On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:16:39 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The Apple-centric software *largely* sucks (although selected apps are
great, Microsoft Office and Adobe's stuff are better than on Windows,
imo), the Unix features are incomplete.
There was a thing called “the Unix philosophy”. Though perhaps we should nowadays call it “the *nix philosophy”.
One of its principles is “mechanism, not policy”. The OS kernel and core userland should, as far as possible, not prejudge the ways in which users, developers and admins may want to deploy the system; let them configure
it, and build higher custom layers on top of it, to do whatever they want.
Consider how *nix display servers like X11, and now Wayland, conform to
this philosophy, by being separate modular, replaceable layers that
operate entirely in userland. And they are not GUIs in themselves: the actual GUIs are additional higher layers on top of them, that are modular and replaceable in themselves.
Consider how Apple breaks this philosophy, by inextricably binding its particular conception of a GUI tightly into its OS kernel.
On 2025-08-24 15:47, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
The Apple-centric software *largely* sucks (although selected apps are >>>> great, Microsoft Office and Adobe's stuff are better than on Windows,
imo), the Unix features are incomplete.
There was a thing called “the Unix philosophy”. Though perhaps we should
nowadays call it “the *nix philosophy”.
One of its principles is “mechanism, not policy”. The OS kernel and core
userland should, as far as possible, not prejudge the ways in which
users,
developers and admins may want to deploy the system; let them configure
it, and build higher custom layers on top of it, to do whatever they
want.
Consider how *nix display servers like X11, and now Wayland, conform to
this philosophy, by being separate modular, replaceable layers that
operate entirely in userland. And they are not GUIs in themselves: the
actual GUIs are additional higher layers on top of them, that are modular >>> and replaceable in themselves.
Consider how Apple breaks this philosophy, by inextricably binding its
particular conception of a GUI tightly into its OS kernel.
It's a minor concern, ultimately, I do like the modular nature of Unix
and GNU/Linux in terms of creating a GUI, it's terrific, but Microsoft
and Apple haven't failed to be as advanced as such, there's nothing to
say there are limitations on what can be developed for them.
Do you want to buy a car where you can pick which engine you use?
Have you actually created your own GUI?
On 2025-08-24 21:36, vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:12:53 -0400, "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com>
wrote in <F7MqQ.193548$%RW3.158951@fx14.iad>:
On 8/24/2025 5:31 PM, Alan wrote:
Unresponsive.More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because you
replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires comprehension, >>>>> which I have, but I'm not disliking using Windows again, for now. I >>>>> haven't made my decision about replacing it with Linux on this mini PC. >>>>
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than
Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with
macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation,
not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76,
and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
I'm sorry.
Are you saying you spent $4K more than you spend on a Mac Studio...
...or that you spent $4K on another machine?
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a while,
giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation has
two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS
at 10Gbits/s.
And what do you do with the other one?
--
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Going back to the Mac, I think Thunderbolt supports 40Gbits/s connections. >> (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong -- it may be faster now.)
I think 40Gbits/s is correct.
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than
Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with
macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation,
not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76,
and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a while, giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation has
two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS
at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
On 2025-08-24 02:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines are
basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t work
the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he has >> given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Sorry, Linux fans:
Pretty much everyone disagrees with you.
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS that came
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because you >>>>>>> replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires
comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using Windows
again, for now. I haven't made my decision about replacing it
with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow
Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than >>>> Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click
with macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's
pricey, the hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is
downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse wheel
(assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me all
the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface is
just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The rendering
of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not being
entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years better than Finder
as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. Edge is better than Safari,
AFAIK. Apple is just the duller minds of the industry.
out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say "AFAIK" about
it?
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:55:27 -0400, -hh wrote:
On 8/24/25 16:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
So you want macOS, I get it, that's fine, you do you. But you're
paying through the *nose*, for the so-called privilege.
Except for how you've utterly missed the Sam Vimes theory of boots.
If Macs really did last longer and have better build quality than other
PCs, you might have a point. As it is, you don’t.
Remember, Apple has even given up on any kind of future upgradeability of basic things like RAM on its current machines; they are all just glorified laptops now.
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS that came
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because you >>>>>>>> replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" for that? >>>>>>>Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires
comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using Windows >>>>>>> again, for now. I haven't made my decision about replacing it >>>>>>> with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow
Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally,
it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual
level than Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People
who click with macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn >>>>> it's pricey, the hardware options not competitive with Windows
devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is
downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse wheel
(assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me all
the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface is
just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The rendering
of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not being
entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years better than
Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. Edge is better than
Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller minds of the industry.
out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say "AFAIK"
about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better compatibility with websites.
It also provides some very decent AI
functionality that is completely absent from Safari.
That said, I have
never had any serious troubles with Safari in the recent times I've used
it. I think that most people will see no problem whatsoever with Safari
in their daily use.
On 2025-08-24 12:47 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 02:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines are >>> basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>> work the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he has >>> given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Sorry, Linux fans:
Pretty much everyone disagrees with you.
Honestly, MacOS is a more polished experience than Linux can ever hope
to be. Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience than MacOS
can ever hope to be.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS that
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because you >>>>>>>>> replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" for that? >>>>>>>>Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires
comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using Windows >>>>>>>> again, for now. I haven't made my decision about replacing it >>>>>>>> with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow
Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally,
it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual
level than Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People >>>>>> who click with macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but
damn it's pricey, the hardware options not competitive with
Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is
downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse wheel
(assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me all
the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface is
just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The rendering
of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not being
entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years better than
Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. Edge is better than
Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller minds of the industry.
came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say "AFAIK"
about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better
compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've used.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is completely
absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
On 2025-08-25 05:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 12:47 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 02:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive. >>>>And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines are >>>> basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>>> work the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he has >>>> given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Sorry, Linux fans:
Pretty much everyone disagrees with you.
Honestly, MacOS is a more polished experience than Linux can ever hope
to be. Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience than MacOS
can ever hope to be.
People usually aren't looking for "liberating experience[s]" from things they simply want to use day-to-day.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:55:27 -0400, -hh wrote:
On 8/24/25 16:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
So you want macOS, I get it, that's fine, you do you. But you're
paying through the *nose*, for the so-called privilege.
Except for how you've utterly missed the Sam Vimes theory of boots.
If Macs really did last longer and have better build quality than other
PCs, you might have a point. As it is, you don’t.
Remember, Apple has even given up on any kind of future upgradeability of basic things like RAM on its current machines; they are all just glorified laptops now.Since something like 80% of the domestic PC market (Mac+Windows) is
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:45:48 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in <108f52c$2r00q$2@dont-email.me>:
On 8/24/25 05:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility...
Although when one reads of anti-Apple folks who replace their GPU card
multiple times and then have to replace their fried motherboard from
their DIY'ing...
...there's certainly a whole bunch of folk who would benefit from an
"appliance" that reduces the odds of them fat-fingering breaking it.
-hh
There's also this matter of "expandable", which Macs _do_ have,
with the advent of "external pcie", aka "thunderbolt".
Honestly, MacOS is a more polished experience than Linux can ever hope
to be.
Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience than MacOS
can ever hope to be.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
But maybe this would be more your speed:
<https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Sam+Vimes+theory+of+boots&l=1>
PMFJI In a nutshell: buy cheap, buy twice.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:12:53 -0400, "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in <F7MqQ.193548$%RW3.158951@fx14.iad>:
On 8/24/2025 5:31 PM, Alan wrote:
Unresponsive.More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because you
replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires comprehension, >>>> which I have, but I'm not disliking using Windows again, for now. I
haven't made my decision about replacing it with Linux on this mini PC. >>>
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than
Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with
macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation,
not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76,
and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a while, giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation has
two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS
at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Going back to the Mac, I think Thunderbolt supports 40Gbits/s connections. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong -- it may be faster now.)
Sn!pe wrote:
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
But maybe this would be more your speed:
<https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Sam+Vimes+theory+of+boots&l=1>
PMFJI In a nutshell: buy cheap, buy twice.
Of course, since computers improve fairly rapidly, buying a cheap
computer every few years may be just as cost-effective as buying an
expensive computer less frequently.
On 8/25/25 00:36, vallor wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Yup; it was a good narrative for understanding lifecycle costs.
Nevertheless, a lot of people don't care about changing the
components in their machine as much as they used to. They should,
especially since the 8GB of RAM their Mac came with is probably not
going to be enough going forward and neither is the 256GB of
storage. Still, many would rather just buy a new machine, as stupid
as that is.
Case in point, I traded-in a 2017 Mac laptop last year for a $150 credit...that's a 7 year useful life. In contrast, I also had a 2016
Dell laptop that went tits-up in 2019 with a swollen battery, and its replacement died in 2021 with a failed USB-C port ...
Because in case you hadn't noticed, laptops passed the point of being
the "good enough" for general office productivity a good decade ago, and
the Enterprise IT support strategy was that instead of trying to do any upgrades to them, to just image & replace entire machines.
Even people who are rather technical are losing interest in the
constant maintenance necessary to run Linux or to keep Windows
running.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 13:13:07 -0400, -hh wrote:
Case in point, I traded-in a 2017 Mac laptop last year for a $150
credit...that's a 7 year useful life. In contrast, I also had a 2016
Dell laptop that went tits-up in 2019 with a swollen battery, and its
replacement died in 2021 with a failed USB-C port ...
I have had a range of laptops, both new and second-hand. I think there was Dell and Compaq among them. None of them suffered the kind of faults you mention.
Speaking of batteries, Apple is gluing them in now, isn’t it? So you couldn’t even replace them if you wanted to.
Because in case you hadn't noticed, laptops passed the point of being
the "good enough" for general office productivity a good decade ago, and
the Enterprise IT support strategy was that instead of trying to do any
upgrades to them, to just image & replace entire machines.
What happened to the market addressed by the old Mac Pro? Seems Apple has given up on that altogether.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 18:37:28 -0400, -hh wrote:
On 8/25/25 00:36, vallor wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Yup; it was a good narrative for understanding lifecycle costs.
If Apple made boots, they wouldn’t last as long as real boots, and cost even more.
None of them did that. That’s the point.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 13:13:07 -0400, -hh wrote:
Case in point, I traded-in a 2017 Mac laptop last year for a $150
credit...that's a 7 year useful life. In contrast, I also had a 2016
Dell laptop that went tits-up in 2019 with a swollen battery, and its
replacement died in 2021 with a failed USB-C port ...
I have had a range of laptops, both new and second-hand. I think there was Dell and Compaq among them. None of them suffered the kind of faults you mention.
Speaking of batteries, Apple is gluing them in now, isn’t it? So you couldn’t even replace them if you wanted to.
Markets change; "Film at 11". The customer volume isn't there anymore.Because in case you hadn't noticed, laptops passed the point of being
the "good enough" for general office productivity a good decade ago, and
the Enterprise IT support strategy was that instead of trying to do any
upgrades to them, to just image & replace entire machines.
What happened to the market addressed by the old Mac Pro? Seems Apple has given up on that altogether.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 15:53:56 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <108g564$3215v$9@dont-email.me>:And yet for most consumer goods, choice is extremely limited and
On 2025-08-24 15:47, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
The Apple-centric software *largely* sucks (although selected apps are >>>>> great, Microsoft Office and Adobe's stuff are better than on Windows, >>>>> imo), the Unix features are incomplete.
There was a thing called “the Unix philosophy”. Though perhaps we should
nowadays call it “the *nix philosophy”.
One of its principles is “mechanism, not policy”. The OS kernel and core
userland should, as far as possible, not prejudge the ways in which
users,
developers and admins may want to deploy the system; let them configure >>>> it, and build higher custom layers on top of it, to do whatever they
want.
Consider how *nix display servers like X11, and now Wayland, conform to >>>> this philosophy, by being separate modular, replaceable layers that
operate entirely in userland. And they are not GUIs in themselves: the >>>> actual GUIs are additional higher layers on top of them, that are modular >>>> and replaceable in themselves.
Consider how Apple breaks this philosophy, by inextricably binding its >>>> particular conception of a GUI tightly into its OS kernel.
It's a minor concern, ultimately, I do like the modular nature of Unix
and GNU/Linux in terms of creating a GUI, it's terrific, but Microsoft
and Apple haven't failed to be as advanced as such, there's nothing to
say there are limitations on what can be developed for them.
Do you want to buy a car where you can pick which engine you use?
Have you actually created your own GUI?
Terrible analogy.
My car's NAV system has different themes to chose from. Almost
nobody will use them, but some people do.
Choice is good.
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS that
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because >>>>>>>>>> you replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" for >>>>>>>>>> that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires
comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using
Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision about
replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow
Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, >>>>>>> it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual >>>>>>> level than Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People >>>>>>> who click with macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but
damn it's pricey, the hardware options not competitive with
Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is
downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse wheel
(assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me all >>>>>> the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface is >>>>>> just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The rendering >>>>>> of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not being
entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years better than
Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. Edge is better than >>>>> Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller minds of the industry.
came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say "AFAIK"
about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better
compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I have yet
to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, but I have no doubt that if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is completely
absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
On 8/25/2025 12:36 AM, vallor wrote:
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than
Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with
macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation,
not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76,
and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a while,
giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation has
two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS
at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said prices to the competition.Really?
On 2025-08-25 9:59 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-25 05:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 12:47 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 02:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive. >>>>>And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines are >>>>> basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>>>> work the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he has
given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Sorry, Linux fans:
Pretty much everyone disagrees with you.
Honestly, MacOS is a more polished experience than Linux can ever
hope to be. Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience than
MacOS can ever hope to be.
People usually aren't looking for "liberating experience[s]" from
things they simply want to use day-to-day.
I don't disagree. Additionally, the number of people who actually want
to learn how the computer works is quickly shrinking. In most cases,
whether they are kids or adults and especially because of how popular smartphones are, they just expect the system to be polished, easy to use
and hands free in terms of maintenance. Even people who are rather
technical are losing interest in the constant maintenance necessary to
run Linux or to keep Windows running. Bravo to the exception who have
never had problems with either Linux or Windows.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Honestly, MacOS is a more polished experience than Linux can ever hope
to be.
Well, they have only one rock to polish. It had better be shiney.
But if one doesn't like that particular rock, one must go elsewhere.
Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience than MacOS
can ever hope to be.
Freedom and choice are good things, no doubt.
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they
like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said prices
to the competition.
Really?
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020 (multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because >>>>>>>>>>> you replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" for >>>>>>>>>>> that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires
comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using
Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision about >>>>>>>>>> replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow >>>>>>>> Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, >>>>>>>> it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual >>>>>>>> level than Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm.
