Definitely not, the design was quite carefully made to avoid the pitfalls of Meshtastic. The developers documented quite a lot of their early work. It really didn't feel like a vibe-coded type of environment.
> Like many ARM systems, it doesn’t chase high boost clocks and instead delivers steady, sustained performance
Maybe not boost clocks, but every arm system I've used supports some form of frequency scaling and behaves the same as any x86 machine I've used in comparison. The only difference is how high can you go... /shrug
I am not sure how workload specific it is, but in cloud compute in organizations I've worked there's often been a substantial savings outlay from literally just switching from x86 machines for workloads to ARM machines, with no other changes. So it's usually twofold, and a combination of both (lower price for the instance, but also better efficiency as well). In one organization in particular of recent memory we were doing dynamic autoscaling of hundreds of kubernetes nodes simultaneously and were able to project / achieve about 15% conservatively. Just from going x86 -> ARM with no additional changes. Probably some workload that is CPU bound but does not depend on x86 architecturally would benefit from a number significantly higher than that 15%
Those are designed to have static asymmetrical bandwidth though, *dm split gives ISP side more of possible shared bandwidth. Wifi bandwidth is shared and dynamic so client can use all of it.
Complaining on the internet every time laliga shuts down github etc isn't going to change anything, we can't solve your problems, the change has to come from within.
Let's be real, Windows 2000 ran reasonably well on only 128mb of memory... if it needed megabytes like modern apps, it wouldn't be very useful, especially when you're low on memory.
Even WinXP had goofy web technology tied into File Explorer (called “Windows Explorer” then, I believe). Win2K was just optimal, for me, for what I was doing at the time.
I think Win2k already had that. As far as I remember, the explorer sidebar, the white box with the colored line under the heading, already being HTML.
I loved hacking on that back then to customize my windows experience.
If you changed the colour scheme on Windows 98, none of the cloud images were transparent in Explorer (they assumed the background was white) so you'd end up with these weird clouds/sky fading into a white background and then a hard line into whatever colour you'd set your background to.
The desktop was very sluggish if you added an active desktop to it, as IE4 had to run; at least it was on my underpowered machine. Additionally it came with a screensaver that you could interact with, which was odd because normally moving the mouse dismissed the screensaver.
reply