Got it running with 4800MT/s and literally 30 minute boot times in an AM5 machine. The 30 minute boot time could be worked around by enabling the (off-by-default) memory context restore option in BIOS, but it really made me think something was broken and it wasn't until I found other people talking about 30 minute boot times that I stopped debugging and just let it sit for an eternity.
It's so bad. I don't get why they sell AM5 motherboards with 4 RAM slots.
At least that system has been running well for like two years. But had I known that the situation is so much more dire than with DDR4, I would've just gotten the same amount of RAM in two sticks rather than four.
I’m in the same situation! My machine will take 2-5 minute to post every few reboots, it seems random. The messed up part is the marketing material says this things can handle 256gb of ram or whatever absurd number, f me for thinking then 128gb should be no problem. Honestly this whole thing has soured me on AMD. Yea they have bigger numbers than intel but at what cost, stability?
You need to enable MCR (which trains the memory once and caches the result for (iirc) 30 days) otherwise yeah, booting is horribly slow, even the 64GB I have can take several minutes but with MCR it boots basically instantly.
Memory training seems to be getting faster with each bios update. In 2024 when I upgraded to AM5, 64GB memory training took like 15 minutes. Now the same setup takes about a minute when it needs to retrain, then near instant with MCR (Windows 11 takes significantly longer to load than the POST process).
It's the RAM. It needs to "trained" which takes some time but for for some reason these boards seem to randomly forget their training, requiring it to happen again.
I've never had memory training be forgotten with my AM4 nor LPDDR5-based laptops and NUCs. Is this a new thing with AM5 or something? Or just a certain brand of BIOSes?
It's a common issue on consumer boards with DDR5 and more than two DIMMs installed.
Doesn’t affect soldered memory or lower speed memory (like DDR4). Many memory controllers fail to achieve good speeds and timings at all on 4 DDR5 DIMMs, and fall back to running DDR5 at 3600MHz instead.
Ok, so user selects too-high speed, controller tries for ages and fails, but doesn't save since it's overridden by user in BIOS?
I distinctly recall thinking my LPDDR5 NUCs were broken since they seemingly didn't boot the first time, until I recalled the training stuff. Took up to 15 minute on one of them. But neither has had any issues since, hence my question.
DDR5 is much, much more fickle than DDR4 and earlier standards. I think it's primarily due to pushing clock speeds (6000 MT/s would be insanely fast for DDR4, but kinda slow for DDR5).
Memory training has always been a thing: during boot, your PC runs tests to work out what slight changes between signals and stuff it needs to adapt to the specific requirements of your particular hardware. With DDR4 and earlier, that was really fast because the timings were so relatively loose. With DDR5, it can be really slow because the timings are so tight.
"The line" referenced by "line goes up" is typically understood to be revenue or profit, so if you made 10bn last year but only 9bn this year, "the line" actually went down even if you have more money at the end of this year than at the end of last year.
> The reason nobody competes with Steam is simply the sheer number of integration and platform features that make it easy to buy, play and share games with my friends.
I don't agree. The reason I personally prefer Steam is that all my existing games are on Steam so if I keep buying on Steam I don't have to make and maintain accounts on other stores, if I keep buying my games on Steam I can keep using Steam as my only game launcher, and all my friends are on Steam so games with Steam multiplayer integration are easier to play if I too play it through Steam.
The Epic Games Store client and game integration could be significantly better from a technical perspective in every possible way, and I would not be interested in moving to it. Steam is good enough and switching has a massive cost. I can't really imagine much that would make me use the Epic Games Store other than exclusivity or the promise of free games. Though I would be more likely to just not play a particular game if it's only available through the Epic Games Store.
Another big thing is trust. With any of these digital markets I'm not truly buying games, I'm purchasing a revocable license. That requires a certain amount of trust that the platform isn't going to screw me over.