People who click with macOS are willing to pay for the
privilege, but damn it's pricey, the hardware options not
competitive with Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is
downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things. >>>>>>>
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11. >>>>>>>
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse wheel >>>>>>> (assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me
all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface is >>>>>>> just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The
rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not being >>>>>> entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years better than
Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. Edge is better
than Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller minds of the industry. >>>>> So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS that
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say "AFAIK"
about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better
compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I have yet
to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, but I have no
doubt that if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is
completely absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't tied to using Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
On 2025-08-25 02:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:36 AM, vallor wrote:Really?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow Leopard, >>>> but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than
Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with >>>> macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation,
not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76,
and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a
while,
giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation has
two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS
at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they
like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said prices
to the competition.
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020 (multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
On 2025-08-25 12:55, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:59 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-25 05:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 12:47 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 02:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive. >>>>>>And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines >>>>>> are
basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>>>>> work the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he >>>>>> has
given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Sorry, Linux fans:
Pretty much everyone disagrees with you.
Honestly, MacOS is a more polished experience than Linux can ever
hope to be. Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience than
MacOS can ever hope to be.
People usually aren't looking for "liberating experience[s]" from
things they simply want to use day-to-day.
I don't disagree. Additionally, the number of people who actually want
to learn how the computer works is quickly shrinking. In most cases,
whether they are kids or adults and especially because of how popular
smartphones are, they just expect the system to be polished, easy to
use and hands free in terms of maintenance. Even people who are rather
technical are losing interest in the constant maintenance necessary to
run Linux or to keep Windows running. Bravo to the exception who have
never had problems with either Linux or Windows.
And let's be very honest: for ordinary consumers, you shouldn't have to learn how a device you use works. That is the evolution of a device and
its utility.
On 8/25/25 20:40, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 18:37:28 -0400, -hh wrote:
On 8/25/25 00:36, vallor wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Yup; it was a good narrative for understanding lifecycle costs.
If Apple made boots, they wouldn’t last as long as real boots, and cost
even more.
How does this comment then explain market data which shows the opposite, namely that iPhones & Macs have longer ownership cycles in real life?
On 8/25/25 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
None of them did that. That’s the point.
Think you're reaching pretty far back there buddy, back to when Unix
didn't have any GUI...
On 8/25/25 20:45, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Markets change; "Film at 11". The customer volume isn't there anymore.
What happened to the market addressed by the old Mac Pro? Seems Apple
has given up on that altogether.
My understanding is that the movie studios have moved over to clusters.
That means regardless of the OS run, it isn't being done on desktops.
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI functionality in Edge,
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because >>>>>>>>>>>> you replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" >>>>>>>>>>>> for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires >>>>>>>>>>> comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using >>>>>>>>>>> Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision about >>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow >>>>>>>>> Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, >>>>>>>>> it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual >>>>>>>>> level than Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm.
People who click with macOS are willing to pay for the
privilege, but damn it's pricey, the hardware options not
competitive with Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is
downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things. >>>>>>>>
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11. >>>>>>>>
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse wheel >>>>>>>> (assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me >>>>>>>> all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface >>>>>>>> is just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The
rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not being >>>>>>> entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years better than >>>>>>> Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. Edge is better >>>>>>> than Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller minds of the industry. >>>>>> So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS that >>>>>> came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say "AFAIK" >>>>>> about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better
compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I have
yet to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, but I have
no doubt that if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is
completely absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't tied to using
Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any of the AI functionality. It's tied to search, and you can use AI to produce some
nice images related to a description you write, but it is otherwise no better than any other browser.
On 8/26/2025 6:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they
like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said prices
to the competition.
Really?
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
On 2025-08-26 6:40 p.m., Alan wrote:Sorry, that's CAD.
On 2025-08-25 02:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:36 AM, vallor wrote:Really?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow
Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than >>>>> Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with >>>>> macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the >>>>> hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation,
not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76,
and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a
while,
giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation has >>>> two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS
at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they
like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said prices
to the competition.
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
Most of them.
16GB of RAM
That's a minimum for PC laptops.
A 2560x1664 display
Mid-range gaming laptops have the two above and this as well.
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
Admittedly, the gaming laptops won't. However, gaming laptops do more
than a Mac laptop can anyway by the mere fact that they can game. If you want to compare apples to apples, the Surface and similar machines get similar performance to the Macs as well as similar battery life.
Admittedly though, I's rather a Mac at that point.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
I can show you comparables if you tell me whether the price you set is
USD or CAD.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:47:26 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Consider how *nix display servers like X11, and now Wayland, conform to
this philosophy, by being separate modular, replaceable layers that
operate entirely in userland.
It's a minor concern, ultimately, I do like the modular nature of Unix
and GNU/Linux in terms of creating a GUI, it's terrific, but Microsoft
and Apple haven't failed to be as advanced as such, there's nothing to
say there are limitations on what can be developed for them.
Yes there are. Look at how Microsoft has completely failed at adapting Windows to any kind of mobile device, from Windows Phone up to the present gaming handhelds.
Apple created entirely separate OSes for its phones and
its tablets
On 2025-08-26 18:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/26/2025 6:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they
like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said prices
to the competition.
Really?
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14-
inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
Hmmm, let's see:
With a 1TB SSD
Admittedly 32GB of RAM
Slightly higher resolution display
Only gets two thirds my machine's single core score and is pretty much
equal in multicore
Weighs more than my MacBook (30% more)
And...
...and this is the kicker...
...is just $250 less expensive.
Which is a little less than 12% cheaper.
Sorry, but your "isn't even close" claim doesn't hold up.
$250 over even a 2 year life is just an additional $10 a month.
On 2025-08-24 21:11, vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:23:05 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<108flaa$2vcpq$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 02:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 5:32 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:"Ridiculous expense"? Please.
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too
expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines >>>>> are basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>>>> work the way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he >>>>> has given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Right, it's a freakin' joke, if you ask me, there are *selected*
functions of macOS software that outshine the competition, but the
typical home user is better off with something else, because of the
ridiculous expense of the Apple platform, even if they like macOS,
it's just throwing money down the toilet. Maybe they have money to
burn, I could understand that, but it would never click with me even
if I did have a billion dollars, because my brain doesn't work that
way to prefer Apple's quirkware.
Yes: my MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,200CAD, but based on my
experience,
this is a computer I can easily use for the next 5 years.
That's $37 a month.
Even if a decent laptop with Linux cost me a third of that (and I very
much doubt you can find one as good for that number), the difference
is about $25/month.
That's hardly a huge barrier to entry.
But please elaborate:
What makes Apple's technology so "quirky" in your estimation?
They put the window buttons on the wrong side of the titlebar.
;)
Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with higher end Macs for what
you get. I wouldn't wish a Mac mini on my worst enemy, though.
And why is that?
Someone said Macs weren't extendable -- but they are, with Thunderbolt,
which is basically "external PCIE".
"Basically"? It is exactly and literally external PCIe.
Same guy said Macs "weren't really Unix" (paraphrased), but has neverI don't know what "docker" is, and what in Linux context are
explained what he means by that, and I daresay he's never used a Mac
command line -- which is bash, in a POSIX+ environment.
There's something to be said about people with no knowledge or
experience with a system making claims about it. I'll not say it
personally, but leave it to others to decide.
But having said all that: Linux is still a better environment for _my_
needs, which includes a recent installation of a document management
system, using docker. (Do Macs have docker? Do they even have
containers? Beats me.)
"containers"?
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:12:52 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <108grck$37ilo$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 21:11, vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:23:05 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<108flaa$2vcpq$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 02:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 5:32 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:"Ridiculous expense"? Please.
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too
expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines >>>>>> are basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>>>>> work the way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work. >>>>>>
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he >>>>>> has given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Right, it's a freakin' joke, if you ask me, there are *selected*
functions of macOS software that outshine the competition, but the
typical home user is better off with something else, because of the
ridiculous expense of the Apple platform, even if they like macOS,
it's just throwing money down the toilet. Maybe they have money to >>>>> burn, I could understand that, but it would never click with me even >>>>> if I did have a billion dollars, because my brain doesn't work that
way to prefer Apple's quirkware.
Yes: my MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,200CAD, but based on my
experience,
this is a computer I can easily use for the next 5 years.
That's $37 a month.
Even if a decent laptop with Linux cost me a third of that (and I very >>>> much doubt you can find one as good for that number), the difference
is about $25/month.
That's hardly a huge barrier to entry.
But please elaborate:
What makes Apple's technology so "quirky" in your estimation?
They put the window buttons on the wrong side of the titlebar.
;)
Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with higher end Macs for what
you get. I wouldn't wish a Mac mini on my worst enemy, though.
And why is that?
Because both Mac mini's we've owned over the years have been slugs.
Someone said Macs weren't extendable -- but they are, with Thunderbolt,
which is basically "external PCIE".
"Basically"? It is exactly and literally external PCIe.
Same guy said Macs "weren't really Unix" (paraphrased), but has neverI don't know what "docker" is, and what in Linux context are
explained what he means by that, and I daresay he's never used a Mac
command line -- which is bash, in a POSIX+ environment.
There's something to be said about people with no knowledge or
experience with a system making claims about it. I'll not say it
personally, but leave it to others to decide.
But having said all that: Linux is still a better environment for _my_
needs, which includes a recent installation of a document management
system, using docker. (Do Macs have docker? Do they even have
containers? Beats me.)
"containers"?
Containers are a kind of lightweight virtual space that still runs on
the same kernel as the rest of the host. They can have their own uid's,gid's, network addresses, chroots, etc.
Docker is a way to run things easily within containers. It's all the rage for lightweight virtualized setups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)
vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:12:52 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote inwhat , what's this , there's something you don't know
<108grck$37ilo$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 21:11, vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:23:05 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<108flaa$2vcpq$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 02:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 5:32 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:"Ridiculous expense"? Please.
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too
expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines >>>>>>> are basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>>>>>> work the way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work. >>>>>>>
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he >>>>>>> has given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Right, it's a freakin' joke, if you ask me, there are *selected*
functions of macOS software that outshine the competition, but the >>>>>> typical home user is better off with something else, because of the >>>>>> ridiculous expense of the Apple platform, even if they like macOS, >>>>>> it's just throwing money down the toilet. Maybe they have money to >>>>>> burn, I could understand that, but it would never click with me
even if I did have a billion dollars, because my brain doesn't work >>>>>> that way to prefer Apple's quirkware.
Yes: my MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,200CAD, but based on my
experience,
this is a computer I can easily use for the next 5 years.
That's $37 a month.
Even if a decent laptop with Linux cost me a third of that (and I
very much doubt you can find one as good for that number), the
difference is about $25/month.
That's hardly a huge barrier to entry.
But please elaborate:
What makes Apple's technology so "quirky" in your estimation?
They put the window buttons on the wrong side of the titlebar.
;)
Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with higher end Macs for
what you get. I wouldn't wish a Mac mini on my worst enemy, though.
And why is that?
Because both Mac mini's we've owned over the years have been slugs.
Someone said Macs weren't extendable -- but they are, with
Thunderbolt,
which is basically "external PCIE".
"Basically"? It is exactly and literally external PCIe.
Same guy said Macs "weren't really Unix" (paraphrased), but has neverI don't know what "docker" is, and what in Linux context are
explained what he means by that, and I daresay he's never used a Mac
command line -- which is bash, in a POSIX+ environment.
There's something to be said about people with no knowledge or
experience with a system making claims about it. I'll not say it
personally, but leave it to others to decide.
But having said all that: Linux is still a better environment for
_my_
needs, which includes a recent installation of a document management
system, using docker. (Do Macs have docker? Do they even have
containers? Beats me.)
"containers"?
Containers are a kind of lightweight virtual space that still runs on
the same kernel as the rest of the host. They can have their own
uid's,gid's, network addresses, chroots, etc.
Docker is a way to run things easily within containers. It's all the
rage for lightweight virtualized setups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)
On Aug 24, 2025 at 7:37:45 PM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro"
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apple created entirely separate OSes for its phones and its tablets
What? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. iOS is a
fork of MacOS (OS X at the time).
iPads ran iOS until version 13. Then iOS was forked into iPadOS because Apple started adding multiple window management, which would be silly on
a phone.
They are all Unix.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:06:17 -0400, -hh wrote:
On 8/25/25 01:34, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
None of them did that. That’s the point.
Think you're reaching pretty far back there buddy, back to when Unix
didn't have any GUI...
Precisely the point. Once X11 came along, it was embraced as a common GUI standard among *all* the Unix vendors, even those who had put some effort into developing quite advanced proprietary concepts of their own (e.g. Sun’s NeWS).
So you see, a core part of what made for a “Unix” system was, from quite early on, modularity and replaceability that extended to the GUI.
I think Steve Jobs’ NeXT was an exception. Funnily enough, that struggled to make an impact. His was very much a voice in the wildnerness, until his company was acquired by a moribund Apple, and he returned as “iCEO” of the
merged organization.
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI functionality in Edge,
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS that >>>>>>> came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", because >>>>>>>>>>>>> you replaced it with Windows, what makes you more "wired" >>>>>>>>>>>>> for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires >>>>>>>>>>>> comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using >>>>>>>>>>>> Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision about >>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow >>>>>>>>>> Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed
fundamentally, it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a >>>>>>>>>> lower intellectual level than Microsoft, and definitely the >>>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux realm. People who click with macOS are willing to >>>>>>>>>> pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the hardware >>>>>>>>>> options not competitive with Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is >>>>>>>>> downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"... >>>>>>>>>
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things. >>>>>>>>>
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11. >>>>>>>>>
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse wheel >>>>>>>>> (assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me >>>>>>>>> all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface >>>>>>>>> is just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The >>>>>>>>> rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not
being entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years better >>>>>>>> than Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. Edge is >>>>>>>> better than Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller minds of >>>>>>>> the industry.
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say
"AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better
compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I have
yet to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, but I have
no doubt that if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is
completely absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't tied to using
Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any of the AI
functionality. It's tied to search, and you can use AI to produce some
nice images related to a description you write, but it is otherwise no
better than any other browser.
it is going to be Microsoft's AI you use.
On 2025-08-26 19:37, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:40 p.m., Alan wrote:Sorry, that's CAD.
On 2025-08-25 02:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:36 AM, vallor wrote:Really?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow
Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than >>>>>> Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with >>>>>> macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the >>>>>> hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation, >>>>> not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76, >>>>> and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a
while,
giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation has >>>>> two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS
at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they
like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said prices
to the competition.
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
Most of them.
16GB of RAM
That's a minimum for PC laptops.
