It looks like you only use a tiny fraction of Teams' functionality. I agree, there's little to complain about when using it for IM/voice/video calls. When you start using it for other things, especially the enterprise features, it is bad. It is a resource hog, handles navigation poorly, has poor default settings, finding installed apps can be tough, etc.
My current pet peeve: I’m often going back to the previous week on Monday to fill out my time sheet. So, I open the chat for a meeting last week to see how long it took, fill it out, and hit the calendar icon in teams and I’m back on the current week. It’s a painful UX flow that I’ve now built in to my brain, so help me god if they fix it.
Note that teams does include a “back” button, and also note that it doesn’t give a flip about state - it knows you were just at the calendar but doesn’t care where, so you’re back on the current week
Really? You think a git commit message in a C project is the right place to document how to install make and gcc on arch linux? That's not better suited as part of a readme file?
Literally anything is a good alternative to electron. One should prioritize the quality of the product, and use of electron gives the lowest quality product.
Flutter / Dart? It's compiled ahead of time and doesn't use an embedded browser so I'd expect it to be a lot lighter, though I haven't measured.
But the general lack of really cross-platform (desktop + mobile + maybe web) ecosystems is just as much as sign that devs consider multi-gigabyte Electron apps "good enough" as the apps themselves.
>at devs consider multi-gigabyte Electron apps "good enough" as the apps themselves.
This kind of misses out on a hierarchy of devs here and the amount of work to make it happen. Electron took a large chunk from a multi-billion dollar endeavor to use to make all this work. Electron only worked because Chrome was there. Chrome worked because Google already had unlimited money from advertising, and getting advertising on every device possible was their goal.
Devs might want light apps everywhere, but seemingly none are going to dedicate the rest of their life and money to make it work.
True, not every dev has the power of a multi-billion dollar company behind them. But a few do.
My point was, if enough people really considered this a big deal then at least one huge tech company might have invested in a solution that provides a lighter weight solution that's truely multiplatform (desktop and mobile).
I don't have much visibility on how decisions are made to maintain massive open-source infrastructure projects, and no doubt there are significant business case inputs to them, but they must be at least partially technical. So, as I see it, the lack of such things give insight that even developers don't prioritise them.
As I mentioned, Flutter is almost there and maybe its lack of uptake on desktop is just enough to show that there really isn't demand (though I expect the main reason is its use of the Dart programming language, which is very nice but quite niche).
Having sat in many a meeting, partially yes, but these things are massively expensive. There is an equation, How much would it cost us to write a replacement that covers what we need versus how much does it cost us to use what exists that isn't efficient.
And this is where you miss the biggest part of the problem. It's the end users that bear the biggest part of the costs. Yes, there is an internal cost for their own developers, but that is comparatively small to the costs of their paychecks.
The next comes to management of the lightweight solution over time. If it's owned by a company at the end of the day companies are rarely interested in lightweight, they are interested in making the most money and quite often that means adding more and more features to accomplish lock-in.
Open source is more likely to keep a project remaining light, but to do that it's quite often by not accepting bulky features that would make companies more money. So you see where the catch-22 situation starts to arise from.
>As you can see, these two new Intel chips now sit at the top of the stack in terms of multi-core performance. And when it comes to the X9 388H, it's by a healthy margin. Coming back with a chip that outperforms Apple's latest M5 by 33 percent is no easy feat, but Intel pulled it off. The same is true in the graphics department, where Intel has taken the lead in integrated graphics. It has been a long time since I've been able to say this, but Intel is clearly back on top.
>Intel still can't compete on single-core performance against Apple, and that's where the improvement is the most modest. It’s also not as fast as the M4 Pro or M4 Max, which still have the edge in every category, though the difference in multi-core performance between the X9 and the M4 Pro is only 14 percent. Apple's M5 Pro and M5 Max are just around the corner, too. I'd also love to test the Core Ultra X7358H against upcoming processors in next-gen laptops like the Snapdragon X2 Elite Enhanced, but I don't have them on hand yet for comparisons.
>The graphics really stand out, though, especially when you get to the X9 chip. For once, the inclusion of the “X” branding in the name actually feels worthwhile. Both the X7 and X9 chips use a B390 GPU, representing the top of the line in Intel's architecture (outside of discrete desktop graphics cards). You get 12 Xe cores in the X7 and X9 configurations, the only difference between the two being clock speed. Intel claimed that Panther Lake graphics were 77 percent faster than in the previous-gen Lunar Lake laptops, and while I didn't quite see that much of a jump, it's hard to get a direct apples-to-apples comparison with laptops.
>its gaming performance is really impressive. Cyberpunk 2077 can hit a comfortable 55 frames per second (fps) at native medium graphics settings—and that's without any upscaling and frame generation
>The bump came in a year when Qualcomm reported full-year revenue of $44.3 billion, up 14 percent, but net income plunged 45 percent to $5.5 billion after the company booked a hefty non-cash tax charge tied to changes in US tax law. In other words, sales were up, profits went backwards, and executive pay kept climbing anyway.
15% more pay for 14% more revenue doesn't sound as crazy as the headline. The real question is how do you mess up this badly despite growing? Did they over invest into acquiring unprofitable AI companies?
They didn't mess up badly. They choose to take a one time non-cash tax charge of $5.7 billion which will allow them to take advantage of a recent change in tax law to achieve a lower effective tax rate and lower cash tax payments going forward. Meta did something similar taking a $15.9 billion non-cash tax charge to take advantage of the same changed tax laws. Many other companies have already or are expected to do the same.
Sure, they all had moms and dads and to their families they were likely important and missed but there is a World of difference to the people left behind between some activist no one knows getting murdered by the state and their own families and acquaintances getting mowed down while they themselves are living precariously.
This moral absolutism is relativism in disguise.
edit: sorry, I shouldn't have replied to a political post however egregious. I will not engage further.
Inb4: I've used ventrilo,team speak, mumble, discord, Skype.
reply