Steam isn't perfect: they initially had to be forced to offer refunds, and their item economy enables barely disguised gambling. But by and large they have behaved very predictably and consumer-friendly. Sometimes by outright consumer-friendly policies like generous refunds or labeling games with AI assets. But usually by just not doing anything greedy. Or as the meme goes: "Gabe does nothing. wins."
I agree. No company is perfect, but if someone asked me to name the most consumer-friendly large tech company, I'd say Valve. And honestly, I can't think of a second one.
I'm normally firmly against piracy, because I believe it to be morally equivalent to theft and I want to fund the artists making stuff I enjoy. But if Valve shreds my purchases when Gabe dies or retires, I will hoist the black flag on those games and not feel an ounce of guilt. As the saying says: if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.
But we'll see. I hope it doesn't come to that. That said, I'm trying to change my purchase habits over to GOG because even if Gabe's successor doesn't screw over the Steam customers, eventually someone will. With GOG there's no possibility of the games I pay for being taken away from me.
They have shown its a wildly successful model. They would be very crazy if they changed it, and it would make them vulnerable to Epic and the Windows store. It's more likely that your OS/ hardware will change in a way that isn't supported by an old game.
Unfortunately, "this is a wildly successful model that prints money for us with almost no upkeep required" has historically not been a bulletproof argument when new management comes in and wants to prove themselves. Human beings are not necessarily rational and the kinds of people that tend to rise to the top of large corporations don't necessarily have the best interests of customers or the business itself in mind.
That being said, I believe that Gabe is taking his "succession planning" seriously, so I'd be fairly optimistic for the next decade at least.
One thing to keep in mind is that Valve is fully private so Gabe can not just be replaced by some random person by a board of directors like in other companies.
He probably already has a will set up that details how ownership should be transferred.
It is, but I'm not sure why that's relevant? xdertz's point wasn't, "Valve is private and therefore it engages in ethical consumer practices"; the point was "Valve engages in relatively ethical practices and because it's private, the board can't replace Gabe with a CEO who would engage in more unethical practices".
Not sure if this is relevant, but I have read reports[1] that Tencent currently holds a 28% stake in Epic Games. So private, but with unknown levels of ownership.
I've rebought games on Steam I had on Epic for free, just because the platform is so terrible. As far as a metric goes, that's pretty clear.
It's definitely not about lock-in for me. It's everything from local streaming, to linux support, to cloud saving working properly, to 100s of other things that become apparent if you try to do anything other than launch a game in a bog standard way on a windows machine.
Same. Sometimes I will play a givewayway game on EGS and like it enough to e.g. buy the DLC. In that case I'll buy the game on Steam, just to buy the DLC there too.
I have the EGS with games on it me and my kids actively play. I don't resent EGS for exclusivity deals nor hold any other kind of grudge towards them. If a game I want comes out first on EGS, I'll buy it on EGS. I don't actively play with friends, so who is or is not on EGS to play with is barely a factor on my radar.
I still prefer to buy on Steam if I can, because using the EGS sucks in every way possible compared to using Steam. If I want to sit to rest I can do it on a cold and irregular rock, but if there's a bench right next to it, then I'll use the bench.
That said, you can do a lot worse than EGS. MS Store I'm looking at you. In the above metaphor, you'd like sitting on the wet and muddy ground.
The big one for me is linux support, followed by steam input remapping. Input remapping, turbo, combo / chord buttons is incredibly important for accessibility.
agreed, the epic games store is crappy enough that i will not use it even for free and/or exclusive games. I might have if it was marketed as a clean, unobtrusive experience, but we all know that will never happen.
It makes sense that those with huge libraries may never want to move. But there are many existing and future PC gamers who do not have particularly large libraries on Steam, who would likely be much easier to lure if Epic actually made their launcher worth it.