A 2560x1664 display
Mid-range gaming laptops have the two above and this as well.
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
Admittedly, the gaming laptops won't. However, gaming laptops do more
than a Mac laptop can anyway by the mere fact that they can game. If
you want to compare apples to apples, the Surface and similar machines
get similar performance to the Macs as well as similar battery life.
Admittedly though, I's rather a Mac at that point.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
I can show you comparables if you tell me whether the price you set is
USD or CAD.
On 2025-08-26 9:30 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:37, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:40 p.m., Alan wrote:Sorry, that's CAD.
On 2025-08-25 02:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:36 AM, vallor wrote:Really?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow
Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level than >>>>>>> Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click >>>>>>> with
macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, >>>>>>> the
hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r) workstation, >>>>>> not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from System76, >>>>>> and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for a >>>>>> while,
giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux workstation >>>>>> has
two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS >>>>>> at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they >>>>> like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said
prices to the competition.
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
Most of them.
16GB of RAM
That's a minimum for PC laptops.
A 2560x1664 display
Mid-range gaming laptops have the two above and this as well.
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
Admittedly, the gaming laptops won't. However, gaming laptops do more
than a Mac laptop can anyway by the mere fact that they can game. If
you want to compare apples to apples, the Surface and similar
machines get similar performance to the Macs as well as similar
battery life. Admittedly though, I's rather a Mac at that point.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
I can show you comparables if you tell me whether the price you set
is USD or CAD.
Here you go: <https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/samsung-galaxy-book4- edge-16-touchscreen-copilot-pc-laptop-snapdragon-x-elite-16gb-ram-1tb- ssd-exclusive-retail-partner/17937877>
It actually costs less. As far as I know, the Snapdragon X Elite is on
par with the M3 (the M3 being better at single core but the X Elite
being better at multi-core). Still, I would rather get the Mac myself
since the AI stuff doesn't mean a thing to me.
On 8/26/2025 9:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 18:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/26/2025 6:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because they >>>>> like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said
prices to the competition.
Really?
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14-
inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
Hmmm, let's see:
With a 1TB SSD
Admittedly 32GB of RAM
Slightly higher resolution display
Only gets two thirds my machine's single core score and is pretty much
equal in multicore
Weighs more than my MacBook (30% more)
And...
...and this is the kicker...
...is just $250 less expensive.
Which is a little less than 12% cheaper.
Sorry, but your "isn't even close" claim doesn't hold up.
$250 over even a 2 year life is just an additional $10 a month.
According to Google's conversion of Canadian money to American, it's
about $375 USD less, actually - and does have more RAM and a little more screen resolution, and isn't out of the ballpark CPU-wise. Face it,
your love for Apple is making you make excuses for their overpriced crapware. They're lame as fuck. You may like your laptop, that's fine, but it's overpriced, there's no denying it.
On 2025-08-26 9:17 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI functionality in
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I have
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you replaced it with Windows, what makes you more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires >>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision about >>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during >>>>>>>>>>> Snow Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed
fundamentally, it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a >>>>>>>>>>> lower intellectual level than Microsoft, and definitely the >>>>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux realm. People who click with macOS are willing to >>>>>>>>>>> pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the hardware >>>>>>>>>>> options not competitive with Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is >>>>>>>>>> downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"... >>>>>>>>>>
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some things. >>>>>>>>>>
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows 11. >>>>>>>>>>
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse >>>>>>>>>> wheel (assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound me >>>>>>>>>> all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the interface >>>>>>>>>> is just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The >>>>>>>>>> rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not >>>>>>>>> being entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years
better than Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. >>>>>>>>> Edge is better than Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller >>>>>>>>> minds of the industry.
that came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say
"AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better >>>>>>> compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've used. >>>>>
yet to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, but I have >>>>> no doubt that if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is
completely absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't tied to using
Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any of the AI
functionality. It's tied to search, and you can use AI to produce
some nice images related to a description you write, but it is
otherwise no better than any other browser.
Edge, it is going to be Microsoft's AI you use.
Why would Microsoft be forced to provide access to a competitor's AI if
they have their own? It only makes sense that a proprietary company like Microsoft which believes you should use their proprietary browser and proprietary search engine should also expect you to use their
proprietary AI.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:12:52 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <108grck$37ilo$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 21:11, vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:23:05 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<108flaa$2vcpq$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 02:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 5:32 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:"Ridiculous expense"? Please.
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too
expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines >>>>>> are basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t >>>>>> work the way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work. >>>>>>
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he >>>>>> has given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Right, it's a freakin' joke, if you ask me, there are *selected*
functions of macOS software that outshine the competition, but the
typical home user is better off with something else, because of the
ridiculous expense of the Apple platform, even if they like macOS,
it's just throwing money down the toilet. Maybe they have money to >>>>> burn, I could understand that, but it would never click with me even >>>>> if I did have a billion dollars, because my brain doesn't work that
way to prefer Apple's quirkware.
Yes: my MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,200CAD, but based on my
experience,
this is a computer I can easily use for the next 5 years.
That's $37 a month.
Even if a decent laptop with Linux cost me a third of that (and I very >>>> much doubt you can find one as good for that number), the difference
is about $25/month.
That's hardly a huge barrier to entry.
But please elaborate:
What makes Apple's technology so "quirky" in your estimation?
They put the window buttons on the wrong side of the titlebar.
;)
Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with higher end Macs for what
you get. I wouldn't wish a Mac mini on my worst enemy, though.
And why is that?
Because both Mac mini's we've owned over the years have been slugs.
Someone said Macs weren't extendable -- but they are, with Thunderbolt,
which is basically "external PCIE".
"Basically"? It is exactly and literally external PCIe.
Same guy said Macs "weren't really Unix" (paraphrased), but has neverI don't know what "docker" is, and what in Linux context are
explained what he means by that, and I daresay he's never used a Mac
command line -- which is bash, in a POSIX+ environment.
There's something to be said about people with no knowledge or
experience with a system making claims about it. I'll not say it
personally, but leave it to others to decide.
But having said all that: Linux is still a better environment for _my_
needs, which includes a recent installation of a document management
system, using docker. (Do Macs have docker? Do they even have
containers? Beats me.)
"containers"?
Containers are a kind of lightweight virtual space that still runs on
the same kernel as the rest of the host. They can have their own uid's,gid's, network addresses, chroots, etc.
Docker is a way to run things easily within containers. It's all the rage for lightweight virtualized setups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 20:24:12 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote in <OuOdnXFT8NzI5zP1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>:
vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 22:12:52 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote inwhat , what's this , there's something you don't know
<108grck$37ilo$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 21:11, vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:23:05 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<108flaa$2vcpq$2@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-08-24 02:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 5:32 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:"Ridiculous expense"? Please.
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too
expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines >>>>>>>> are basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t
work the way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work. >>>>>>>>
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he >>>>>>>> has given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Right, it's a freakin' joke, if you ask me, there are *selected* >>>>>>> functions of macOS software that outshine the competition, but the >>>>>>> typical home user is better off with something else, because of the >>>>>>> ridiculous expense of the Apple platform, even if they like macOS, >>>>>>> it's just throwing money down the toilet. Maybe they have money to >>>>>>> burn, I could understand that, but it would never click with me
even if I did have a billion dollars, because my brain doesn't work >>>>>>> that way to prefer Apple's quirkware.
Yes: my MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,200CAD, but based on my
experience,
this is a computer I can easily use for the next 5 years.
That's $37 a month.
Even if a decent laptop with Linux cost me a third of that (and I
very much doubt you can find one as good for that number), the
difference is about $25/month.
That's hardly a huge barrier to entry.
But please elaborate:
What makes Apple's technology so "quirky" in your estimation?
They put the window buttons on the wrong side of the titlebar.
;)
Seriously, though, there's nothing wrong with higher end Macs for
what you get. I wouldn't wish a Mac mini on my worst enemy, though.
And why is that?
Because both Mac mini's we've owned over the years have been slugs.
Someone said Macs weren't extendable -- but they are, with
Thunderbolt,
which is basically "external PCIE".
"Basically"? It is exactly and literally external PCIe.
Same guy said Macs "weren't really Unix" (paraphrased), but has never >>>>> explained what he means by that, and I daresay he's never used a Mac >>>>> command line -- which is bash, in a POSIX+ environment.I don't know what "docker" is, and what in Linux context are
There's something to be said about people with no knowledge or
experience with a system making claims about it. I'll not say it
personally, but leave it to others to decide.
But having said all that: Linux is still a better environment for
_my_
needs, which includes a recent installation of a document management >>>>> system, using docker. (Do Macs have docker? Do they even have
containers? Beats me.)
"containers"?
Containers are a kind of lightweight virtual space that still runs on
the same kernel as the rest of the host. They can have their own
uid's,gid's, network addresses, chroots, etc.
Docker is a way to run things easily within containers. It's all the
rage for lightweight virtualized setups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)
About MacOS? There are things there that I definitely don't
know -- or didn't know, and had to learn about.
(Like setting a custom schedule for timemachine backups. Had
to get a third-party app for that.)
In the case of docker, it appears one runs colima, and one
can get that through brew.
I have brew.
Note that Docker on Linux is just one packaging of Linux container technology. There are a great many other ways to do containers on Linux, while other platforms, it seems, are pretty much stuck on Docker.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 01:36:35 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 24, 2025 at 7:37:45 PM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro"
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apple created entirely separate OSes for its phones and its tablets
What? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. iOS is a
fork of MacOS (OS X at the time).
Completely different GUI, therefore completely different kernel. The GUI
is not a separate, modular layer, remember.
iPads ran iOS until version 13. Then iOS was forked into iPadOS because
Apple started adding multiple window management, which would be silly on
a phone.
The distinction is what is silly. Remember, Android invented “phablets”.
They are all Unix.
They all license the “Unix” trademark, that doesn’t mean they follow the
“*nix” philosophy, as I have pointed out.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:36:47 -0400, -hh wrote:
On 8/25/25 20:45, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Markets change; "Film at 11". The customer volume isn't there anymore.
What happened to the market addressed by the old Mac Pro? Seems Apple
has given up on that altogether.
No, it’s just that Apple has given up on it.
My understanding is that the movie studios have moved over to clusters.
That means regardless of the OS run, it isn't being done on desktops.
True. It’s being done, not on “desktops”, but on “workstations”. Linux
workstations, in fact.
Do you know what a “workstation” is? It’s what a “desktop” wants to be
when it grows up.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:04:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Nevertheless, a lot of people don't care about changing the
components in their machine as much as they used to. They should,
especially since the 8GB of RAM their Mac came with is probably not
going to be enough going forward and neither is the 256GB of
storage. Still, many would rather just buy a new machine, as stupid
as that is.
Another thing is, Apple has completely given up on the market segment addressed by the old Mac Pro. They have nothing with that kind of expandability any more.
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14-
inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
Hmmm, let's see:
With a 1TB SSD
Admittedly 32GB of RAM
Slightly higher resolution display
Only gets two thirds my machine's single core score and is pretty
much equal in multicore
Weighs more than my MacBook (30% more)
And...
...and this is the kicker...
...is just $250 less expensive.
Which is a little less than 12% cheaper.
Sorry, but your "isn't even close" claim doesn't hold up.
$250 over even a 2 year life is just an additional $10 a month.
According to Google's conversion of Canadian money to American, it's
about $375 USD less, actually - and does have more RAM and a little
more screen resolution, and isn't out of the ballpark CPU-wise. Face
it, your love for Apple is making you make excuses for their
overpriced crapware. They're lame as fuck. You may like your laptop,
that's fine, but it's overpriced, there's no denying it.
Your claim that, "it isn't even close comparing"
Sorry... ...but why can't you just admit you were wrong?
On 2025-08-27 00:58, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Note that Docker on Linux is just one packaging of Linux container
technology. There are a great many other ways to do containers on Linux,
while other platforms, it seems, are pretty much stuck on Docker.
<https://github.com/apple/container>
<https://www.macforce.com/blog/apples-linux-container-revolution-a-complete-guide-for-mac-users>
<https://4sysops.com/archives/install-apple-container-cli-running-containers-natively-on-macos-15-sequoia-and-macos-26-tahoe/>
'Meet Containerization
Meet Containerization, an open source project written in Swift to create
and run Linux containers on your Mac. Learn how Containerization
approaches Linux containers securely and privately. Discover how the open-sourced Container CLI tool utilizes the Containerization package to provide simple, yet powerful functionality to build, run, and deploy
Linux Containers on Mac.'
<https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2025/346/>
On 8/27/2025 9:28 AM, Alan wrote:
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020 >>>>>> (multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-
Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
Hmmm, let's see:
With a 1TB SSD
Admittedly 32GB of RAM
Slightly higher resolution display
Only gets two thirds my machine's single core score and is pretty
much equal in multicore
Weighs more than my MacBook (30% more)
And...
...and this is the kicker...
...is just $250 less expensive.
Which is a little less than 12% cheaper.
Sorry, but your "isn't even close" claim doesn't hold up.
$250 over even a 2 year life is just an additional $10 a month.
According to Google's conversion of Canadian money to American, it's
about $375 USD less, actually - and does have more RAM and a little
more screen resolution, and isn't out of the ballpark CPU-wise. Face
it, your love for Apple is making you make excuses for their
overpriced crapware. They're lame as fuck. You may like your
laptop, that's fine, but it's overpriced, there's no denying it.
Your claim that, "it isn't even close comparing"
Sorry... ...but why can't you just admit you were wrong?
The price difference seems substantial to me, but admittedly, if you
really want macOS, the price may not be the most important factor.
On 2025-08-26 6:42 p.m., Alan wrote:Exactly.
On 2025-08-25 12:55, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:59 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-25 05:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 12:47 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 02:32, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too
expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s
machines are
basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t
work the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: >>>>>>> he has
given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Sorry, Linux fans:
Pretty much everyone disagrees with you.
Honestly, MacOS is a more polished experience than Linux can ever
hope to be. Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience
than MacOS can ever hope to be.
People usually aren't looking for "liberating experience[s]" from
things they simply want to use day-to-day.
I don't disagree. Additionally, the number of people who actually
want to learn how the computer works is quickly shrinking. In most
cases, whether they are kids or adults and especially because of how
popular smartphones are, they just expect the system to be polished,
easy to use and hands free in terms of maintenance. Even people who
are rather technical are losing interest in the constant maintenance
necessary to run Linux or to keep Windows running. Bravo to the
exception who have never had problems with either Linux or Windows.
And let's be very honest: for ordinary consumers, you shouldn't have
to learn how a device you use works. That is the evolution of a device
and its utility.
