leadeater

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

I look at it in a similar way to high end PC parts. You don't need to have the latest but many do upgrade more often than really needed for a better experience.
 
PS5 Pro wont be for the masses, but for those who are big into their console gaming. If it gets a better experience, why not go for it? Chances are they'll have PS Plus in some form anyway which gets you cloud saves so that's not a problem.

Basically the PS4 Pro came out with the PS4 Slim, and then they discontinued the Pro and kept the slim for another 3 years. 
 
Personally, any time I've even bought a console, I waited for the "Slim" or whatever refined model comes out, because problems with the existing models. Like the Xbox 360 was notoriously bad, so I waited for a redesign , the S model. Which was fine, but then the hard drive died and I was like "well f microsoft then."
 
So I bought the Switch after the "OLED" model came out, but didn't buy the OLED model.
 

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

Only because MacOS isn't sold as a product.

When it comes to file sharing MacOS is orders of magnitude worse, particularly SMB.  It uses their custom version of the protocol that performs like garbage unless the server is also MacOS, as it expects the server to do meta data indexing.  This is made worse by their file browser Finder also being utterly garbage compared to other OS file browsers/requesters.
 
I spent about a year trying to use a Mac Mini for image work, trying all the SMB tweaks to make it work properly, but I got so sick of it taking minutes to parse a file share directory listing whereas Windows took seconds, I went back to Windows.
 
Speaking as a primarily Linux user.

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

A lot of that really doesn't matter as much anymore on the x86 generation of consoles and there also wouldn't be any regressions for basically anything going between Zen 2 to Zen 3 or 4.
 
The bigger reason is this is still a custom monolithic SoC and it's not a direct Zen 2 architecture, it's a custom one designed with Sony so if the CPU were to be changed then it would be an entirely new SoC and require to go through a lot more design and manufacturing validation which is costly. Beefing up the GPU while requiring a lot of work doesn't require changing anything about the the CPU aspect of the SoC or likely any of the physical lay out of it.
 

 
The entire left side is most likely going to be unchanged and unmodified.
 
One of the key things about something like a PS5 Pro is cost, less work = better. So I don't think compatibility is the issue but the underlying reason is much the same. Also anything that runs on the PS5 Pro still has to run on the PS5 and if you give 50% more CPU power then you also run the risk of games being created to use that (intentionally or not) aka not running on the PS5.

There wasn’t any hardware upgrades, I’m talking about upgrading an existing system with Windows 10 directly. I even installed Windows 10 on a machine and then upgraded it to Windows 11 two months later; No bloat on there, it’s actually a faster OS. 
 
I understand why people are annoyed their builds from 2016 cannot be upgraded, the hardware security is what it is, but Windows 11 is not a huge resource hog.
 
 

Boo only for iphone…

10mbps in 2000? Damn and here I was happy my 56k modem would actually negotiate a connection at above 40kbps.

Orgs are really the reason why Win 10 has such a big marketshare still - most simply haven't moved across yet. Even if you ignore the fact that Win 10 only has 18 months left, it's only within the last 6-12 months that many admins would have even started to consider moving to 11 at all, simply because of its age - new versions of Windows have a reputation of being buggy with all sorts of weird software quirks that you just don't want to deal with on a large scale (yes Win 11 mostly avoided this, but many admins have just been burned too many times) but which you can mostly avoid by letting the OS mature for a year or so. And that's despite the fact that Win 11 has some really cool features for sysadmins that very much incentivise them to upgrade.
 
There's also a number of people hoping that they can jump straight to Windows 12 - thanks to all the rumours that have been floating around - just like how many orgs went straight from Win 7 to WIn 10, but how many this actually represents I've no idea.

USB and SD card are interchangeable here, they are functionally the same. The only thing to be careful of is the quality of the SD card but that also applies to USB drives. High failure rates is why ESXi stopped supporting both USB and SD card.
 
Still a good home lab option for unRAID OS or even Linux, just have a plan for when it fails because it's not an if since it will.

USB and SD card are interchangeable here, they are functionally the same. The only thing to be careful of is the quality of the SD card but that also applies to USB drives. High failure rates is why ESXi stopped supporting both USB and SD card.
 
Still a good home lab option for unRAID OS or even Linux, just have a plan for when it fails because it's not an if since it will.

They are for boot media, mainly ESXi before that was depreciated a while back on the ESXi side.
It can still be used for other boot media though.

There is, it's just called attenuation. This is where the maximum distance comes from along with transmit power etc. Currently Corning says 100m maximum for their newest optical TB cables so I'd start factoring this in above 30m since movement of the connectors creates attenuation too.
 
Attenuation causes skew rays, essentially noise or light also hitting the receiving sensor at a different wavelength.
 