The ideal number of app stores I want installed on my computer is ZERO. I don't want to have to load a damn "store" just to obtain and run your game. I am willing to angrily live with ONE store on my computer, Steam, but no way in hell am I going to tolerate having to have an Epic Store and a Microsoft Store and an Activision Store and a goddamn Rockstar Store and an Ubi Store and a fucking Adobe store for Photoshop. I don't want to have to install store after store for each damn app developer on my computer, yet that's the way the industry seems to be headed.
I don't know why "zero" is ideal. That means going back to the old days where every single company would need their own launcher.
Having a separate company focus on distribution sounds more ideal.
Epic Games had an opportunity here to erode the app store margins through standardization, instead, they've become a copycat of what they resented with a slightly smaller cut.
Just install the damn game, ask if you want icons on the desktop as well as in the start menu.
OS handles it all for you.
Perhaps some multiplayer functionality and such makes sense to share cross-game, but I miss the bad old days of every game having a bunch of privately maintained servers and its own server browser list etc. You could eventually find a few servers that fit your playstyle and make online gamer friends that way.
The only benefit steam brings to the table as far as I can tell is making it easy to reinstall your library on a fresh PC.
Yea, that's another way games are terrible today. I don't want a launcher for my game. My OS is my launcher. I don't want a launcher, I don't want a store, I don't want a "helper," I don't want a tray icon, I don't want an updater. Why can't game companies just ship their game and that's it?
I mostly play games on a computer in my living room. It boots into Steam Big Picture, which I use to launch a game (or sometimes buy new games) using an xbox controller.
But other platforms really are rather pathetic in terms of feature set compared to Steam. Steam has a bajillion features, and it looks like other platforms aren't even trying to compete to provide a good user experience.
There was soooo much intentional disinformation around 5G. Everyone who wanted to sell anything intentionally confused the >1Gbps millimeter wave line-of-sight kind of 5G with the "4G but with some changes to handle more devices connected to one tower" kind of 5G. I wonder how many bought a "5G phone" expecting millimeter wave but only got the slightly improved 4G.
From a standards design perspective, there is nothing wrong with it. It's the same protocol running on two very different frequency bands. They co-exist and support each other.
They should share a specification (I know this is correctly called a 'standard') but the should have been a separate logo for each non-interoperable group of useful features (a different concept also often called a 'standard'); as USB has proved.
There seems to be a pretty wide gulf between "segregate consumers and content creators" and "please let me make it so that I can remove/disable the huge central button I never use that takes up a lot of space and is super easy to accidentally hit"
A while ago, they introduced the Home page with algorithmic recommendations; okay, it sucks that you can't choose whether Home or Subscriptions is the default, but at least you can choose between the algorithmic recommendations and the chronological subscriptions feed.
Then they introduced Shorts. These are algorithmic ally recommended TikToks which you can't disable, they always litter both the Subscriptions page and the Home page. This sucks.
Then, recently, they added algorithmic recommendations to Subscriptions. So if you're on Home you see only algorithmic recommendations, and if you're on Subscriptions, a lot of your screen is still taken up by algorithmically recommended videos from channels you subscribe to.
Every one of these steps is in the direction of making sure you watch what YouTube wants you to watch instead of what you want to watch.
I keep mental tabs on the number of videos you can see from the home page on desktop.
We crossed an all-time record recently.
We get a 2 rows x 3 column grid now. The upper left is an ad, the lower row are clipped in half to coach scrolling, bringing the total to 2 thumbnails.
I feel like a junkie whose dealer tripled their prices and cut the drugs with 80% filler; sobriety by cartoonish consumer exploitation
I think Minecraft's lighting system is a good example: there are 16 different brightness levels, from 0 to 15. This allows the game to store light levels in 4 bytes per block.
Similarly, redstone has 16 power levels: 0 to 15. This allows it to store the power level using 4 bits. In fact, quite a lot of attributes in Minecraft blocks are squeezed into 4 bits. I think the system has grown to be more flexible these days, but I'm pretty sure the chunk data structure used to set aside 4 bits for every block for various metadata.
