HN user
Fair enough if it’s not vibe coded, I’ll take your word for it. Code review seems like it’s mostly bots (Claude, Cursor, Greptile) from the PRs I looked at?
Nevertheless, AI use is not what really stood out to me. It’s that it’s SO MUCH CODE. I have no idea how you guys maintain or reason about the quality or security of something like this. Good luck, I guess.
How much UI text does this thing have that it needs thousands of lines of localization? Where are these files?
Especially curious because I see a whole lot of hardcoded english text in there…
I don’t think so. I just used a public GitHub LoC counting tool directly on the repo, there are a few.
https://ghloc.vercel.app/thunderbird/thunderbolt?branch=main claims 141k and most of it is Typescript.
[flagged]
This is a pain, to be sure, but surely there is some sort of logic you could implement to detect whether a file is a Real File that actually exists on the device (if so, back it up) or a pointer to the cloud (ignore it by default, probably, but maybe provide a user setting to force it to back up even these)
It's a little interesting that they would pick Office 2000 as an example, since Office 97 and onwards do not use standard OS widgets -- it reimplements and draws them itself*.
The menu bar in Office 2000 does not look like the standard OS menu bar, for instance. The colors, icons and spacing are non-standard. This is only slightly jarring, because it's pretty well done, but it's still inconsistent with every other app.
This was kind of the beginning of the end for Windows consistency -- when even Microsoft thought that their own toolkit and UX standards were insufficient for their flagship application. Things have only become worse since then.
* This becomes very obvious when you run Office 97 on NT 3.51, which generally looks like Windows 3.1, but since Office 97 renders itself and does not care about OS widgets, it looks like this: http://toastytech.com/guis/nt351word.png
To be more exact, I think the first great Pentium was the 133, but the 75 is the first that was a real, proper jump in performance from a fast 486 and represented decent price/performance.
I think it’s a bit of both. It absolutely tried very hard to pretend that it was a ”586” (Pentium class) but also ”5x” is right there and implies that if the DX4 is 4, this is 5.
The full name on the chip on some of them is ”Am5x86-P75 DX5-133” which implies a lot of things, some of which are flat out misleading (it does not get very close to ”P75” performance)
This is almost exactly what the plan was, until C= went out of business:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Hombre_chipset
It was going to be HP PA-RISC based and have an AGA Amiga SoC, including a 68k core.
The 68060 is pretty good to be fair, but it never ended up being widely used and Motorola definitely saw PPC as the future.
Maybe if these theoretical new 68k Amigas became a huge market hit they could have taken the arch further and it could have remained competitive, but all the other 68k shops had already pretty much given up or moved on already (Apple was already going PPC, Sun went SPARC, NeXT gave up on their 68k hardware, Atari was exiting the computer business entirely, etc) so I don’t know that the market would have been there to support development against the vast amount of competition from both the huge x86 bastion on one hand and the multitude of RISC newcomers on the other.
Yeah, it does alright and is a significant difference to a DX/2, but Quake came out in ’96 and the P60 came out as a super expensive workstation class CPU in ’93. If you were a gamer in ’96 it is unlikely you were rocking a P60 because it was not ever good value for money.
The original Pentiums (socket 4, 60 or 66 MHz) had the infamous floating point division bug, had underwhelming perf for anything not FP bound (most things), ran hot, and were too expensive for what you got. A DX/4 100 was nearly always a more rational choice.
Second gen Pentiums, starting with the 75 MHz, were great.
Especially since when actual clock quadrupled chips eventually came out they had to call themselves ridiculous things like ”5x86” instead of DX/4. (The Am5x86 133 runs at 4x33 MHz)
Yeah, there were holdouts of course but the DX/2 really seems like the breaking point.
(Also, a Pentium 60 is barely faster than a DX/2 66 at many tasks — it is a Bad Processor — but that’s another conversation ;)
The CD32 chip actually had byte-per-pixel (chunky) graphics modes but the omission from the 1200 was fatal.
I agree. Unfortunately, even with chunky graphics and/or 3D foresight, 68k would still have been a dead end and Commodore would still have been mismanaged into death. It’s fun to dream though…
The DX/2 66 is a true legend of a chip. It was so good. The final nail in the coffin for the Amiga and for 68k. I love the Amiga, but it just didn’t Doom.
Before it, you could claim that a 68040 was kinda-sorta keeping up with the 486 and that the nicer design and better operating systems of other computers made up for the delta in raw performance, but the DX/2 66 running Doom was the final piece of proof that the worse-is-better approach of using raw CPU grunt to blast pixels at screen memory instead of relying on clever custom circuitry was winning.