Learning how your machine works is always a benefit, but while it was a necessity in the 80s and 90s, it became more of a burden after that.
Most people just want to get things done with their computers, they
don't feel like learning a set of commands, no matter how powerful those commands are.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-
Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
Hmmm, let's see:
With a 1TB SSD
Admittedly 32GB of RAM
Slightly higher resolution display
Only gets two thirds my machine's single core score and is pretty
much equal in multicore
Weighs more than my MacBook (30% more)
And...
...and this is the kicker...
...is just $250 less expensive.
Which is a little less than 12% cheaper.
Sorry, but your "isn't even close" claim doesn't hold up.
$250 over even a 2 year life is just an additional $10 a month.
According to Google's conversion of Canadian money to American, it's
about $375 USD less, actually - and does have more RAM and a little
more screen resolution, and isn't out of the ballpark CPU-wise.
Face it, your love for Apple is making you make excuses for their
overpriced crapware. They're lame as fuck. You may like your
laptop, that's fine, but it's overpriced, there's no denying it.
Your claim that, "it isn't even close comparing"
Sorry... ...but why can't you just admit you were wrong?
The price difference seems substantial to me, but admittedly, if you
really want macOS, the price may not be the most important factor.
Is 13% more expensive really "not even close"?
On 2025-08-27 10:02, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/27/2025 9:28 AM, Alan wrote:
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
16GB of RAM
A 2560x1664 display
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020 >>>>>>> (multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-
Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
Hmmm, let's see:
With a 1TB SSD
Admittedly 32GB of RAM
Slightly higher resolution display
Only gets two thirds my machine's single core score and is pretty
much equal in multicore
Weighs more than my MacBook (30% more)
And...
...and this is the kicker...
...is just $250 less expensive.
Which is a little less than 12% cheaper.
Sorry, but your "isn't even close" claim doesn't hold up.
$250 over even a 2 year life is just an additional $10 a month.
According to Google's conversion of Canadian money to American, it's
about $375 USD less, actually - and does have more RAM and a little
more screen resolution, and isn't out of the ballpark CPU-wise. Face
it, your love for Apple is making you make excuses for their
overpriced crapware. They're lame as fuck. You may like your
laptop, that's fine, but it's overpriced, there's no denying it.
Your claim that, "it isn't even close comparing"
Sorry... ...but why can't you just admit you were wrong?
The price difference seems substantial to me, but admittedly, if you
really want macOS, the price may not be the most important factor.
Is 13% more expensive really "not even close"?
On 2025-08-27 09:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 9:30 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:37, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:40 p.m., Alan wrote:Sorry, that's CAD.
On 2025-08-25 02:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:36 AM, vallor wrote:Really?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during Snow >>>>>>>> Leopard,
but then again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's
counterintuitive to me. They are on a lower intellectual level >>>>>>>> than
Microsoft, and definitely the GNU/Linux realm. People who click >>>>>>>> with
macOS are willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's
pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with Windows devices.
Well, we bought a Mac Studio, which is a low-end UNIX(r)
workstation,
not comparable to a Windows desktop.
However, for $4K more, I bought this Linux workstation from
System76,
and it runs rings around the Mac for my workloads.
When it comes to computers, I like to buy one that will last for >>>>>>> a while,
giving it some future-proofing. For example, my Linux
workstation has
two 10Gbase-T Ethernet ports, one of which I use to talk to my NAS >>>>>>> at 10Gbits/s.
Hugh posted a link that you should read about "boots theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
I accept that people are willing to pay Apple's prices because
they like Apple's products, but it isn't even close comparing said >>>>>> prices to the competition.
Show me a Windows laptop with:
A 1TB SSD
Most of them.
16GB of RAM
That's a minimum for PC laptops.
A 2560x1664 display
Mid-range gaming laptops have the two above and this as well.
And which gets Geekbench scores of 3,157 (single core) and 12,020
(multi-core).
Oh, and will run literally all DAY on a single charge.
Admittedly, the gaming laptops won't. However, gaming laptops do
more than a Mac laptop can anyway by the mere fact that they can
game. If you want to compare apples to apples, the Surface and
similar machines get similar performance to the Macs as well as
similar battery life. Admittedly though, I's rather a Mac at that
point.
And show me what it costs.
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
I can show you comparables if you tell me whether the price you set
is USD or CAD.
Here you go: <https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/samsung-galaxy-
book4- edge-16-touchscreen-copilot-pc-laptop-snapdragon-x-elite-16gb-
ram-1tb- ssd-exclusive-retail-partner/17937877>
It actually costs less. As far as I know, the Snapdragon X Elite is on
par with the M3 (the M3 being better at single core but the X Elite
being better at multi-core). Still, I would rather get the Mac myself
since the AI stuff doesn't mean a thing to me.
So to get what I've got...
...you're paying nearly as much.
Which was my point.
The PP had insisted:
"but it [Apple's prices] isn't even close comparing said prices to the competition."
:-)
On 2025-08-27 08:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 9:17 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI functionality in
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I have >>>>>> yet to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, but I
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS >>>>>>>>> that came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you replaced it with Windows, what makes you more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during >>>>>>>>>>>> Snow Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed >>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally, it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a >>>>>>>>>>>> lower intellectual level than Microsoft, and definitely the >>>>>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux realm. People who click with macOS are willing to >>>>>>>>>>>> pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the hardware >>>>>>>>>>>> options not competitive with Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is >>>>>>>>>>> downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"... >>>>>>>>>>>
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some >>>>>>>>>>> things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of Windows >>>>>>>>>>> 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse >>>>>>>>>>> wheel (assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound >>>>>>>>>>> me all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the
interface is just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as >>>>>>>>>>> smoothly. The rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks >>>>>>>>>>> terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not >>>>>>>>>> being entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years >>>>>>>>>> better than Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. >>>>>>>>>> Edge is better than Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller >>>>>>>>>> minds of the industry.
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say
"AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for better >>>>>>>> compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've used. >>>>>>
have no doubt that if I purchased one again, there would be no issue. >>>>>>
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is
completely absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't tied to using
Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any of the AI
functionality. It's tied to search, and you can use AI to produce
some nice images related to a description you write, but it is
otherwise no better than any other browser.
Edge, it is going to be Microsoft's AI you use.
Why would Microsoft be forced to provide access to a competitor's AI
if they have their own? It only makes sense that a proprietary company
like Microsoft which believes you should use their proprietary browser
and proprietary search engine should also expect you to use their
proprietary AI.
They wouldn't.
But in a thread about Linux and choice, isn't the insistence that Edge
is superior because it integrates Copilot as its AI a little contradictory?
On 2025-08-27 9:29 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 08:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 9:17 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI functionality in
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS >>>>>>>>>> that came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during >>>>>>>>>>>>> Snow Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed >>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally, it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a >>>>>>>>>>>>> lower intellectual level than Microsoft, and definitely the >>>>>>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux realm. People who click with macOS are willing to >>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, the hardware >>>>>>>>>>>>> options not competitive with Windows devices.More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you replaced it with Windows, what makes you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY is >>>>>>>>>>>> downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"... >>>>>>>>>>>>
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some >>>>>>>>>>>> things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of >>>>>>>>>>>> Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse >>>>>>>>>>>> wheel (assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound >>>>>>>>>>>> me all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the
interface is just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as >>>>>>>>>>>> smoothly. The rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks >>>>>>>>>>>> terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not >>>>>>>>>>> being entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years >>>>>>>>>>> better than Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. >>>>>>>>>>> Edge is better than Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller >>>>>>>>>>> minds of the industry.
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say >>>>>>>>>> "AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for
better compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've >>>>>>>> used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I
have yet to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, but >>>>>>> I have no doubt that if I purchased one again, there would be no >>>>>>> issue.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is
completely absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't tied to using >>>>>> Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any of the AI
functionality. It's tied to search, and you can use AI to produce
some nice images related to a description you write, but it is
otherwise no better than any other browser.
Edge, it is going to be Microsoft's AI you use.
Why would Microsoft be forced to provide access to a competitor's AI
if they have their own? It only makes sense that a proprietary
company like Microsoft which believes you should use their
proprietary browser and proprietary search engine should also expect
you to use their proprietary AI.
They wouldn't.
But in a thread about Linux and choice, isn't the insistence that Edge
is superior because it integrates Copilot as its AI a little
contradictory?
Edge is superior to Chrome because of its AI functionality. However, if
it doesn't matter to you at all, the difference between both browsers is trivial. I'd still give the advantage to Edge because it supports
certain extensions Chrome blacklisted, and I find its security features
to be superior.
On 2025-08-27 14:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-27 9:29 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 08:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 9:17 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI functionality in
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File Explorer to an OS >>>>>>>>>>> that came out 16 years ago; Windows 7?
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?I could be out of date, I guess, having used macOS during >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snow Leopard, but then again it hasn't really changed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally, it's counterintuitive to me. They are on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lower intellectual level than Microsoft, and definitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the GNU/Linux realm. People who click with macOS are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> willing to pay for the privilege, but damn it's pricey, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hardware options not competitive with Windows devices. >>>>>>>>>>>>>More specifically, if you're "not wired for Apple", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you replaced it with Windows, what makes you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is quirky. Linux requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehension, which I have, but I'm not disliking using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows again, for now. I haven't made my decision >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about replacing it with Linux on this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more WYSIWYG than macOS? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as it stands TODAY >>>>>>>>>>>>> is downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application called "Settings"... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
...but you still needed to use the Control Panel for some >>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser degree) of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling direction of the mouse >>>>>>>>>>>>> wheel (assuming your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are others that astound >>>>>>>>>>>>> me all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and feel--of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface is just terrible! The pointer doesn't move as >>>>>>>>>>>>> smoothly. The rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks >>>>>>>>>>>>> terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings have evolved, not >>>>>>>>>>>> being entirely coherent, but File Explorer is light years >>>>>>>>>>>> better than Finder as I experienced it under Snow Leopard. >>>>>>>>>>>> Edge is better than Safari, AFAIK. Apple is just the duller >>>>>>>>>>>> minds of the industry.
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you possibly say >>>>>>>>>>> "AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which provides for >>>>>>>>>> better compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on any site I've >>>>>>>>> used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm with you, I >>>>>>>> have yet to experience a problem. I don't have a Mac anymore, >>>>>>>> but I have no doubt that if I purchased one again, there would >>>>>>>> be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is >>>>>>>>>> completely absent from Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't tied to using >>>>>>> Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any of the AI >>>>>> functionality. It's tied to search, and you can use AI to produce >>>>>> some nice images related to a description you write, but it is
otherwise no better than any other browser.
Edge, it is going to be Microsoft's AI you use.
Why would Microsoft be forced to provide access to a competitor's AI
if they have their own? It only makes sense that a proprietary
company like Microsoft which believes you should use their
proprietary browser and proprietary search engine should also expect
you to use their proprietary AI.
They wouldn't.
But in a thread about Linux and choice, isn't the insistence that
Edge is superior because it integrates Copilot as its AI a little
contradictory?
Edge is superior to Chrome because of its AI functionality. However,
if it doesn't matter to you at all, the difference between both
browsers is trivial. I'd still give the advantage to Edge because it
supports certain extensions Chrome blacklisted, and I find its
security features to be superior.
What actual "AI functionality" does it give you?
It lets you access Copilot...
...without having to type in the URL to Copilot.
It uses "AI" to identify dubious websites...
...which Chrome can do; just not calling it AI.
What is the actual VALUE here?
The point of this is obviously to make Macs the universal
development platform. You can aleady do Mac/iPhone/iPad development
on a Mac (of course) AND you can already do Windows development on a
Mac. Windows Arm runs in a standard VM and Visual Studio runs just
fine. I have done this. A Mac is already the ultimate "2 in 1"
computer.
So - again - Linux is not "taking over Macs". That would be silly
since MacOS is already Unix.
Of course, running Linux on a Mac is not new. What is new is the way
Apple is making it much easier/faster to do. Which comes from Apple
having VAST experience in working with Unix.
But these endless, petty price comparisons look even more ridiculous
when you consider that Macs can easily run Windows.
chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
Nevertheless, Linux is a more liberating experience than MacOS
can ever hope to be.
Freedom and choice are good things, no doubt.
Absolutely they are.
But declaring a device intended to have utility for ordinary folks
superior just because it offers more choice is absurd.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:17:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
The point of this is obviously to make Macs the universal
development platform. You can aleady do Mac/iPhone/iPad development
on a Mac (of course) AND you can already do Windows development on a
Mac. Windows Arm runs in a standard VM and Visual Studio runs just
fine. I have done this. A Mac is already the ultimate "2 in 1"
computer.
But it’s still a chore to install the necessary development packages. HomeBrew does its best, but it’s still a poor second to properly
integrated package management.
So - again - Linux is not "taking over Macs". That would be silly
since MacOS is already Unix.
“Unix” is just a trademark. Linux is technically not “Unix”, but it is
how a system is supposed to work when people think of the term “Unix”. Apple can’t match that.
Of course, running Linux on a Mac is not new. What is new is the way
Apple is making it much easier/faster to do. Which comes from Apple
having VAST experience in working with Unix.
They had that experience 20 years ago. What’s changed?
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:17:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
The point of this is obviously to make Macs the universal
development platform. You can aleady do Mac/iPhone/iPad development
on a Mac (of course) AND you can already do Windows development on a
Mac. Windows Arm runs in a standard VM and Visual Studio runs just
fine. I have done this. A Mac is already the ultimate "2 in 1"
computer.
But it’s still a chore to install the necessary development packages.
HomeBrew does its best, but it’s still a poor second to properly
integrated package management.
So - again - Linux is not "taking over Macs". That would be silly
since MacOS is already Unix.
“Unix” is just a trademark. Linux is technically not “Unix”, but it is
how a system is supposed to work when people think of the term “Unix”. >> Apple can’t match that.
Of course, running Linux on a Mac is not new. What is new is the way
Apple is making it much easier/faster to do. Which comes from Apple
having VAST experience in working with Unix.
They had that experience 20 years ago. What’s changed?
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:17:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:Yeah!
The point of this is obviously to make Macs the universal
development platform. You can aleady do Mac/iPhone/iPad development
on a Mac (of course) AND you can already do Windows development on a
Mac. Windows Arm runs in a standard VM and Visual Studio runs just
fine. I have done this. A Mac is already the ultimate "2 in 1"
computer.
But it’s still a chore to install the necessary development packages.
HomeBrew does its best, but it’s still a poor second to properly
integrated package management.
So - again - Linux is not "taking over Macs". That would be silly
since MacOS is already Unix.
