> Microsoft ignoring AMD in their latest Surface lineup is a hint for the people looking for answers
I think the entire new surface line-up is a giant conspiracy.
The Surface Pro 9 5G has a Qualcomm 8cx Gen 3 with some tweaks called the SQ3. It does not match the performance of 12 Gen intel in a 15w power envelope, which is important because the Surface Pro 9 non-5G (intel) uses an i5-1235u, a 15w chip. But the last Gen, the pro 8 used a 28w 11th gen part. This means that the y/y perfromance is actually about the same (but better power/heat). If they used a matching 28w CPU it would have been a much bigger jump comapred to the ARM SQ3 5G.
But then, it gets WAY weirder.
The new (FOUR THOUNSDAND DOLLAR) Surface Studio 2+ ? 11th gen laptop CPU (11370H)...which is as fast as SQ3 will be.
Surface Laptop 5? Exact same specs as Surface Pro 8.
Casual reminder that the now two year old Apple M1 still smokes every single chip I just mentioned, all in a fanless iPad Air. The would-be Surface Laptop AMD Ryzen 6800U would be right on par with M1...which would make that SQ3 look like a bad deal.
Good point: they're excellent for MY benchmarks, to your point (I think).
Essentially I run them all day with Visual Studio Code and vim sessions, Firefox scanning news and documentation (and of course normal email etc), and ssh to cloud hosts.
> the now two year old Apple M1 still smokes every single chip I just mentioned, all in a fanless iPad Air
Well yes, but then you have to use macOS and the locked down close ecosystem that is Apple. That's not really something they're directly competing against.
The iPad runs iOS, which I suppose is what they meant. Windows ARM is less locked down than Windows S. iOS is still a walled-garden with a few holes here and there.
The second part of your question is key though "why most people should care." They obviously don't. It "just works" and generally keeps them from doing insecure shit. Want to buy hardware from someone else? Tough shit! Why would you anyway? You've got money to burn and no desire to write code that runs on your box without a second "real" computer. Buy some more lightning cables while you're at it. Don't forget to mention green bubbles next time you message an Android peasant.
I said that last part pretty snarky, but you're not wrong about most people not caring. That's their audience and they've nailed it.
> The iPad runs iOS, which I suppose is what they meant. Windows ARM is less locked down than Windows S. iOS is still a walled-garden with a few holes here and there.
The conversation never mentioned “iOS” or phones and the submission is about Intel who has nothing to do with mobile or Android. He specifically said MacOS:
>> Well yes, but then you have to use macOS and the locked down close ecosystem that is Apple.
What does any of your response have to with Intel, Windows or MacOS?
Most of the time it's the other way around, so programs which are used on MacOS but aren't available on Windows. Moving to MacOS is pretty doable I think, but leaving the Apple-sphere is a bit more complicated.
And this is not strictly MacOS but iOS: When I had an Android phone I could just connect it to a Linux or Window laptop and copy files of and to it, same probably also works on a Mac. Now that I have an iPhone I can't even transfer files between my PC and my phone, unless I install iTunes and/or iCloud or download pictures through the iCloud web-interface.
I thought at this point it was a well known fact that Apple devices work perfectly with each other, but that it gets complicated when you want to use a different OS in combination.
MacOS actually doesn't support MTP out of the box (which most non-ancient Android phones use). You need to get something like Android File Transfer to do it. They just don't want to support anything other than their own garbage.
> Edit: I see downvotes. But no one can answer the question.. .
You likely would have had fewer downvotes if you had just answered in earnest the question asked: "Are you asking a question or being dismissive and flippant?" Then maybe you would have gotten an answer or two.
Instead, choosing to reply with inflammatory language like "you couldn’t truthfully answer the question" seem to indicate you are probably not interested in any ration discussion, but are instead going to dig in and dismiss or attack anyone who disagrees with you. Certainly doesn't make me want to spend any time explaining the bleeding obvious to you, but perhaps someone else will.
> And yet, you also are unable to answer the question…
Correction: Unwilling. Not unable. This is an important distinction. I'm simply unwilling to engage in a lengthy discussion with you, on any topic really, based on your uncivil behavior here.
They can run it, but not very well, and with tons of edge cases (especially concerning networking and FS mounts). Both Windows and Linux have container support built directly into the kernel.
That’s always the problem. An R&D group I worked for laid off developers but no managers, which lead to more layoffs because overhead went up, which mean rates went up, which meant more consultants came in instead.
Really at least a fifth of your layoff should be managers. If you lay off about six reports, that’s one less manager you need. So 1/7. If you lay off six managers, that’s one skip level you don’t need. 1 + 6 + 36 = 43. Go to three levels and that’s 1 + 6 + 36 + 216 = 259, or 43 / 259 or about 1/6.
But if you want to keep production capacity, you should move to slightly more reports per manager, not maintain steady state. Just to keep the math simple, if you had 216 developers reporting to an organization of 43 managers, if you went to 7 reports per manager you need 31 line managers, not 36, which is a 2% RIF without losing a single producer. Or if you do both you get about 1/5th of laid off people as managers if you lay off less than half your developers.
Edit: fractions and ratios are not interchangeable, bad math.
Why not both? Even much smaller organizations tend to have low-impact teams that could be absorbed by others and their work deprioritized. If you're going to fire a dozen managers then the implication (or at least possibility) exists that maybe even the bottom 20% of that group is assigned to low-priority projects and perhaps even under-performing.
Then 216 => 43 becomes 203 => 29
Now you've reduced the workforce by 10% and put some miserable projects entirely out of their misery at the same time!
I worry about any company that doesn’t track priority and severity separately. Priority is political, and often bullshit (everything is top priority!) but some tasks, if not completed, are company killers, and some just embarrass a loud-mouthed salesperson in front of a customer.
Just to check my math, let’s look at an org that has a multiple of 6²x7²=1764 staff.
We had 294 line managers, 49 managers, and 8+ program managers. 351 managers, 2115 employees total. I need to lay off at least 15% or 318 people.
We go from 294 line managers to 252, plus reductions up the chain to 36 + 5 = 293. 58 down, 260 to go. I lay off 5 managers, 35 line managers, and 245 staff, that’s 58 + 285 = 343 people total, so I can argue for keeping a couple extra line managers and all their reports. Call it 327 layoffs, 96 of them managers, 28.4%.
Pfft, as bad as the managers are at Intel, don't try to pretend that they have top tier talent (in SW) when they are paying on average about half of what a FAANG pays.
When I was there, they called Intel "Great place to leetcode" (a corruption of Intel claiming they are a "great place to work" everywhere)
Intel is known for good WLB and quiet quitting because the non technical managers didn't have a clue about what was actually being done on their own team. It's easy for engineers to BS these kinds of people, and this was the norm since any passion for SW was killed by working there long term...
Congrats to Apple and AMD for having done better
Microsoft ignoring AMD in their latest Surface lineup is a hint for the people looking for answers