And of course, the world height used to be at 255 blocks. Every block's Y position could be expressed as an 8-bit integer.
A voxel game like that is a good example of where this kind of efficiency really matters since there's just so much data. A single 1616256 chunk is 65.5k blocks. If a game designer says they want to add a new light source with brightness level 20, or a new kind of redstone which can go 25 blocks, it might very well be the right choice to say no.
The 4 bit stuff is a hangover from Mojang having to squeeze every bit of perf from their Java based engine that they could. Their original sound engine was so sketchy that C418's (music composer) minimalist sound is partly because it really couldn't handle much more than what got released.
MS has been loosening up on the 4 bits limit and have created a CPP variant of Minecraft which performs better, but they've also introduced their unified login garbage that has almost made me give up Minecraft completely.
The 4-bit stuff is a hangover from Notch doing this (I'd maybe even say a similar-calibre programmer to Chris Sawyer...). The sound has nothing to do with technical limits, that's a post-facto rationalisation.
The game never played midi samples, it was always playing "real" audio. The style was an artistic choice, many similar retro-looking games were using chiptune and the sorts. It's a deliberate juxtaposition...
The CPP variant doesn't really perform better anymore either.
Fair enough, I mostly meant to point out some of those design decisions predate MS, as much as I love to hate on them. The music was just an interesting bit of trivia I read the other day.
Yeah, 100% :) Ironically, the design constraints are one of the big things which made it work so much! If it was designed in a "traditional" way, it would have been much less ambitious.
Minecraft is, and always has been, handling vast amounts of data at pretty good performance. It's not an impossibly difficult task, many other people have made voxel game engines which are better, but it's something you can't do without paying attention to these things. Every voxel engine with remotely reasonable performance needs to carefully count bits used per block.
You can find other people discussing implementing similar games on YouTube, and the need to cram the representation of blocks into as small a size as possible always comes up.
Information about blocks is the overwhelmingly dominant thing being stored in memory for those games, so naturally reducing the size of that data becomes important.
Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous.
Going through some of the list from the top:
* Shortcuts in the manifest: This seems to be standard. Would be nice if mobile Safari supported it.
* Protocol Handling: This is non-standard.
* File Handling: MDN doesn't contain a reference to a standard, and it has this caveat: "At present this feature is only available on Chromium-based browsers, and only on desktop operating systems". So not only does it seem to be non-standard; Chrome on Android doesn't even support it!
* Contact Picker: This seems to be moving through the standardization process and is not yet standardized, if I understand MDN's "experimental" label correctly.
* Face Detection: This seems to be yet another not-yet-standard API.
* Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it.
I'll stop here but you get the point. 2/6 are actual standards; 4/6 are just features Chromium implemented even though they aren't standard.
I'm glad mobile Safari doesn't follow every Google whim. Google has enough power over the standardization process as it is; we don't want them to control which features browsers add outside of the standard too.
In addition, parts of the list seems to be extremely outdated: Safari on iOS does support the Web Push API and most of the Notifications API (at least for apps added to your home screen as PWAs). These APIs have been supported since iOS 16.4, according to MDN.
>Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous.
You missed the point completely.
Apple >forbids< any browser engine on iOS other than their own Safari. So you can't just install Chrome on iOS, because when you do you get Safari instead.
I would not care how Apple cripples their own web browser if they didn't force other browsers on iOS to use their browser engine. They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth).
I am not an iOS app developer, I'm a web developer. I don't have the resources to support that kind of code when I already have a perfectly working web app on the competing platform. I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app.
It doesn't matter what the standards are or aren't. Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows.
And to make it worse, Apple is on the board that decides what standards get into W3C, so they are blocking useful APIs based on their own greed.