“Unix” is just a trademark. Linux is technically not “Unix”, but it is
how a system is supposed to work when people think of the term “Unix”. >>> Apple can’t match that.
Of course, running Linux on a Mac is not new. What is new is the way
Apple is making it much easier/faster to do. Which comes from Apple
having VAST experience in working with Unix.
They had that experience 20 years ago. What’s changed?
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither Windows
nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux server
can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the most money
using a Linux server software through Azure.
The time has come to admit that Linux will probably never be the
default operating system on most of our computers. Nevertheless, Linux
will likely have the greatest _influence_ over our computers going
forward since its developers have traditionally been better at trying
new things and taking risks.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 01:36:35 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 24, 2025 at 7:37:45 PM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro"
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apple created entirely separate OSes for its phones and its tablets
What? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. iOS is a
fork of MacOS (OS X at the time).
Completely different GUI, therefore completely different kernel. The GUI
is not a separate, modular layer, remember.
iPads ran iOS until version 13. Then iOS was forked into iPadOS because
Apple started adding multiple window management, which would be silly on
a phone.
The distinction is what is silly. Remember, Android invented “phablets”.
They are all Unix.
They all license the “Unix” trademark, that doesn’t mean they follow the
“*nix” philosophy, as I have pointed out.
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:17:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
The point of this is obviously to make Macs the universal
development platform. You can aleady do Mac/iPhone/iPad development
on a Mac (of course) AND you can already do Windows development on a
Mac. Windows Arm runs in a standard VM and Visual Studio runs just
fine. I have done this. A Mac is already the ultimate "2 in 1"
computer.
But it’s still a chore to install the necessary development packages.
HomeBrew does its best, but it’s still a poor second to properly
integrated package management.
So - again - Linux is not "taking over Macs". That would be silly
since MacOS is already Unix.
“Unix” is just a trademark. Linux is technically not “Unix”, but it is
how a system is supposed to work when people think of the term “Unix”. >>> Apple can’t match that.
Of course, running Linux on a Mac is not new. What is new is the way
Apple is making it much easier/faster to do. Which comes from Apple
having VAST experience in working with Unix.
They had that experience 20 years ago. What’s changed?
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither Windows
nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the most money using
a Linux server software through Azure.
The time has come to admit that Linux will probably never be the default operating system on most of our computers. Nevertheless, Linux willI think that's an awfully bold claim to be making.
likely have the greatest _influence_ over our computers going forward
since its developers have traditionally been better at trying new things
and taking risks.
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither Windows
nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux server can.
Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the most money
using a Linux server software through Azure.
Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market.
The time has come to admit that Linux will probably never be the default operating system on most of our computers.
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither
Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux
server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the
most money using a Linux server software through Azure.
Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lameIn what way is it "much more designed to function"?
platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers have
their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in the average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
On 8/28/2025 10:53 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
You really can be a jackass, your gaywad platform is only more popular because of retards willing to pay crApple for the so-called privilege of running their crapware hardware and software. And you're proud of being one of the dummies. Congrats.
On 8/28/2025 10:53 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
You really can be a jackass, your gaywad platform is only more popular because of retards willing to pay crApple for the so-called privilege of running their crapware hardware and software.
And you're proud of being
one of the dummies. Congrats.
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 12:12:40 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market.
And workstations as well.
The time has come to admit that Linux will probably never be the default
operating system on most of our computers.
It already is. Remember, Android computers outnumber Windows about 4:1.
On 2025-08-28 19:19, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 10:53 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
You really can be a jackass, your gaywad platform is only more popular
because of retards willing to pay crApple for the so-called privilege
of running their crapware hardware and software. And you're proud of
being one of the dummies. Congrats.
Spoken like a 13 year old nerd who's never gotten laid!
On 2025-08-28 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:In what way is it "much more designed to function"?
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither
Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux
server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the
most money using a Linux server software through Azure.
Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lame
platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers have
their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in the
average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
What does it have that macOS would not that makes it better as a server?
On 2025-08-28 19:19, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 10:53 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
You really can be a jackass, your gaywad platform is only more popular
because of retards willing to pay crApple for the so-called privilege
of running their crapware hardware and software. And you're proud of
being one of the dummies. Congrats.
Spoken like a 13 year old nerd who's never gotten laid!
On 8/27/2025 10:31 AM, Alan wrote:
Your claim that, "it isn't even close comparing"My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-
Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
Hmmm, let's see:
With a 1TB SSD
Admittedly 32GB of RAM
Slightly higher resolution display
Only gets two thirds my machine's single core score and is pretty >>>>>> much equal in multicore
Weighs more than my MacBook (30% more)
And...
...and this is the kicker...
...is just $250 less expensive.
Which is a little less than 12% cheaper.
Sorry, but your "isn't even close" claim doesn't hold up.
$250 over even a 2 year life is just an additional $10 a month.
According to Google's conversion of Canadian money to American,
it's about $375 USD less, actually - and does have more RAM and a
little more screen resolution, and isn't out of the ballpark CPU-
wise. Face it, your love for Apple is making you make excuses for
their overpriced crapware. They're lame as fuck. You may like
your laptop, that's fine, but it's overpriced, there's no denying it. >>>>
Sorry... ...but why can't you just admit you were wrong?
The price difference seems substantial to me, but admittedly, if you
really want macOS, the price may not be the most important factor.
Is 13% more expensive really "not even close"?
It's over 23%, according to my math, based on ~$1590 USD equivalent for
your price. But again, you may be willing to pay it, and that's fine.
[macOS] is only more popular
because of retards willing to pay crApple for the so-called privilege
of running their crapware hardware and software.
Apple is more popular than Linux because everything the company tells
you that you can do with the hardware can actually be done, easily. With Linux, I'm sure that there is a way to get the same things accomplished,
but not easily and not without a load of compromises. Between Apple and Linux, the latter's only advantage is price.
And you're proud of being one of the dummies. Congrats.
I don't have an Apple computer at the moment, but when I did, the
experience was seamless. My MacBook just knew when I wanted it to
connect to the computer and when I needed it to be connected to the
iPhone instead, like if I moved to the bathroom. Just connecting the
AirPods to the computer (either the laptop or the phone) was immediate
and painless, something no distribution can ever offer with any choice
of device. Additionally, the experience is elegant not only when you use
the machine, but even when you're away from it. The absolute beauty of
what it puts on screen while you're not using the machine speaks for
itself. Additionally, the machine works around you rather than demanding that you work for it. In other words, whether you are at a desk, at a
bus stop or in a cafe, you know that the machine will not only work as expected but allow you to do so as long as you want because of its
stellar battery life and excellent processor. With most hardware running Linux, you either get battery life or decent processing. You get nothing which could be defined as elegant and there should be no expectation
that even waking from suspend will work without issue. Face it, you wish
you had an Apple but you're cheering on Linux because it's the only
thing you can afford in your degenerate existence.
On 2025-08-28 9:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:19, Joel W. Crump wrote:
[macOS] is only more
popular because of retards willing to pay crApple for the so-called
privilege of running their crapware hardware and software. And
you're proud of being one of the dummies. Congrats.
Spoken like a 13 year old nerd who's never gotten laid!
How horrible of you to suggest! Joel constantly lets his "girlfriend" sodomize him! I imagine that the "girl" in question lets him do the sodomizing at least once a year as well.
On 8/27/25 10:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/27/2025 10:31 AM, Alan wrote:
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-
Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
The price difference seems substantial to me, but admittedly, if you
really want macOS, the price may not be the most important factor.
Is 13% more expensive really "not even close"?
It's over 23%, according to my math, based on ~$1590 USD equivalent
for your price. But again, you may be willing to pay it, and that's
fine.
But by how much should the Dell get handicapped in this comparison
attempt because it weighs 2.7lbs vs 3.9lbs = 44% more?
This isn't a desktop, so such mobility relevant metrics do matter.
Particularly since this was obvious because the baseline was the "Air" model, not the standard MBP (and at 3.4lbs, heavier) version.
So it seems to me that another Windows candidate needs to be identified
in lieu of this particular Dell. How about finding an example that's at least within 10-15% of the Air's weight bogey? While (of course) still also meeting useful battery life & other mentioned hardware specs too.
On 8/29/2025 10:25 AM, -hh wrote:
On 8/27/25 10:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/27/2025 10:31 AM, Alan wrote:
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-
Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
[snip for brevity]
The price difference seems substantial to me, but admittedly, ifIs 13% more expensive really "not even close"?
you really want macOS, the price may not be the most important factor. >>>>
It's over 23%, according to my math, based on ~$1590 USD equivalent
for your price. But again, you may be willing to pay it, and that's
fine.
But by how much should the Dell get handicapped in this comparison
attempt because it weighs 2.7lbs vs 3.9lbs = 44% more?
This isn't a desktop, so such mobility relevant metrics do matter.
Particularly since this was obvious because the baseline was the "Air"
model, not the standard MBP (and at 3.4lbs, heavier) version.
So it seems to me that another Windows candidate needs to be
identified in lieu of this particular Dell. How about finding an
example that's at least within 10-15% of the Air's weight bogey?
While (of course) still also meeting useful battery life & other
mentioned hardware specs too.
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in every respect compare to the Air - they are exceptionally light, that being
said though, the specs were not *that* impressive, I agree the Apple
Silicon rocks, but that's only one aspect of the whole product.
I canExcept we're not directly having a preference for MacOS for this is
understand one having a preference for macOS and Apple products, but
price does matter at the end of the day, all Macs are pricey.
On 2025-08-25 01:42, vallor wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 15:53:56 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
...
Do you want to buy a car where you can pick which engine you use?
Have you actually created your own GUI?
Terrible analogy.
My car's NAV system has different themes to chose from. Almost
nobody will use them, but some people do.
Choice is good.
And yet for most consumer goods, choice is extremely limited and
personal customization after purchase is essentially nil.
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
On 8/28/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:19, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 10:53 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed.
Yeah!
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
You really can be a jackass, your gaywad platform is only more
popular because of retards willing to pay crApple for the so-called
privilege of running their crapware hardware and software. And
you're proud of being one of the dummies. Congrats.
Spoken like a 13 year old nerd who's never gotten laid!
I was in a bad mood, I confess, but I've certainly gotten laid plenty of times. I understand that people's minds work in a variety of ways, andObjectively, they are not.
to some, Macs are the bee's knees, and that's fine for them. But objectively, they are overpriced.
I was in a bad mood, I confess, but I've certainly gotten laid plenty
of times. I understand that people's minds work in a variety of ways,
and to some, Macs are the bee's knees, and that's fine for them. But
objectively, they are overpriced.
Objectively, they are not.
They are not overpriced precisely BECAUSE they are the "bee's knees" for some people.
Your tacit (you're not out of grade school, so you might need to look it
up) assumption is that anyone who doesn't find them to be overprice must have something WRONG with their mind.
As for you being in a bad mood, we call get those.
But what you turn to for language WHEN you are in a bad mood speaks
volumes about you, child.
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14-
inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
It's down to $1000.
On 8/29/25 16:22, Joel W. Crump wrote:
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14-
inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
It's down to $1000.
So what? Let us know when its down to 3 lbs.
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in
every respect compare to the Air ...
On 2025-08-28 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:In what way is it "much more designed to function"?
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Yeah!
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed. >>>>>
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither
Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux
server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the
most money using a Linux server software through Azure.
Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lame
platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers have
their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in the
average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
What does it have that macOS would not that makes it better as a server?
On 8/28/2025 9:45 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
[macOS] is only more popular because of retards willing to pay
crApple for the so-called privilege of running their crapware
hardware and software.
Apple is more popular than Linux because everything the company tells
you that you can do with the hardware can actually be done, easily.
With Linux, I'm sure that there is a way to get the same things
accomplished, but not easily and not without a load of compromises.
Between Apple and Linux, the latter's only advantage is price.
I've never had a problem getting things done with Linux, but then again
I'm not lazy.
And you're proud of being one of the dummies. Congrats.
I don't have an Apple computer at the moment, but when I did, the
experience was seamless. My MacBook just knew when I wanted it to
connect to the computer and when I needed it to be connected to the
iPhone instead, like if I moved to the bathroom. Just connecting the
AirPods to the computer (either the laptop or the phone) was immediate
and painless, something no distribution can ever offer with any choice
of device. Additionally, the experience is elegant not only when you
use the machine, but even when you're away from it. The absolute
beauty of what it puts on screen while you're not using the machine
speaks for itself. Additionally, the machine works around you rather
than demanding that you work for it. In other words, whether you are
at a desk, at a bus stop or in a cafe, you know that the machine will
not only work as expected but allow you to do so as long as you want
because of its stellar battery life and excellent processor. With most
hardware running Linux, you either get battery life or decent
processing. You get nothing which could be defined as elegant and
there should be no expectation that even waking from suspend will work
without issue. Face it, you wish you had an Apple but you're cheering
on Linux because it's the only thing you can afford in your degenerate
existence.
You're the degenerate, you pretend to be a Christian while calling
people racial slurs, being a homo/transphobe, you're ridiculous.
And
you're exaggerating beyond belief about Linux's drawbacks, if one is
lazy AF, you might have a point, people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
On 8/29/2025 8:44 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 9:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:19, Joel W. Crump wrote:
[macOS] is only more popular because of retards willing to pay
crApple for the so-called privilege of running their crapware
hardware and software. And you're proud of being one of the
dummies. Congrats.
Spoken like a 13 year old nerd who's never gotten laid!
How horrible of you to suggest! Joel constantly lets his "girlfriend"
sodomize him! I imagine that the "girl" in question lets him do the
sodomizing at least once a year as well.
I've had sex ..
On 8/29/2025 10:25 AM, -hh wrote:
On 8/27/25 10:44, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/27/2025 10:31 AM, Alan wrote:
My MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,199 (plus tax of course)
See just how much you'd "save"...
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-
Laptop-14- inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
[snip for brevity]
The price difference seems substantial to me, but admittedly, ifIs 13% more expensive really "not even close"?
you really want macOS, the price may not be the most important factor. >>>>
It's over 23%, according to my math, based on ~$1590 USD equivalent
for your price. But again, you may be willing to pay it, and that's
fine.
But by how much should the Dell get handicapped in this comparison
attempt because it weighs 2.7lbs vs 3.9lbs = 44% more?
This isn't a desktop, so such mobility relevant metrics do matter.
Particularly since this was obvious because the baseline was the "Air"
model, not the standard MBP (and at 3.4lbs, heavier) version.
So it seems to me that another Windows candidate needs to be
identified in lieu of this particular Dell. How about finding an
example that's at least within 10-15% of the Air's weight bogey?
While (of course) still also meeting useful battery life & other
mentioned hardware specs too.
