I do, I feel like we desperately need some more competition/options in the browser engine space.

Win 3.1 works great via DOSBox, even supporting higher resolutions and color depths.

Hahaha that got me! I legit thought this could’ve been a PR stunt that actually may have happened until I read the last sentence … after which I thought it was even more likely to have happened.

It’s actually 10 years old when taking the original Wii U version of Mario Kart 8 into account.

One might even go as far as saying it’s morally not okay to pay for a Nintendo game because you are in a way financing their lawyers.

I’m not 100 % sure how it exactly works, but I think Microsoft recompiles/translates the games and you then download the changed binary instead of playing off your disc (which is also why texture streaming should be a lot faster).

This is most likely a process that’s automated for the most part though. And I highly doubt it’s recompiled from source, that’s why I called it “translated”.

Games using the id tech engine were often affected by visible texture pop in, and apparently the PS3 version was affected more than the 360 version, but the latter still was noticeably affected. Rage uses id tech 5, but I remember playing BRINK (id tech 4) on PS3 which had no mandatory install (it ran from the disc without installing anything to the HDD upfront), but used the HDD extensively for caching texture data. After I upgraded from the standard 5400 rpm HDD to a 7200 rpm HDD I remember texture pop-in was noticeably reduced.

Xbox 360 emulation on Xbox One or Series isn’t really accurately emulating the hardware, instead it translates the original code to something the One and Series understand.

This should be an effective solution.

Yeah, it’s also not “just” if it’s one of what feels like hundreds of steps now to make the OS somewhat usable.

True. Might be easier to just drop a bunch of torrents to the website though.

That’s not what this is. You can download a supposedly dead torrent, add more trackers that might have peers available for that torrent to it, and re-add the modified torrent to your client.

So it’s just a worse Analogue Pocket for almost the same price…?

Lenovo has been weird for many years now with their built-to-order configuration options. They often announce 4 to 5 display options when in reality maybe 2 or 3 are available, and some of them only in combination with some weird other configuration options. Then it also depends on country of order.

Oh yeah, looking forward to hopefully many years of platform support. They’ll obviously have to switch to different memory modules (as an example) at some point (CAMM should be next), but I hope they keep the board compatible with the case, modules, I/O and display for as long as anyhow possible.

I’m coming from a ThinkPad T490 and if that would’ve been a Framework which I could just upgrade from the i7 8565u to a Core Ultra or Ryzen 7000, I wouldn’t need/want a new notebook and could simply upgrade.

This will be my first Framework, already preordered a few weeks ago.

They finally offer a 120 Hz display, and while it has slightly rounded corners which isn’t ideal, but I’ll take the 120 Hz with VRR and higher resolution over perfect corners. They explained they had to use a panel that was already on the market because they don’t have enough volume that they can afford to order a custom display and with the Framework 13 using a 3:2 aspect ratio options were apparently very limited.

They also offer a keyboard with the Super key having a neutral label (not a Windows logo) now.

The new webcam is apparently quite a lot better, but I don’t care too much about that.

I went for the i5 125H model, I think the difference of almost 400,-€ to the i7 155H isn’t worth it for most use cases, as you only get 2 more P cores (with all other core clusters being identical, I think 4+8+2 vs. 6+8+2) and 8 instead of 7 GPU CUs. I feel the difference will be negligible for my use case as soon as it hits power/thermal limits anyway. This also seems to be the stop-gap generation of CPUs, with both AMD and Intel appearing to make noticeable steps forward in the generation.

There’s also the AMD model which is great and got most upgrades the Ultra model did (new display, webcam and keyboard options), only missing out on a slightly improved cooling system. Between the i7 and R7 I probably would’ve gone for the Ryzen 7, but I feel the i5 is the better choice compared to the Ryzen 5, primarily because the iGPU is stripped quite a bit compared to the R7. Intel is also less restrictive on which expansion slot supports what, with every port supporting full USB 4 including DisplayPort. Not a big deal as there are still enough fully-featured slots on the AMD model, but it’s a bit more convenient to just plug in any card anywhere and it works.

So they changed the rules so that Verstappen couldn’t happen again, and now they change it back at the next opportunity?

These are hardly surprisingly high System requirements, at least if the game looks the part. Achieving 1080p60 at medium settings on an RTX 2080, which performs pretty much on par with an even older flagship card (1080 Ti) sounds about right.

CPU requirements aren’t that out of place either, and I doubt you’ll actually need a 14900K for 60 FPS.

Intel Thread Director has been backported to Windows 10, and it wouldn’t affect AMD CPUs anyway. Windows 10 has shown slightly better performance in games compared to Windows 11 in many tests.

It reads like many ROMs are already gone? So any archive created now would be incomplete, right?

Centralized archives will always be vulnerable to this.

The rpm seems to be Fedora (and maybe RHEL) only, it has broken dependencies on openSUSE Tumbleweed.

Is this app anything else than just an Electron wrapper for the web app?