TSMC's upcoming N2 node at 80%”
Looks like Samsung is actually closer to production than Intel 18A which is still having issues with yields.
Dailian is being overly charitable to Samsung and downplaying Intel. They’re a Korean news outlet with a vested interest in the Chaebol.
That being said, take it however you like. Apple is talking to Intel to make their deal with TSMC more favorable. They could have done the same with Samsung. Either way, TSMC will still be fabbing (at least a good chunk of) their 2nm chips.
Exactly, so this will create a lot of criticism for no reason.
Should have happened with Plasma 7 with QT 7, or at least in the release after next debian freeze (unless they freeze it with v6.7).
If the switch will happen early 2027 that means upcoming Debian will already be wayland only.
Explorer.exe is not file explorer, it is the Windows UI system. It’s harder to see on modern Windows versions (since Windows will reload it automatically), but if you go into Win98 and kill the process, you’ll see your taskbar, desktop icons, right click menu, etc disappear.
File explorer is a part of that process, but consists of additional dynamic libraries and COM components that are loaded on-demand.
Old desktop replacements (like Litestep) specifically modified Windows to block explorer from loading the desktop to replace it (though, would still spawn it for file explorer).
Explorer.exe is technically the Windows UI. File Explorer is a part of that, but has additional COM and other components that it consists of. Those are loaded on demand, now the OS is keeping them resident.
It’s like they say, only alternating versions of Windows are actually worth using.
It’s almost like they follow a software version of Intel’s old tick-tock pattern. A version that’s super experimental, but unstable and flaky (95, Me, Vista, 8, 11) and a version that irons out the wrinkles to make a solid OS (98, 2000/Xp, 7, 10).
I'm not sure I'd consider Windows Me to be very experimental, except perhaps an experiment in sadism...
However I do love that its Wikipedia article includes the sentence "Retrospectively, Windows Me is viewed as one of the worst operating systems of all time".
Me was very experimental with the audio/video processing pipelines and playback capabilities. Many of those were ported over to the XP.
That being said, even people at the time knew it was mostly a half-hearted experiment and wondered why Microsoft was even moved forward with it. So you're not wrong.
There is a better cycle for this. LTS. You don't force people off LTS until next LTS version has had time to iron out its wrinkles. This is really basic stuff. You'd expect one of the largest companies in the world to at least get the basics.
Problem is, I don’t think it’s a conscious decision by Microsoft. It just happens because they have to make their next versions appealing to buyers with new features.
Supposedly, the longer lifecycles of newer versions with large milestone updates was supposed to help with this, but seems to have just bandaged it over.
And, to be fair, the Apple community makes similar complaints about macOS with alternating releases. Just with far less vitriol (given macOS generally has a higher reputation among those that use it in a power/professional sphere).
The difference I believe was that past failed windows versions were not intentionally bad, they were well intentioned but failed to achieve the goals, with windows 11 it's like they are deliberately making it worse.
> Despite the constraints of the Xbox’s single-threaded 733MHz CPU, XBMC 4.0 includes improvements to task scheduling that allow multiple activities to run concurrently.
As if the Pentium 3 wasn’t regularly used to run fully multi-tasking operating systems for years.
My old 400mhz P2 was able to play videos, catalog my music collection, download files, and let me edit code simultaneously just fine.
Yeah, the Pentium 2 and 3 CPUs were very capable. Even today I feel they can do a lot of work with the right tools and some shims to access modern stuff (SSH, RDP).
Maybe XBMC's kernel wasn't designed for multitasking and they're now adding better support. I could understand wanting to throw the whole CPU at whatever the user was doing, especially in early days.
USB is fine for PS1/retro games; should be more than enough for AthenaEnv. The difference only matters for PS2 backups. And there're more options than those two. HDD/SSD, Ethernet, MX4SIO/SIO2SD, MMCE (SD2PSX et al).
That's true; network too. Can play digital backups (off USB/Eth) only by using POPStarter (for those unaware, POPS being Sony's PS1 emulator ripped off the single game that was officially used on). Although POPS isn't really that good (was used, experimentally, only once afterall), USB throughput isn't an issue.
“Speed running paint”? You mean opening the image and dragging a text box over the existing text, changing the font to comic sans, and typing the text?
There are complicated workflows in Paint, this is not one of them.
Why have you failed though? Is the point to try to deceive people to think that XKCD actually published something else? Why not modify the xkcd one without hinding the fact that you modified it?
TSMC is ahead, as usual, but Intel is closer than Samsung (in this specific case).