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in every respect compare to the Air - they are exceptionally light, that being
said though, the specs were not *that* impressive, I agree the Apple
Silicon rocks, but that's only one aspect of the whole product. I can understand one having a preference for macOS and Apple products, but
price does matter at the end of the day, all Macs are pricey.
On 8/29/25 16:22, Joel W. Crump wrote:
How about this: https://www.amazon.com/Dell-Inspiron-Plus-Laptop-14-
inch/dp/B0D73XHQGH?th=1
It's down to $1000.
So what? Let us know when its down to 3 lbs.
Joel W. Crump wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be.
Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with
little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a >career, not just "a job".
I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me. >That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical >ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just buy a >computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
Tyrone wrote:
Joel W. Crump wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be.
Yes, because Windows doesn't require any thinking. It comes
pre-installed and has all the industry support.
Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with
little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a
career, not just "a job".
It's got nothing to do with money. It's got everything to do with
people already having experience with Windows. And, yes, all the
industry support does result in a somewhat slicker, prettier
experience.
I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me.
That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
An insignificant fraction of Linux users compile their kernel. If
they compile anything at all, it's because they are a software
developer.
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical
ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just buy a
computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
Other than needing to install it yourself, it requires no more, and
possibly less, hoops than Windows does. Many users don't require much
more than a Web browser, and Linux is more private and secure. See
how nice it is to have a computer and have it work without having your
data harvested?
On 2025-08-28 9:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:In what way is it "much more designed to function"?
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Yeah!
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed. >>>>>>
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither
Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux
server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the
most money using a Linux server software through Azure.
Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lame
platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers have
their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in the
average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
What does it have that macOS would not that makes it better as a server?
Linux doesn't have the overhead that MacOS would have for server
purposes.
You can do pretty much everything in the Linux console whereas
Apple doesn't usually prioritize that part of their operating system.
Besides, we've been in this situation before. I recall when Apple triedBut you didn't have to.
to push its Gx series servers in the mid-2000s. Absolutely no one wanted them because the performance was laughable whereas the cost was
enormous. If I remember correctly, the company also expected you to do everything through a GUI.
On 8/28/2025 9:12 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:In what way is it "much more designed to function"?
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither
Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux
server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the
most money using a Linux server software through Azure.
Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lame
platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers have
their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in the
average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
What does it have that macOS would not that makes it better as a server?
I didn't even think you were including Mac servers, they exist, that'sYou're ducking.
about the most you can say about them, their share is nonexistent
though, Windows servers are not uncommon, but Linux is where most of
that market is.
On 8/29/2025 4:27 PM, Alan wrote:
I was in a bad mood, I confess, but I've certainly gotten laid plenty
of times. I understand that people's minds work in a variety of
ways, and to some, Macs are the bee's knees, and that's fine for
them. But objectively, they are overpriced.
Objectively, they are not.
They are not overpriced precisely BECAUSE they are the "bee's knees"
for some people.
Your tacit (you're not out of grade school, so you might need to look
it up) assumption is that anyone who doesn't find them to be overprice
must have something WRONG with their mind.
As for you being in a bad mood, we call get those.
But what you turn to for language WHEN you are in a bad mood speaks
volumes about you, child.
If you assumed I implied something being wrong with your mind, that was
not intended by me,
but in fact I don't think that is what is behind the
inferiority of Apple's software.
Their patrons are fairly intelligent,Maybe, maybe not.
in fact. You just could get a better computer for the money.
On 2025-08-27 3:41 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 14:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-27 9:29 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 08:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 9:17 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File
More specifically, if you're "not
wired for Apple", because you
replaced it with Windows, what
makes you more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is
quirky. Linux requires
comprehension, which I have, but I'm
not disliking using Windows again,
for now. I haven't made my decision
about replacing it with Linux on
this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more
WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having
used macOS during Snow Leopard, but then
again it hasn't really changed
fundamentally, it's counterintuitive to
me. They are on a lower intellectual
level than Microsoft, and definitely the
GNU/Linux realm. People who click with
macOS are willing to pay for the
privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with
Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as
it stands TODAY is downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application
called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control
Panel for some things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser
degree) of Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling
direction of the mouse wheel (assuming
your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are
others that astound me all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and
feel--of the interface is just terrible!
The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The
rendering of... ...everything in the UI
looks terrible.
I hear you, with the way Windows settings
have evolved, not being entirely coherent,
but File Explorer is light years better than
Finder as I experienced it under Snow
Leopard. Edge is better than Safari, AFAIK.
Apple is just the duller minds of the
industry.
Explorer to an OS that came out 16 years ago;
Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you
possibly say "AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which
provides for better compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on
any site I've used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm
with you, I have yet to experience a problem. I
don't have a Mac anymore, but I have no doubt that
if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI
functionality that is completely absent from
Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't
tied to using Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any
of the AI functionality. It's tied to search, and you
can use AI to produce some nice images related to a
description you write, but it is otherwise no better
than any other browser.
functionality in Edge, it is going to be Microsoft's AI
you use.
Why would Microsoft be forced to provide access to a
competitor's AI if they have their own? It only makes sense
that a proprietary company like Microsoft which believes you
should use their proprietary browser and proprietary search
engine should also expect you to use their proprietary AI.
They wouldn't.
But in a thread about Linux and choice, isn't the insistence
that Edge is superior because it integrates Copilot as its AI
a little contradictory?
Edge is superior to Chrome because of its AI functionality.
However, if it doesn't matter to you at all, the difference
between both browsers is trivial. I'd still give the advantage
to Edge because it supports certain extensions Chrome
blacklisted, and I find its security features to be superior.
What actual "AI functionality" does it give you?
Well, I'm a fan of Microsoft Designer. If I want to create a
picture really quickly, it provides me with some stellar results as
long as my description is detailed. The search engine also has a
summarizing feature that I like as much as the one in Brave. Of
course, I don't use AI that much. If I do, it's only because I'm
looking for something quickly.
We were discussing EDGE. How is that relevant?It lets you access Copilot...
...without having to type in the URL to Copilot.
It uses "AI" to identify dubious websites...
...which Chrome can do; just not calling it AI.
What is the actual VALUE here?
All I can tell you for sure is that Apple seems to be sweating
because they've been stagnating for a while whereas Microsoft is
adding a lot of value to its products with AI. Apple was forced to
sign with OpenAI when they failed to create their own "intelligence"
within a respectable time frame.
On 2025-08-30 08:29, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 9:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:In what way is it "much more designed to function"?
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Yeah!
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed. >>>>>>>
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither
Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere Linux >>>>>> server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one making the >>>>>> most money using a Linux server software through Azure.
Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lame
platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers have
their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in the
average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
What does it have that macOS would not that makes it better as a server?
Linux doesn't have the overhead that MacOS would have for server
purposes.
What overhead would that be?
You can do pretty much everything in the Linux console whereas Apple
doesn't usually prioritize that part of their operating system.
It doesn't put it forward to ordinary users...
...but it still exists.
Besides, we've been in this situation before. I recall when AppleBut you didn't have to.
tried to push its Gx series servers in the mid-2000s. Absolutely no
one wanted them because the performance was laughable whereas the cost
was enormous. If I remember correctly, the company also expected you
to do everything through a GUI.
On 2025-08-27 19:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-27 3:41 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 14:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-27 9:29 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 08:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 9:17 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File
More specifically, if you're "not
wired for Apple", because you
replaced it with Windows, what
makes you more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is
quirky. Linux requires comprehension, which I have, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm
not disliking using Windows again,
for now. I haven't made my decision
about replacing it with Linux on
this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more
WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having
used macOS during Snow Leopard, but then
again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counterintuitive to
me. They are on a lower intellectual
level than Microsoft, and definitely the
GNU/Linux realm. People who click with
macOS are willing to pay for the
privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with
Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as
it stands TODAY is downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application
called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control
Panel for some things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser
degree) of Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling
direction of the mouse wheel (assuming
your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are
others that astound me all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and
feel--of the interface is just terrible!
The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The
rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hear you, with the way Windows settings
have evolved, not being entirely coherent,
but File Explorer is light years better than
Finder as I experienced it under Snow
Leopard. Edge is better than Safari, AFAIK.
Apple is just the duller minds of the
industry.
Explorer to an OS that came out 16 years ago;
Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you
possibly say "AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which
provides for better compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on
any site I've used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm
with you, I have yet to experience a problem. I
don't have a Mac anymore, but I have no doubt that
if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI
functionality that is completely absent from
Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't
tied to using Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any
of the AI functionality. It's tied to search, and you
can use AI to produce some nice images related to a
description you write, but it is otherwise no better
than any other browser.
functionality in Edge, it is going to be Microsoft's AI
you use.
Why would Microsoft be forced to provide access to a
competitor's AI if they have their own? It only makes sense
that a proprietary company like Microsoft which believes you
should use their proprietary browser and proprietary search
engine should also expect you to use their proprietary AI.
They wouldn't.
But in a thread about Linux and choice, isn't the insistence
that Edge is superior because it integrates Copilot as its AI
a little contradictory?
Edge is superior to Chrome because of its AI functionality.
However, if it doesn't matter to you at all, the difference
between both browsers is trivial. I'd still give the advantage
to Edge because it supports certain extensions Chrome
blacklisted, and I find its security features to be superior.
What actual "AI functionality" does it give you?
Well, I'm a fan of Microsoft Designer. If I want to create a
picture really quickly, it provides me with some stellar results as
long as my description is detailed. The search engine also has a
summarizing feature that I like as much as the one in Brave. Of
course, I don't use AI that much. If I do, it's only because I'm
looking for something quickly.
Microsoft Designer is available at designer.microsoft.com, and doesn't
seem to require Edge at all.
We were discussing EDGE. How is that relevant?It lets you access Copilot...
...without having to type in the URL to Copilot.
It uses "AI" to identify dubious websites...
...which Chrome can do; just not calling it AI.
What is the actual VALUE here?
All I can tell you for sure is that Apple seems to be sweating
because they've been stagnating for a while whereas Microsoft is
adding a lot of value to its products with AI. Apple was forced to
sign with OpenAI when they failed to create their own "intelligence"
within a respectable time frame.
How is Edge a better browser because of "its AI functionality".
Stick to the topic, please.
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me. That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just buy a computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
On 8/30/2025 12:41 AM, Tyrone wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks
with
little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I
have a
career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling the
latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me. >> That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated money to a distro.
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical
ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just buy a
computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
I sweated in the heat, genius, it's not "technical ineptitude". I was
kind of strung out on DXM and careless, but I know how to put together computers.
I sweated in the heat, genius, it's not "technical ineptitude". I was
kind of strung out on DXM and careless, but I know how to put together
computers.
Plugging a plugging into the wall socket is not putting it together.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 12:52:31 -0400, -hh wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in
every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree <https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
On 2025-08-30 1:30 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:41 AM, Tyrone wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks
with
little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because
I have a
career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling
the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for
me.
That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've
donated money to a distro.
How can you donate something you don't have?
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical
ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just
buy a
computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
I sweated in the heat, genius, it's not "technical ineptitude". I was
kind of strung out on DXM and careless, but I know how to put together
computers.
Plugging a plugging into the wall socket is not putting it together.
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in
every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-
alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench score.
There's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with it being ARM based, as the MS-Windows ecosystem isn't all that keen there: might want
to look into how much performance is effectively lost by which Windows
Apps which have to run in an emulated Intel CPU mode or whatnot.
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 12:52:31 -0400, -hh wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in
every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench score.
There's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with it being
ARM based ...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 14:16:44 -0400, -hh wrote:
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 12:52:31 -0400, -hh wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in
every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench score.
As if your typical user who is the target market for an Apple product
would even know what a “Geekbench score” was ...
Because Apple make a clean break over, whereas MS is still supportingThere's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with it being
ARM based ...
Apple made the transition OK, seemingly; why do you think Microsoft
might be having trouble with the same thing?
On 8/30/2025 12:41 AM, Tyrone wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with >> little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a
career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me.
That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated money to a distro.
On 2025-08-30, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:41 AM, Tyrone wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with >>> little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a
career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me. >>> That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
On 2025-08-30 12:16 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 19:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-27 3:41 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 14:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-27 9:29 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-27 08:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 9:17 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-26 19:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-26 6:27 p.m., Alan wrote:And what I'm saying is that if you WANT to use AI
On 2025-08-25 12:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-25 9:58 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting.
On 2025-08-25 05:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-24 6:57 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-24 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:27 PM, Alan wrote:So, you're comparing which version of File
More specifically, if you're "not
wired for Apple", because you
replaced it with Windows, what
makes you more "wired" for that?
Windows is just WYSIWYG, Mac is
quirky. Linux requires comprehension, which I have, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm
not disliking using Windows again,
for now. I haven't made my decision
about replacing it with Linux on
this mini PC.
Unresponsive.
In what way is Windows any more
WYSIWYG than macOS?
I could be out of date, I guess, having
used macOS during Snow Leopard, but then
again it hasn't really changed fundamentally, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counterintuitive to
me. They are on a lower intellectual
level than Microsoft, and definitely the
GNU/Linux realm. People who click with
macOS are willing to pay for the
privilege, but damn it's pricey, the
hardware options not competitive with
Windows devices.
IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS?
HOW was it supposedly "counterintuitive"?
See: I can list some ways that Windows as
it stands TODAY is downright user hostile.
1. Windows 10 created a new application
called "Settings"...
...but you still needed to use the Control
Panel for some things.
And that is still true (albeit to a lesser
degree) of Windows 11.
2. How do you change the scrolling
direction of the mouse wheel (assuming
your mouse has one).
I could go on, but believe me there are
others that astound me all the time.
And overall, the fluidity--the look and
feel--of the interface is just terrible!
The pointer doesn't move as smoothly. The
rendering of... ...everything in the UI looks terrible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I hear you, with the way Windows settings
have evolved, not being entirely coherent,
but File Explorer is light years better than
Finder as I experienced it under Snow
Leopard. Edge is better than Safari, AFAIK.
Apple is just the duller minds of the
industry.
Explorer to an OS that came out 16 years ago;
Windows 7?
HOW is "Edge better than Safari"? How can you
possibly say "AFAIK" about it?
For one, Edge uses the Chromium engine which
provides for better compatibility with websites.
Who says so? I've yet to see a single problem on
any site I've used.
I've read developers complaining about it but I'm
with you, I have yet to experience a problem. I
don't have a Mac anymore, but I have no doubt that
if I purchased one again, there would be no issue.
It also provides some very decent AI
functionality that is completely absent from
Safari.
You mean it forces you to use Copilot.
No, it doesn't.
What "AI functionality" is there in Edge that isn't
tied to using Copilot?