Faced with overwhelming evidence, everyone sold their Amiga 1200s and jumped ship to that hated Wintel platform.
Unfortunately that’s an unacceptable security risk, especially for a government.
I haven't mentioned America or any other continent. It is the Europeans who are shouting about sovereignty right now.
Well, no one has mentioned computer hardware until you did.
Surely you understand how "all the motherboards are made in Taiwan" is less of an immediate risk to sovereignty than "all of our business and personal data is stored on American servers and subject to US law"
It would be nice if Europe could produce its own computers, but right now no one can except China, so what is your point? That limited sovereignty efforts undertaken in the realm of reality are futile and that enables you to get some cheap shots in for whatever reason?
The same is not true in Europe, so there's not a huge Dell, HP, or IBM equivalent.
In the 90s and up until the early 00s we used to have quite a few pretty serious contenders, but they are all dead now: ICL, Siemens-Nixdorf, Tulip, Bull, Olivetti, etc.
Sometimes organizations need to undertake work that is not friction free to achieve longer term goals.
are there any machines still running on a Z80?
A LOT of them. Zilog only announced its discontinuation in 2024.
But that also means that there are A LOT of them out there, and they are cheap and generally extremely reliable parts. So if you rely on a device with a Z80 in it and you're worried about the CPU failing you can have hundreds of these things on the shelf for ~no money.
So I would say it's of limited utility for industrial applications for now simply because scarcity is not an issue for the real thing. This might change in the future so it's good that projects like this exist.
The Commodore REU (RAM Expansion Unit) architecture for the C64/C128 allows for up to 16 MiB - 256 banks of 256 addresses in 256 pages.
Due to the lack of support hardware in the C64 (no hardware RAM bank switching/MMU) this memory is not bank switched and then directly addressable by the CPU, it's copied on request by DMA into actual system RAM. But in some sense, a C64 with a 16 MiB REU is a 6502 with 16 MiB RAM.
But yeah, you want CPU addressable RAM with real bank switching. You couldn't really do 16 MiB, you wouldn't want to bank switch the entire 64 KiB memory space. The Commander X16 (a modern hobbyist 6502 computer) supports up to 2 MiB by having hardware capable of switching 256 banks into an 8 KiB window (2 MiB/256 banks = 8 KiB).
Let's say you design something with 32 KiB pages instead -- that seems kind of plausible, depending on what the system does -- you could then do 256*32 = 8 MiB and still have 32 KiB of non-paged memory space available. I think this looks like just about the maximum you would want to do without the code or hardware getting too hairy.
The easy way to accomplish this is to just launch a NeXTstep box in your browser from https://infinitemac.org/
I don’t know if they have Improv pre-installed, but it will let you mount disk images from your computer.
(Personally I find the easy way too easy, so I have NeXT^WOpenSTEP installed on bare metal on a 5x86 box. But that’s me)
Yup. But from the OP, all the information we have is the CPU model, and the GP decided that was enough to say it should be thrown in the trash for power inefficiency, so I thought it was enough for some bad math.
(FWIW, searching for the CPU model brings up an old review where the full system they’re testing pulls 145W under some amount of load. While that’s not nothing, it’s also not outrageous for a desktop PC that does the desktop PC things you require of it.)
I know, but it should be roughly correlated and only serves as comparison for wildly inaccurate napkin math anyway.
I guess. It's hardly an open-and-shut case of "throw your old computer away!" though, especially when this is a worst-case scenario of running a desktop computer at full blast 24/7 without it ever going into sleep mode or being turned off, and when you don't know what the user's needs are. Maybe a mini-PC with basically no expansion just won't really work for them?
65W TDP? Let's say we want to run a PC so we're switching to a newer low-end Ryzen with a 35W TDP and that that's a 30W difference for the whole system. Let's say we're running the system 24/7 and the CPU is pulling its full TDP constantly. Average US residential electricity price is $0.18/kWh.
0.03 kW * 24 h * 365 d * $0.18 = $47.30/year
This article is a wonderful example of an expert leveraging AI to do normal work 100x faster.
This article is an example of an AI agent taking 40 minutes to do some basic ass sysadmin troubleshooting tasks. 100x faster than who? An ”expert”?
It’s not the tooling for me, macOS is just bad as a server OS for many reasons. Weird collisions with desktop security features, aggressive power saving that you have to fight against, root not being allowed to do root stuff, no sane package management, no OOB management, ultra slow OS updates, and generally but most importantly: the UNIX underbelly of macOS has clearly not been a priority for a long time and is rotting with weird inconsistent and undocumented behaviour all over the place.