This is part of the reason Apple is currently being sued by the DOJ
Mobile safari is arguably the only thing standing between Google and total browser dominance. It's the reason why Google "only" has roughly 75% of the mobile browser market even though it has a 90% market share in desktop. I'm principally against the idea that Apple can prevent users from installing the software they want on their own devices, but we can't deny that it's better for the health of the web.
Anyway, if you want to exclusively argue "Users should be able to install the browser they want", that's fine. But you're not; both your comment and the pwa.gripe page brings up how Apple is "crippling" their own web browser. Since you use the same wording as pwa.gripe, I assume you too view the lack of non-standard Google-only features as "crippling mobile Safari". I disagree.
You seem to be conflating my opinion of "iOS's lack of browser choice has the consequence of preventing Chromium from achieving total dominance" with some imaginary other person's opinion of "iOS's lack of browser choice is a benevolent act where good guy Apple valiantly defends the open web". I do, frankly, think that mobile Safari couldn't compete that well in an open market, just like desktop Firefox can't. (Not purely because Firefox is technically inferior, mind you; products don't compete purely on technical merit.)
I think Chromium out-competing every other browser engine is a bad thing.
As the ball of mud that is web standards grows, the less likely that it becomes that things can “sort themselves out”. Even as things are you need a literal army of developers to build and maintain a modern standards compliant browser, making any real threat to Chromium dominance unlikely, and that only intensifies as Google rolls ever more crap into the katamari. If users can then be harassed into switching to Chromium based browsers it’s likely that it will never be toppled short of some new technology superseding the web entirely.
If Google abusing it’s dominant position in web browsers is a problem then the solution is legislation and anti trust action. Letting Apple abuse its own position because it currently provides benefit is not a good approach.
Same thing played out with ads and tracking a few years ago, and now look at the ads situation in the App Store.
Are you talking about Google or Apple? Because Apple is being sued by the DOJ for monopolistic and anticompetitive behavior. There are numerous examples of it spelled out in the lawsuit:
Both of them. To the extent that Google uses their position with chrome to give themselves in another domain they should be sued. Likewise, Apple refusing to allow consumers to install whatever applications they want on their own devices is so egregiously anticompetitive.
In their wildest of wet dreams Microsoft didn’t imagine they could get away with what Apple is getting away with.
I can do neither, actually. I can merely observe reality as it is and look at which forces affect the direction of the world. And right now, I observe a reality where one of the most significant forces which counteract a completely Chromium dominated web is Apple's user-hostile insistence on preventing browser engine competition on iOS.
I have very little faith in a legislative solution here since I believe politicians care about browsers, not browser engines. They see Chrome, Brave, Vivaldi, Edge and Opera and see a diverse marketplace with sufficient browser competition. They don't seem to care about the technical monoculture behind it all.
Apple doesn't even make Safari for the world's dominant platforms - Windows and Android, yet they continue to hold back progress in web browsers on all platforms to protect their own profit on their walled-garden platform.
They need to wrap up the DOJ lawsuit against Apple, but I fear the current administration will look the other way because "Tim Apple" gave the guy in charge a golden trophy. I wish I were joking.
> I think Chromium out-competing every other browser engine is a bad thing.
Hmm. I believe that Apple can compete with Google if they want to. They have the money, they have the marketing chops, they have the incentive ($20B search engine deal) and they are the default browser.
(also, they have trained iOS users that Safari is the only default browser on iOS for 14 yrs by not allowing other browsers to be set as the default)
All Apple has to do is actually compete, not just rely on their monopoly.
I mean, keeping one monopoly at bay (Chromium) with the other (WebKit requirement) isn't really how this is supposed to work, right?
> Hmm. I believe that Apple can compete with Google if they want to.
I don't think that would happen. I don't have much faith in Apple's abilities in this area, and their incentives are structured such that the less viable web apps are as a replacement to native apps, the more money they get from their 30% cut.
Again, your arguments would make sense if my opinion was: "good guy Apple valiantly defends the open web from Google out of the goodness of their hearts". But that isn't my argument. I don't care whether Apple could compete with Google if they tried. I care whether Apple would compete with Google, and they wouldn't.
