Mastodon @davidga@mastodon.xyz

  • 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle






  • DavidGA@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlThe EU has finally won this one!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is asinine. Apple has shown a strong commitment to supporting particular standards for extended periods. For example, the iPhone’s 30-pin connector was maintained for over 10 years. Similarly, the Lightning port, its successor, has also been around for about a decade. (And, it should be noticed, started being used two years BEFORE USB-C existed.) Additionally, Apple has supported the Thunderbolt standard throughout its life cycle.

    Apple has always been judicious about the ports it adopts. The company is not known for having a plethora of ports catering to multiple generations of connector technologies. Instead, when Apple picks a standard, it tends to go all in. Take the case of USB-A: Apple was one of the early adopters of this technology and supported it for approximately 20 years before making the switch to USB-C. To put this in perspective, the time between the USB Mini to Micro switch and the Micro to USB-C transition was shorter than the lifespan of Apple’s 30-pin and Lightning connectors.

    It’s unreasonable to assume that Apple would restrict the cables that can be used in a standard USB-C port. The USB-C standard is built on the principle of universal compatibility. Restricting this would not only break with the standard but also limit the very advantages that have made USB-C popular among consumers and manufacturers alike.


  • This is a common misconception, and it’s funny that people still believe it all these years later.

    While it’s true that Windows 95 relied on MS-DOS for bootstrapping and provided a DOS-like interface for running legacy applications, it wasn’t “just a shell” on top of DOS. Windows 95 introduced a 32-bit multitasking environment, a completely new user interface, and a separate set of APIs for software development (Win32). It had its own kernel that provided services like memory management and hardware abstraction, separate from DOS.

    The integration with DOS was mainly for backward compatibility, allowing users to run older software. But once you were in the Windows 95 environment, DOS was essentially sidelined, and Windows 95’s own features and architecture took over.