I'm genuinely asking.
What I'm saying is that you are not obligated to use any
of the AI functionality. It's tied to search, and you
can use AI to produce some nice images related to a
description you write, but it is otherwise no better
than any other browser.
functionality in Edge, it is going to be Microsoft's AI
you use.
Why would Microsoft be forced to provide access to a
competitor's AI if they have their own? It only makes sense
that a proprietary company like Microsoft which believes you
should use their proprietary browser and proprietary search
engine should also expect you to use their proprietary AI.
They wouldn't.
But in a thread about Linux and choice, isn't the insistenceo
that Edge is superior because it integrates Copilot as its AI
a little contradictory?
Edge is superior to Chrome because of its AI functionality.
However, if it doesn't matter to you at all, the difference
between both browsers is trivial. I'd still give the advantage
to Edge because it supports certain extensions Chrome
blacklisted, and I find its security features to be superior.
What actual "AI functionality" does it give you?
Well, I'm a fan of Microsoft Designer. If I want to create a
picture really quickly, it provides me with some stellar results as
long as my description is detailed. The search engine also has a
summarizing feature that I like as much as the one in Brave. Of
course, I don't use AI that much. If I do, it's only because I'm
looking for something quickly.
Microsoft Designer is available at designer.microsoft.com, and doesn't
seem to require Edge at all.
But it does require Windows. It was not available to me from within Linux.
We were discussing EDGE. How is that relevant?It lets you access Copilot...
...without having to type in the URL to Copilot.
It uses "AI" to identify dubious websites...
...which Chrome can do; just not calling it AI.
What is the actual VALUE here?
All I can tell you for sure is that Apple seems to be sweating
because they've been stagnating for a while whereas Microsoft is
adding a lot of value to its products with AI. Apple was forced to
sign with OpenAI when they failed to create their own "intelligence"
within a respectable time frame.
How is Edge a better browser because of "its AI functionality".
Stick to the topic, please.
I've already told you that I mostly avoid the functionality and that I wouldn't be the right source to show _how_ it helps. Nevertheless, I
know how you are and I have no desire to try to convert a Mac zealot the same way I wouldn't try to convert a follower of the pedophile muhammad (piss be upon him).
On 8/30/2025 2:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in
every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-
alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench score.
There's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with it being ARM
based, as the MS-Windows ecosystem isn't all that keen there: might
want to look into how much performance is effectively lost by which
Windows Apps which have to run in an emulated Intel CPU mode or whatnot.
Macs run x86-code emulation.
On 2025-08-30 12:11 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-30 08:29, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 9:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:In what way is it "much more designed to function"?
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Yeah!
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed. >>>>>>>>
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither
Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere
Linux server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one
making the most money using a Linux server software through Azure. >>>>>>
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lame
platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers
have their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in
the average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
What does it have that macOS would not that makes it better as a
server?
Linux doesn't have the overhead that MacOS would have for server
purposes.
What overhead would that be?
The necessity of a GUI to execute the tasks you would complete in the
Linux console. If you can demonstrate how there is no need for a GUI on
a Mac server compared to a Linux server, you are free to do so.
You can do pretty much everything in the Linux console whereas Apple
doesn't usually prioritize that part of their operating system.
It doesn't put it forward to ordinary users...
...but it still exists.
People who manage servers aren't ordinary users.
I used to DO it.Besides, we've been in this situation before. I recall when AppleBut you didn't have to.
tried to push its Gx series servers in the mid-2000s. Absolutely no
one wanted them because the performance was laughable whereas the
cost was enormous. If I remember correctly, the company also expected
you to do everything through a GUI.
Prove it.
I've already told you that I mostly avoid the functionality and that I
wouldn't be the right source to show _how_ it helps. Nevertheless, I
know how you are and I have no desire to try to convert a Mac zealot
the same way I wouldn't try to convert a follower of the pedophile
muhammad (piss be upon him).
OK...but you made a specific claim:
"It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is completely absent from Safari."
I'm still waiting for you to explain what this functionality is beyond building in Copilot.
What differentiates it from just using various AI services?
On 2025-08-30 12:35, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-30 12:11 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-30 08:29, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 9:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-28 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/28/2025 2:31 PM, Alan wrote:In what way is it "much more designed to function"?
On 2025-08-28 12:12, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-28 10:53 a.m., Alan wrote:Where the chief "advantage" is cost, yes.
On 2025-08-28 00:12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
Yeah!
Linux is becoming more and more dominant, that’s what’s changed. >>>>>>>>>
In the last two years it's gone from 3.12% share to 3.98%.
Any day now.
🤣🤣🤣
There is no denying that Linux owns the server market. Neither >>>>>>>> Windows nor Mac OS can deliver the kind of advantages a mere
Linux server can. Nevertheless, Microsoft seems to be the one >>>>>>>> making the most money using a Linux server software through Azure. >>>>>>>
Wrong, idiot, you're so desperate to make a point about your lame >>>>>> platform, that you say something so stupid, no, Windows servers
have their place, but Linux is much more designed to function in
the average server purposes, that is undeniable, you are a moron.
What does it have that macOS would not that makes it better as a
server?
Linux doesn't have the overhead that MacOS would have for server
purposes.
What overhead would that be?
The necessity of a GUI to execute the tasks you would complete in the
Linux console. If you can demonstrate how there is no need for a GUI
on a Mac server compared to a Linux server, you are free to do so.
Except you can do the tasks on the console from macOS.
You can do pretty much everything in the Linux console whereas Apple
doesn't usually prioritize that part of their operating system.
It doesn't put it forward to ordinary users...
...but it still exists.
People who manage servers aren't ordinary users.
And?
Not prioritizing something doesn't mean it doesn't exist
I used to DO it.Besides, we've been in this situation before. I recall when AppleBut you didn't have to.
tried to push its Gx series servers in the mid-2000s. Absolutely no
one wanted them because the performance was laughable whereas the
cost was enormous. If I remember correctly, the company also
expected you to do everything through a GUI.
Prove it.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the
China-based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what
they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
On 2025-08-30 14:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 2:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in
every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-
alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench score.
There's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with it being
ARM based, as the MS-Windows ecosystem isn't all that keen there:
might want to look into how much performance is effectively lost by
which Windows Apps which have to run in an emulated Intel CPU mode or
whatnot.
Macs run x86-code emulation.
You should quit when you're this far behind.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion
dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the
China-based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what
they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got
with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when
Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
It's better than being a fool like you Joel.
Why pay $200.00 for something that can be purchased legally for $20?
And seeing as you seem to have troubles with Windows and accused Microsoft of somehow disabling your license, how is that $200 "doing the right thing" license
working out for you?
And seeing you are living on the dole like your buddy snit, it's comforting to
see how you spend the taxpayer's money.
NOT.
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit license),
but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got with my
new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doingThe irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
the right thing, sheesh.
On 2025-08-30 10:03 p.m., Alan wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
I've already told you that I mostly avoid the functionality and that
I wouldn't be the right source to show _how_ it helps. Nevertheless,
I know how you are and I have no desire to try to convert a Mac
zealot the same way I wouldn't try to convert a follower of the
pedophile muhammad (piss be upon him).
OK...but you made a specific claim:
"It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is completely
absent from Safari."
I'm still waiting for you to explain what this functionality is beyond
building in Copilot.
What differentiates it from just using various AI services?
Unsurprisingly, and much like Snit and every other Mac zealot, you
refuse to let things go even after a person provides you with an answer.
I looked it up online since, like I said repeatedly, I don't use the features myself having browsed a certain way since 1994 and being
unwilling to change my habits. Nevertheless, Co-Pilot provides page summarization, text rewriting and voice navigation according to a quick search. With voice navigation, you can have Co-Pilot search for content
you might have lost in a barrage of tabs or even in your history. As far
as I know, Safari does not have this functionality.
I imagine that you'll bring up Siri. I use Siri and it's fantastic for giving you directions to a location. However, my experience with a
simple question this week like "Siri, where is Wembley Stadium located?"
was laughable. In every attempt, it just bombed. As for Apple
Intelligence, we already know that it is lagging significantly behind
what Microsoft offers to a point that they had to sign a deal with
OpenAI to try to bring it up to par.
On 8/30/2025 10:03 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-30 14:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 2:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in >>>>>>> every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-
alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench score.
There's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with it being
ARM based, as the MS-Windows ecosystem isn't all that keen there:
might want to look into how much performance is effectively lost by
which Windows Apps which have to run in an emulated Intel CPU mode
or whatnot.
Macs run x86-code emulation.
You should quit when you're this far behind.
Uh, I stand by what I said, you aren't aware of it as an advanced userI'm completely aware that Macs can run x86-code using something called "Rosetta", but that wasn't at issue.
of macOS?!
I find it interesting that you refer to devices running Android as
computers.
On 2025-08-31, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion
dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the
China-based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what
they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got
with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when
Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
It's better than being a fool like you Joel.
Why pay $200.00 for something that can be purchased legally for $20?
And seeing as you seem to have troubles with Windows and accused Microsoft of somehow disabling your license, how is that $200 "doing the right thing" license
working out for you?
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the
time and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from
my 2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads
I'm not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a
billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not
selling their wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they
produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I
got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when
Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
On 2025-08-31 07:10, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-30 10:03 p.m., Alan wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
I've already told you that I mostly avoid the functionality and that
I wouldn't be the right source to show _how_ it helps. Nevertheless,
I know how you are and I have no desire to try to convert a Mac
zealot the same way I wouldn't try to convert a follower of the
pedophile muhammad (piss be upon him).
OK...but you made a specific claim:
"It also provides some very decent AI functionality that is
completely absent from Safari."
I'm still waiting for you to explain what this functionality is
beyond building in Copilot.
What differentiates it from just using various AI services?
Unsurprisingly, and much like Snit and every other Mac zealot, you
refuse to let things go even after a person provides you with an answer.
I looked it up online since, like I said repeatedly, I don't use the
features myself having browsed a certain way since 1994 and being
unwilling to change my habits. Nevertheless, Co-Pilot provides page
summarization, text rewriting and voice navigation according to a
quick search. With voice navigation, you can have Co-Pilot search for
content you might have lost in a barrage of tabs or even in your
history. As far as I know, Safari does not have this functionality.
I imagine that you'll bring up Siri. I use Siri and it's fantastic for
giving you directions to a location. However, my experience with a
simple question this week like "Siri, where is Wembley Stadium
located?" was laughable. In every attempt, it just bombed. As for
Apple Intelligence, we already know that it is lagging significantly
behind what Microsoft offers to a point that they had to sign a deal
with OpenAI to try to bring it up to par.
No. You did NOT provide me with an answer.
You made specific claim and when asked to support it, you simply evaded.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:43:21 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find it interesting that you refer to devices running Android as
computers.
I’ve written programs for them, that’s how I know they are.
On 2025-08-31 15:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 10:03 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-30 14:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 2:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in >>>>>>>> every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air-
alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench score. >>>>> There's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with it being
ARM based, as the MS-Windows ecosystem isn't all that keen there:
might want to look into how much performance is effectively lost by >>>>> which Windows Apps which have to run in an emulated Intel CPU mode
or whatnot.
Macs run x86-code emulation.
You should quit when you're this far behind.
Uh, I stand by what I said, you aren't aware of it as an advanced user
of macOS?!
I'm completely aware that Macs can run x86-code using something called "Rosetta", but that wasn't at issue.
See if you can figure out why.
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the
time and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from
my 2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads
I'm not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a
billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not
selling their wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they
produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I
got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when
Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
On 2025-08-31 3:37 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2025-08-31, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
It's better than being a fool like you Joel.
Why pay $200.00 for something that can be purchased legally for $20?
The legality of those $20 licenses is up for debate.
And seeing as you seem to have troubles with Windows and accused
Microsoft of
somehow disabling your license, how is that $200 "doing the right
thing" license
working out for you?
Admittedly, when I used this Windows 10 license on my old MSI GT72, the operating system would routinely deactivate the license every two months
or so. I imagine that it's because the machine came with its own Windows
8.1 license and the Pro one I used atop it caused some sort of conflict. Meanwhile, on this machine, the same license works without issue. There
is a possibility that Joel is right about the license being deactivated
for no reason.
On 8/31/2025 10:16 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-31 15:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 10:03 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-30 14:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 2:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 8/30/25 04:23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
[Joel wrote]:
I don't think you're likely to find a Windows laptop that can in >>>>>>>>> every respect compare to the Air ...
Some might disagree
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/i-found-the-ultimate-macbook-air- >>>>>>> alternative-for-windows-users-and-its-priced-well/> ...
A decent find, albeit with a 20% lower single core Geekbench
score. There's also some potential 'compatibility' concerns with
it being ARM based, as the MS-Windows ecosystem isn't all that
keen there: might want to look into how much performance is
effectively lost by which Windows Apps which have to run in an
emulated Intel CPU mode or whatnot.
Macs run x86-code emulation.
You should quit when you're this far behind.
Uh, I stand by what I said, you aren't aware of it as an advanced
user of macOS?!
I'm completely aware that Macs can run x86-code using something called
"Rosetta", but that wasn't at issue.
See if you can figure out why.
My point is that it's not so bad on any of the ARM OSes.
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected
and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
On 9/1/2025 8:29 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-31 3:37 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2025-08-31, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
It's better than being a fool like you Joel.
Why pay $200.00 for something that can be purchased legally for $20?
The legality of those $20 licenses is up for debate.
The one I have will hold up, but it isn't movable to another machine.
And seeing as you seem to have troubles with Windows and accused
Microsoft of
somehow disabling your license, how is that $200 "doing the right
thing" license
working out for you?
Admittedly, when I used this Windows 10 license on my old MSI GT72,
the operating system would routinely deactivate the license every two
months or so. I imagine that it's because the machine came with its
own Windows 8.1 license and the Pro one I used atop it caused some
sort of conflict. Meanwhile, on this machine, the same license works
without issue. There is a possibility that Joel is right about the
license being deactivated for no reason.
I have admitted long ago that alcohol was adding to confusion in that instance, that I solved the problem.
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion
dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they
produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit license),
but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got with my
new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't purchase the
license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when Microsoft is
tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
On 2025-09-01 11:48 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/1/2025 8:29 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-31 3:37 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2025-08-31, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing >>>>> the right thing, sheesh.
It's better than being a fool like you Joel.
Why pay $200.00 for something that can be purchased legally for $20?
The legality of those $20 licenses is up for debate.
The one I have will hold up, but it isn't movable to another machine.