> I mean, keeping one monopoly at bay (Chromium) with the other (WebKit requirement) isn't really how this is supposed to work, right?
WebKit isn't a browser monopoly, it has less than 20% of the browser market share. That 20% share is big enough to push web developers towards making websites work in browsers other than Chromium, but it's not big enough that there's a danger of web developers thinking, "everyone uses WebKit anyway so we won't bother testing on anything else".
Sure, it's a monopoly on iOS, but I don't see how this is relevant to my argument. The web is more important to me than iOS is.
> I care whether Apple would compete with Google, and they wouldn't.
They receive $20B a year from Google (search engine deal). Some estimates put WebKit/Safari's budget at $500M. That's a rounding error away from $20B of pure profits. I completely agree that Apple is not in it for the good of the web. They are in it for $20B a year.
And even if they wouldn't want to compete: fine. Let them give up. Make room for browsers that do want to compete (or at least, let them try).
> WebKit isn't a browser monopoly, it has less than 20% of the browser market share.
That monopoly on iOS is enough, though. The web has to work on iOS because the wealthiest users have an iPhone, and all they have is WebKit. I work at a place where most of our users are on mobile, and most of them are on iOS. So WebKit sets the bar for what we can do. In other words, Apple is in full control of what we are able to do. Building features for Android users is often not worth our time and money, so we just don't build it.
Letting my users have access to the Web Bluetooth API is not making Google somehow take control of the web. If Apple won't implement it, and they won't allow other browsers on their platform, that's plainly an abusive business tactic. It's far worse than what Microsoft did by simply include IE with Windows - Microsoft never forced every browser application to use Internet Explorer. Can you imagine the outrage if they did??
But somehow Apple gets a pass, and you think they're somehow saving the web? Just stop.
You're shadow boxing. I never said Apple isn't engaging in abusive business tactics. They clearly are. I just think the result benefits the open web by taking power away from Google.
And I pointed out that they don't help the open web, they stifle innovation of the web by abusing their power for profit.
Which I think is far worse than anything you think Google is trying to do.
I'm not giving Google a free pass here, sure they can be abusive, I hated "AMP" and I'm glad it got thrown on the junk pile. That was clearly abusive. But implementing Web Bluetooth? Not abusive, it's progress. And it's too bad Apple abuses their power and stifles progress in this case.
I can't say anything other than "I disagree"; I think it does help the open web. You already admitted that you in your day job has been forced to make your site work in non-Chromium browsers thanks to Apple's authoritarian stance. That's a purely good outcome in my book, as much as I dislike the lack of user freedom that's behind it.
>You already admitted that you in your day job has been forced to make your site work in non-Chromium browsers thanks to Apple's authoritarian stance.
I did not say that at all. I'm not supporting iOS at all for the features that Apple won't implement in Safari. Tough titties Apple users. And why should I? iOS and MacOS world-wide are a small percentage of all users. And Apple doesn't care what their users don't get to access, so long as Apple is making money.
Apple is not the good guy here.
They are actually doing the opposite of you want, not sure how you can't see that. "The web" is now essentially all Apple will allow it to be, for their own greedy reasons.
I don't think it does benefit the open web. If consumers can't get value from the web, they'll go where they can find it. That is currently native apps, which is a closed and proprietary ecosystem. This causes the market itself to shrink, which means fewer and fewer people will invest in the web [1].
> I do, frankly, think that mobile Safari couldn't compete that well in an open market, just like desktop Firefox can't.
Couldn't compete isn't a justification to exploit platform control and ban competition. If Apple's so worried that Safari usage will fall off in favor of Chrome, then they can invest in Safari to make it a level playing field to keep their user base.
