<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: einr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=einr</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:04:23 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=einr" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Bring Back Idiomatic Design (2023)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's a little interesting that they would pick Office 2000 as an example, since Office 97 and onwards do <i>not</i> use standard OS widgets -- it reimplements and draws them itself*.<p>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.<p>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.<p>* 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: <a href="http://toastytech.com/guis/nt351word.png" rel="nofollow">http://toastytech.com/guis/nt351word.png</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2026 08:41:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47749408</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47749408</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47749408</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>To be more exact, I think the first <i>great</i> 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.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:21:32 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719500</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719500</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719500</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>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.<p>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)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:16:29 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719428</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719428</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719428</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This is almost exactly what the plan was, until C= went out of business:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Hombre_chipset" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Hombre_chipset</a><p>It was going to be HP PA-RISC based and have an AGA Amiga SoC, including a 68k core.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:51:16 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719023</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719023</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47719023</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The 68060 is pretty good to be fair, but it never ended up being widely used and Motorola definitely saw PPC as the future.<p>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.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:39:14 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718854</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718854</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718854</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>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.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:10:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718441</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718441</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718441</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>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.<p>Second gen Pentiums, starting with the 75 MHz, were great.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 14:01:53 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718319</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718319</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718319</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Especially since when <i>actual</i> 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)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:59:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718285</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718285</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718285</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Yeah, there were holdouts of course but the DX/2 really seems like the breaking point.<p>(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 ;)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:58:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717459</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717459</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717459</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p><i>The CD32 chip actually had byte-per-pixel (chunky) graphics modes but the omission from the 1200 was fatal.</i><p>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…</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:57:03 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717436</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717436</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717436</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>You’re in luck!<p><a href="https://www.silverstonetek.com/en/product/info/computer-chassis/flp02/" rel="nofollow">https://www.silverstonetek.com/en/product/info/computer-chas...</a></p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:48:35 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717338</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717338</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717338</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Intel 486 CPU announced April 10, 1989"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>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.<p>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.<p>Faced with overwhelming evidence, everyone sold their Amiga 1200s and jumped ship to that hated Wintel platform.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:48:08 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717332</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717332</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717332</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "France Launches Government Linux Desktop Plan as Windows Exit Begins"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Unfortunately that’s an unacceptable security risk, especially for a government.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:32:54 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717141</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717141</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47717141</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "France Launches Government Linux Desktop Plan as Windows Exit Begins"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p><i>I haven't mentioned America or any other continent. It is the Europeans who are shouting about sovereignty right now.</i><p>Well, no one has mentioned computer hardware until you did.<p>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"<p>It would be <i>nice</i> 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?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:07:07 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716845</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716845</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716845</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "France to ditch Windows for Linux to reduce reliance on US tech"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p><i>The same is not true in Europe, so there's not a huge Dell, HP, or IBM equivalent.</i><p>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.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:02:38 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716799</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716799</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716799</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "France Launches Government Linux Desktop Plan as Windows Exit Begins"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Sometimes organizations need to undertake work that is not friction free to achieve longer term goals.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 11:04:21 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716250</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716250</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716250</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "PicoZ80 – Drop-In Z80 Replacement"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>> are there any machines still running on a Z80?<p><i>A LOT</i> of them. Zilog only announced its discontinuation in 2024.<p>But that also means that there are <i>A LOT</i> 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.<p>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.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:25:55 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47715537</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47715537</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47715537</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Second Revision of 6502 Laptop"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).<p>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.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 12:08:34 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47673978</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47673978</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47673978</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Sheets Spreadsheets in Your Terminal"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The easy way to accomplish this is to just launch a NeXTstep box in your browser from <a href="https://infinitemac.org/" rel="nofollow">https://infinitemac.org/</a><p>I don’t know if they have Improv pre-installed, but it will let you mount disk images from your computer.<p>(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)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 07:09:35 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47657795</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47657795</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47657795</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by einr in "Hold on to Your Hardware"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>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.<p>(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.)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:27:02 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47543868</link><dc:creator>einr</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47543868</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47543868</guid></item></channel></rss>