Optical is often thought as of not having the problems of copper but it actually does, just in different ways and exhibits in extremes. That's where you can get signal dropouts and then come back for example. This is why we have fibre cleaning tools at work because dust causes this as well, attenuation (not an issue for Optical DP/TB/USB).

I don't think it's such a good idea to remote connect over network for gaming however your best choice is most likely Parsec.
 
If you can run a fibre Thunderbolt cable to a Thunderbolt dock that would be much better, it's a "local" PC still.

I have been using a Thunderbolt dock with my laptop going on 5 years now with multiple monitors etc without any such problems. Maybe it's a distance thing and signal problems?

I don't think it's such a good idea to remote connect over network for gaming however your best choice is most likely Parsec.
 
If you can run a fibre Thunderbolt cable to a Thunderbolt dock that would be much better, it's a "local" PC still.

Google Suite is used a lot in education, like a lot. I know quite a few businesses that use it. It's pretty good, especially if you don't have much legacy stuff that would limit you. Personally I hate Google Sheets compared to Excel and I use that enough it's a problem. Every time I use Sheets for the forum F@H events it reminds me how much I dislike Sheets.

Windows has had a variable EOL
 
If you include all versions of windows going back to 1.01, all versions of windows between 1.01 Thru to Windows 95 EOL'd in 2001
98/98SE and ME EOL 2006 ( 8, 7 and 6 years)
Windows NT 3.51 1995 to 2001 (6 years)
Windows NT 4.0 1996 to 2004 ( 8 years)
Windows 2000 2000 to 2010 ( 10 years)
Windows XP 2001 to 2014 ( 13 years)
Windows Vista 2007 to 2017 ( 10 years)
Windows 7 2009 to 2020 (11 years)
Windows 8 2012 to 2016 ( 4 years)
Windows 8.1 2013 to 2023 (10 years)
Windows 10 2015 to 2025 (10 years)
Windows 11 2021 to undefined
 
Now if you want to nitpick Windows 8, 8.1, 10 and 11 are the same OS. Microsoft basically rolled out sub versions starting with 8 that were equal to the service packs of NT 4. So each of these individual versions have small EOL dates. So Windows 10 1507 still has LTSB to 2024, even though GAC is 2017. 21H2 was released in 2021, and ends 2023, but LTSB is to 2032
 
So yes "Windows 10" has lasted 10 years, but each of the builds were 2 years.
 
Compare this with , say FreeBSD. Which 4.x had 7 years, 5.x had 5 years and every major version has been 5 years, but the point versions are frequently only 1 year. Which absolutely sucks except for the fact you can upgrade directly from 4.x to 13.x on the same hardware (personal experience) without ever having to reinstall things. So that's like having 25 years of support. Though it's not really that, FreeBSD has been removing hardware support and thus 13.x and 14.x will not run on the same hardware that was out with 4.x. FreeBSD also has immense code rot. So the ports packages are completely nuked when the OS goes EOL, so you are totally screwed the minute the OS goes EOL on that old hardware.. No upgrade path. Throw your server away.
 
I sometimes thought the cobol Y2K stuff was a bit silly, but here we are with the OS vendors deciding to arbitrarily nuke support for hardware just so they can release frequently. Linux is no better. Every piece of old hardware needs a maintainer for it's drivers or it risks disappearing there too.
 
 

I have been using a Thunderbolt dock with my laptop going on 5 years now with multiple monitors etc without any such problems. Maybe it's a distance thing and signal problems?

When dealing with thousands of machines at an org, you need a platform that can be centrally managed within an IT department for policy enforcements (GPOs), patching, provisioning, and software deployment. Windows is "easier" in that there's a whole lot of official documentation with Microsoft backing it along with a 3rd party ecosystem.

With Linux, you're relying on a vendor implementation of it for support; say for example a virtual appliance or as a packaged solution with their lifecycle support behind it. Or, you just have far fewer Linux servers running with dedicated admins maintaining them.

I wouldn't say you can't run an entire org on FOSS, but rather it's the devil that you know vs the one you don't. Often is the lack of Linux admins in the market place (Windows admins are cheaper) too.

The irony is that if the world changes to Linux from Windows, it's because they will run a Microsoft flavor of Linux. 😂

The same arguments were made about Windows 7 and also Windows 10. People simply don't move OS until they have to, then it happens as fast as someone with food poisoning that needs to get to the bathroom.
 

Dotted line being Windows 11 and not meaningfully different to Windows 7 or Windows 10. Smaller uptake spike at the start but really not enough to matter overall. It's already vastly better uptake than Vista and Windows 8/8.1.

It looks like only the 10TB model is available in both options. Typically helium is used for large capacity drives, and air is used for smaller drives to save cost. It doesn't seem to matter much for most uses and I haven't seen anything that points to a major difference in failure rate.
 
I'd typically reccomend getting large drives for your nas like 16TB+, so helium is your only option.