You clearly haven’t tried to design anything complicated that has to run on safari iOS. Safari iOS is a massive piece of shit. I’ve been working on a web game for a while now using canvas and most of my pain comes from making it compatible with safari. So much stuff is broken on safari so you have to find work arounds. Like a simple but annoying one, CSS filters don’t work on canvas so you have to write all those filters your self and apply them by using imgData.
Also the constant crashing when using canvas and the web audio api, it’s a disaster to be honest and it feels intentional, like they want me to write an app instead so they can rent seek.
As a non-web developer I'm interested if anyone can answer this question:
If you're designing for <X> browser, how hard is it to make it work on <Y> browser?
Answering with at least {Chromium,Safari,Firefox}
Because if it's hard when targeting Chromium and adapting to {Safari,Firefox} but easy when targeting Safari and adapting to {Chromium,Firefox} then honestly it seems like Chromium is the problem.
What I want to distinguish is the biases in being used to programming in one environment and actual ease of programming for an arbitrary browser. Regardless of what official standards are, there are "in practice" standards, what is used in practice.
What would be nefarious is if Google is promoting people to program in ways that are not compatible with other browsers, cementing its monopoly. (This may even be achieved without explicit direction. Achievable simply by Chromium devs building tools for devs but not carrying about compatibility with other browsers). After all, the web is for everyone, but just because it's open doesn't mean monopolies/oligopolies/collusion/<other nefarious actions> can't happen.
Tdlr: does developing on chromium encourage browser incompatibility?
> Because if it's hard when targeting Chromium and adapting to {Safari,Firefox} but easy when targeting Safari and adapting to {Chromium,Firefox} then honestly it seems like Chromium is the problem.
Exactly. Test and develop against Firefox and/or Safari first and Chrome afterwards. If it’s not a true web standard and isn’t widely implemented, don’t use it.
The web worked fine for decades without smart fridge integration or whatever weird thing Google has decided that browsers must be capable of most recently.
It's not easy, though. Most of my day job is spent trying to get html interactives on an e-learning platform to work reliably with iOS's ridiculous nonstandard interaction rules around when media is allowed to play. It's worse than working with the 20 year old jsp+servlet system that serves the interactives and business logic. no other browser behaves like iOS safari and to debug and develop against it you need an ios and macos device sitting on your desk. Firefox and Firefox on Android are a breeze but a rounding-error in our usage metrics, even accounting for our development. Apple desparately hobbles the web platform to collect IAP taxes.
> with iOS's ridiculous nonstandard interaction rules around when media is allowed to play.
Are there any standard interaction rules on when media is allowed to play? I thought everyone implements it differently based on their own ideas of security and user engagement
The problem is not Google, I hate Google so I’m not white knighting them or anything but a lot of basic things are just badly implemented on iOS safari. Also if something works in chrome it probably works in Firefox as well. The only odd duck is safari and people who defend clearly have no experience trying to develop for it.
Making things work in chrome and Firefox is trivial and is never hard but when it comes to safari you have to figure out the special dance to make things work properly even when targeting it first.
No developing for chrome does not encourage browser incompatibility.
The argument which has been provided so far about why Safari is crippled is that it does not implement non-standard Chromium-only features. There are other problems with Safari, but they are not found in the page we are discussing.
I compiled a "short" list of why amd how Safari is crippled. Not entirely on topic for the post, but seems appropriate as a reply on this particular comment ;)
This article is quite literally the only one that actually discusses actual Safari problems.
And even this article falls prey to "failures in web platform tests" which are a very poor indicator. E.g. Safari passing all accessibility tests is much more important than Safari failing most accelerometer tests that only Chrome passes (because this is Chrome-only API).
The WPT graph shows failures for tests that fail in only one browser. So the accelerometer tests, for example, would need to pass in both Blink and Gecko for it to count as a failure on Safari's part.
Seeing that there are cross platform game engines, it seems to me that making a web game is not the best way to go. How do you plan to monetize it? Get people to put their credit card on your website? How is your web game performing on Android? Have you tested the performance on the typical mid range Android phone?
Why isn’t it the best way to go? I’m not a fan of those web game engines so I made my own.
I have various avenues of monitization; sponsored ads and letting players buy cosmetic items.
I have yet to test it on android because my priorities are making it work on desktop and iOS first and then android after. Why? because of my past experiences with making games.
Monetization? But does making your own engine “make the beer taste better”? Does it lead to a better experience for the users? Does it give you an advantage in the market?
You really don’t think you need to consider the hardware capabilities of the average Android phone?
Hint: Facebook rewrite their apps years ago to not use web based technology because performance was horrible on the average Android phone.
Yes it does because it’s optimized and efficient because there is no bloat, everything in the engine is there to serve this specific game.
I will eventually test it on android but I don’t see why it would not work with out any issues.
I wouldn’t use Facebook as a reference, I have an inside joke that they have the worst programmers. They managed to make a site that shows text and images make my computers fans spin which is honestly just embarrassing all things considered.
You really don’t see how inefficient it is running a game on a web browser compared to a game engine running native code for the platform? And you think you are going to write a better performing game engine in a web browser?
> Yes it does because it’s optimized and efficient because there is no bloat, everything in the engine is there to serve this specific game.
Everything is there to serve your game except the entire web browser.
You can still build a PWA and get most of the benefits (I use a few PWAs on my iPhone daily). Or you can package it through Expo and rely on the Reader app exception without letting users sign up on iOS (although the rules around that are changing and you might be able to).
I get the gist of the article but what specific features do you need to let people just use your app as a PWA on iOS? Do you need access to the NFC, for instance?
I need web bluetooth to give users the full experience. They can use most of my platform currently on Safari, but not the really cool stuff that web bluetooth enables.
> They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth).
Why don’t you encourage them to get an Android? What makes you think that people who prefer an iOS device over Android would even install Chrome after you nag them with dark patterns?
> I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app.
Sorry, not following you: Apple is forcing you to give them 30% of nothing? How exactly is that a problem?
> Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows.
Yes, how dare Apple look after their [checks notes] customers by preventing devs from using the features that would most annoy their customers?!? Such a greedy thing for a company to do, to give customers what they want! The only true purpose of a company ought to make it easy to slurp up customer data and monetize eyeballs!
That people would use Firefox on iOS. That fact. Do you know English? It seems like you understood what I said, but still had a hard time comprehending it. Are you okay?
Guess what? You not having the resources to have anything but a shitty PWA is not my problem.
Do you really think that you are going to get any level of monetization by forcing users to first download a hypothetical web browser that has all of the features you want? That web browser doesn’t exist on any mobile platform
You have no idea what my web application is, or whether it is shitty or not. So thanks for the troll - it reminds of my days on reddit, but now this pointless internet interaction is over.
SIMT is distinct model. Ergonomics are wildly different. Instead of contracting a long iteration by packing its steps together to make them "wider", you rotate the iteration across cores.
The critical difference is that SIMD and parallel programming are totally different in terms of ergonomics while SIMT is almost exactly the same as parallel programming. You have to design for SIMD and parallelism separately while SIMT and parallelism are essentially the same skill set.
The fan-in / fan-out and iteration rotation are the key skills for SIMT.
Yes, but no. No, in that these days, GPUs are entirely scalar from the point of view of invocations. Using vectors in shaders is pointless - it will be as fast as scalar variables (double instruction dispatch on AMD GPUs is an exception).
But yes from the point of view that a collection of invocations all progressing in lockstep get arithmetic done by vector units. GPUs have just gotten really good at hiding what happens with branching paths between invocations.
It's so bad. I don't get why they sell AM5 motherboards with 4 RAM slots.
At least that system has been running well for like two years. But had I known that the situation is so much more dire than with DDR4, I would've just gotten the same amount of RAM in two sticks rather than four.
reply