Then it is basically like the product keys that are tied to the
motherboard, allowing you to install and reinstall Windows without the
need to enter the product key at installation time. As far as I know,
they are still called OEM keys. If you don't mind buying another license
the moment you change computers, there is nothing wrong with them. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Microsoft charges manufacturers as
little as $20 to put Windows on their hardware legally. That's why the
fact that they can be purchased for so little is sketchy to me.
And seeing as you seem to have troubles with Windows and accused
Microsoft of
somehow disabling your license, how is that $200 "doing the right
thing" license
working out for you?
Admittedly, when I used this Windows 10 license on my old MSI GT72,
the operating system would routinely deactivate the license every two
months or so. I imagine that it's because the machine came with its
own Windows 8.1 license and the Pro one I used atop it caused some
sort of conflict. Meanwhile, on this machine, the same license works
without issue. There is a possibility that Joel is right about the
license being deactivated for no reason.
I have admitted long ago that alcohol was adding to confusion in that
instance, that I solved the problem.
I stand by what I said. It might have actually gotten deactivated
through no fault of your own.
And BTW, Microsoft takes no issue with using a resellers key.
Joel is just a sucker. In more ways than one :)
On 9/1/2025 4:29 PM, pothead wrote:
And BTW, Microsoft takes no issue with using a resellers key.
Joel is just a sucker. In more ways than one :)
You are just a useless brain-damaged goon who should shut up, and leave debate of this to people with some sense of reality. Of course they
"take no issue", I take issue, I know what I'm doing and why I'm doing
it. In the recent instance, it means accepting the low cost.
On 2025-08-31 10:57 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:43:21 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find it interesting that you refer to devices running Android as
computers.
I’ve written programs for them, that’s how I know they are.
Meanwhile, Google does everything in its power to distance itself
from Linux.
The devices running Android, no matter how whether we consider it
to be Linux or not, also don't operate as desktop computers.
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in
their default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller
than expected and they might have less RAM than computers at the
same price, but the screen quality and battery life need to be
considered. However, upgrading that default configuration is
prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores
the net performance levels obtained.
On Aug 27, 2025 at 12:56:58 AM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 01:36:35 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 24, 2025 at 7:37:45 PM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro"
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apple created entirely separate OSes for its phones and its
tablets
What? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. iOS is
a fork of MacOS (OS X at the time).
Completely different GUI, therefore completely different kernel.
The GUI is not a separate, modular layer, remember.
Instead of continuing to dig yourself into a hole, just admit that
you know nothing about Operating Systems in general and Apple in
particular.
OF COURSE the GUI is a separate layer. That's part of what Unix is
all about. Modular, portable and scalable.
Sure you do.And BTW, Microsoft takes no issue with using a resellers key.
Joel is just a sucker. In more ways than one :)
You are just a useless brain-damaged goon who should shut up, and leave
debate of this to people with some sense of reality. Of course they
"take no issue", I take issue, I know what I'm doing and why I'm doing
it. In the recent instance, it means accepting the low cost.
ROTL!
You pay $200 for what others pay $20 for.
tell me when you go to the market to buy your cola, if the price
is $7.00 for a 6 pack, do you offer to pay $10 dollars?
Why not?
That's what you did with Windows, and after overpaying you claim that Microsoft blacklisted you!!!!
You need to lay off the jenkem that snit hooked you on.
No, that’s part of what the “Unix philosophy” is about, or perhaps better renamed the “*nix philosophy” now, since the one OS still in common use that has licensed the “Unix” trademark
does not, and
actually has never (since its NextStep days) abided by that
philosophy.
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than
expected and they might have less RAM than computers at the same
price, but the screen quality and battery life need to be considered.
However, upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since
one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
Then it is basically like the product keys that are tied to the
motherboard, allowing you to install and reinstall Windows without the
need to enter the product key at installation time. As far as I know,
they are still called OEM keys. If you don't mind buying another
license the moment you change computers, there is nothing wrong with
them. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Microsoft charges
manufacturers as little as $20 to put Windows on their hardware
legally. That's why the fact that they can be purchased for so little
is sketchy to me.
They go through large organizations that eventually sell unused licenses.
I stand by what I said. It might have actually gotten deactivated
through no fault of your own.
I had my TV hooked up to the computer's video and didn't see relevant
output sent to it in the OS-installation process.
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected
and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the
screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since
one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 13:23:18 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1094kq6$3snn8$3@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected >>> and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the
screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since
one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
Have you priced out 10Gbit/s Ethernet NICs for Macs?
Maybe I'm missing something, but most are over $100.
Can get one for PC for consumer prices, some less than $50:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWU8BEB
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:57:43 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 27, 2025 at 12:56:58 AM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 01:36:35 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 24, 2025 at 7:37:45 PM EDT, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro"
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Apple created entirely separate OSes for its phones and its
tablets
What? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. iOS is
a fork of MacOS (OS X at the time).
Completely different GUI, therefore completely different kernel.
The GUI is not a separate, modular layer, remember.
Instead of continuing to dig yourself into a hole, just admit that
you know nothing about Operating Systems in general and Apple in
particular.
OF COURSE the GUI is a separate layer. That's part of what Unix is
all about. Modular, portable and scalable.
No, that’s part of what the “Unix philosophy” is about, or perhaps better renamed the “*nix philosophy” now, since the one OS still in common use that has licensed the “Unix” trademark does not, and
actually has never (since its NextStep days) abided by that
philosophy.
No, the macOS GUI is *not* a separate, modular layer, like on Linux.
Are there alternative GUIs available, like on common Linux distros?
Can you install it without a GUI at all, like on Linux, and administer
it remotely via SSH? Can you login on text consoles, like on Linux?
No, and no, and no.
On 8/31/2025 10:13 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've
donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the
time and while it turned out my existing license was transferable
from my 2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased
with its parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate
fuckwads I'm not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company
"with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by
not selling their wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they
produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I
got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility
when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a plus for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and Linux as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can switch to Linux any time,
but Microsoft is giving me a real choice that makes me want to
indefinitely wait on that.
For example, my 2008 Sony 32" LCD TV is 720p/1080i but supports
1080p (even though it isn't advertised). Nevertheless, if you run
720p or 1080p content on it, you'll notice that some of the content
isn't on the screen. The sides are missing some content.
On 2025-09-01 1:23 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than
expected and they might have less RAM than computers at the same
price, but the screen quality and battery life need to be considered.
However, upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively
expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so
since one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore
any other SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
I notice you omit Gen 4, which was already available on PCs in 2022.
According to the PCI Express table on Wikipedia, they can get to 7,877
GB/s at x4 which is the most common rate. Did you purposefully ignore
that information to make the Apple "deal" on storage prices appear better?
What about PCI Express 5.0, which is also already available on PCs and doubles that rate?
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 13:23:18 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1094kq6$3snn8$3@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected >>> and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the
screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since
one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
Have you priced out 10Gbit/s Ethernet NICs for Macs?
Maybe I'm missing something, but most are over $100.
Can get one for PC for consumer prices, some less than $50:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWU8BEB
On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 17:05:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
For example, my 2008 Sony 32" LCD TV is 720p/1080i but supports
1080p (even though it isn't advertised). Nevertheless, if you run
720p or 1080p content on it, you'll notice that some of the content
isn't on the screen. The sides are missing some content.
That’s called “overscan”. It’s a legacy from the early days of analog broadcast TV, I think due to design limitations of CRT displays or manufacturing tolerances or something. But basically it means you lose a
few percent of the picture around the edges.
I’m not sure how much of that carries over to digital broadcasts. I think it still has to, for backward compatibility.
On 9/2/25 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-01 1:23 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in
their default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller
than expected and they might have less RAM than computers at the
same price, but the screen quality and battery life need to be
considered. However, upgrading that default configuration is
prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores
the net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so
since one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore
any other SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
I notice you omit Gen 4, which was already available on PCs in 2022.
Sure because we've been talking about real world systems that posters
here like Joel own, and presently I don't own a Gen 4 system yet.
Reason being is a combination of purchase cycles / lifecycles, as well
as not having an objective performance requirement for it: as I already have mentioned, my current system is capable of 8K video editing, and
since my best system is capable of 4K, I don't need it yet.
According to the PCI Express table on Wikipedia, they can get to 7,877
GB/s at x4 which is the most common rate. Did you purposefully ignore
that information to make the Apple "deal" on storage prices appear
better?
Keyword being "can". My own benchmarking tests have found that I "can"
hit ~6300 MB/sec, but that's not the minimum.
What about PCI Express 5.0, which is also already available on PCs and
doubles that rate?
And "what about" the current M4 series Mac Studio too?
On 2025-09-03 9:50 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 9/2/25 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-01 1:23 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in
their default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller
than expected and they might have less RAM than computers at the
same price, but the screen quality and battery life need to be
considered. However, upgrading that default configuration is
prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores
the net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so
since one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore
any other SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
I notice you omit Gen 4, which was already available on PCs in 2022.
Sure because we've been talking about real world systems that posters
here like Joel own, and presently I don't own a Gen 4 system yet.
Reason being is a combination of purchase cycles / lifecycles, as well
as not having an objective performance requirement for it: as I
already have mentioned, my current system is capable of 8K video
editing, and since my best system is capable of 4K, I don't need it yet.
Since Gen 4 machines have been available for years now with Gen 5 being
the current default, there is no reason to suggest that these kinds of systems aren't real.
one shouldn't be criticizing those who do & pay more for higher I/O.According to the PCI Express table on Wikipedia, they can get to
7,877 GB/s at x4 which is the most common rate. Did you purposefully
ignore that information to make the Apple "deal" on storage prices
appear better?
Keyword being "can". My own benchmarking tests have found that I
"can" hit ~6300 MB/sec, but that's not the minimum.
I'm nowhere near that for now, but my machine supports PCIe 3.0 x4 at
best. Still, it's more than fast enough for my needs.Which is the whole point: if one's needs don't merit faster I/O, then
What about PCI Express 5.0, which is also already available on PCs
and doubles that rate?
And "what about" the current M4 series Mac Studio too?
As far as I know, the Mac Studio is nowhere near as affordable as
typical machine with PCIe 5.0.
< snip >
As far as I know, the Mac Studio is nowhere near as affordable as
typical machine with PCIe 5.0.
< snip >
Care to provide an example of one of these "typical" PCIe 5 PCs?
FWIW, I did spend a little bit of time looking at a Dell Alienware which advertised PCIe 5, but an element which stood out at me was that had a
16x lane slot for a GPU, but since PCIe 5 specs are gamer-centric and
has up to 16 CPU PCIe 5.0 lanes and up to four CPU PCIe 4.0 lanes, the ramifications here are that if all 16x went to the GPU, that only leaves
a PCIe 4 4x slot for its NVMe slot ... which isn't a performance boost
at all for onboard storage.
After all, a standard PCIe-5 slot has half the bandwidth of a PCIe-4'sI do believe that you are correct here, which would probably explain why
4x slot: ~The Devil's in the Details!~
On 9/2/25 20:55, vallor wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 13:23:18 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1094kq6$3snn8$3@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected >>>> and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the >>>> screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since >>> one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
Have you priced out 10Gbit/s Ethernet NICs for Macs?
Yup.
Maybe I'm missing something, but most are over $100.
The Synology OEM PCIe card is ~$110 retail.
Can get one for PC for consumer prices, some less than $50:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWU8BEB
Don't need it for desktop, as the Macs now build that in.
I've been wondering what 3rd party PCIe cards might work in the NAS, but haven't invested that much time in it, as saving just $60 on a non-OEM
card might be a false economy if it breaks the OEM auto-updating firmware/software stuff, particularly since its only one of the costs:
I want to provision a 10G switch, and since lot of $150 stuff that tends
to have high failure rates, I'm leaning towards a $300 Ubiquiti.
-hh--
On 2025-09-01 7:47 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
Then it is basically like the product keys that are tied to the
motherboard, allowing you to install and reinstall Windows without
the need to enter the product key at installation time. As far as I
know, they are still called OEM keys. If you don't mind buying
another license the moment you change computers, there is nothing
wrong with them. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Microsoft charges
manufacturers as little as $20 to put Windows on their hardware
legally. That's why the fact that they can be purchased for so little
is sketchy to me.
They go through large organizations that eventually sell unused licenses.
Then it sounds legal to me. I'll have to pick one up that way if ever I
need to buy a new license in the future.
I stand by what I said. It might have actually gotten deactivated
through no fault of your own.
I had my TV hooked up to the computer's video and didn't see relevant
output sent to it in the OS-installation process.
It happens that computer output doesn't appear on televisions. It often
has to do with the fact that either the refresh rate or the resolution
isn't exactly what it says it is. For example, my 2008 Sony 32" LCD TV
is 720p/1080i but supports 1080p (even though it isn't advertised). Nevertheless, if you run 720p or 1080p content on it, you'll notice that some of the content isn't on the screen. The sides are missing some
content. It's quite possible, if the television isn't from a reputable brand, that it simply didn't show anything because no PC resolution or refresh rate was supported on it.
On 2025-09-01 08:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/31/2025 10:13 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've
donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the
time and while it turned out my existing license was transferable
from my 2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased
with its parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate
fuckwads I'm not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company
"with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by
not selling their wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the
China- based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate
what they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a
legit license), but I would never buy from the people selling them,
what I got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case
I didn't purchase the license myself, so it's not really my
responsibility when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for
doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a plus for
Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and Linux as being
intended to reach a range of hardware, I can switch to Linux any time,
but Microsoft is giving me a real choice that makes me want to
indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
On 9/2/2025 11:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-01 08:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/31/2025 10:13 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've >>>>>>> donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the >>>>> time and while it turned out my existing license was transferable
from my 2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased
with its parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some
cheapskate fuckwads I'm not afraid of paying my way, even if it's
to a company "with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make >>>>> a billion by not selling their wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the
China- based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate
what they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a
legit license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, >>>>> what I got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case >>>>> I didn't purchase the license myself, so it's not really my
responsibility when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for
doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a plus
for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and Linux as
being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can switch to Linux
any time, but Microsoft is giving me a real choice that makes me want
to indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they wish to get.
On 9/2/2025 5:05 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-01 7:47 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
Then it is basically like the product keys that are tied to the
motherboard, allowing you to install and reinstall Windows without
the need to enter the product key at installation time. As far as I
know, they are still called OEM keys. If you don't mind buying
another license the moment you change computers, there is nothing
wrong with them. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Microsoft
charges manufacturers as little as $20 to put Windows on their
hardware legally. That's why the fact that they can be purchased for
so little is sketchy to me.
They go through large organizations that eventually sell unused
licenses.
Then it sounds legal to me. I'll have to pick one up that way if ever
I need to buy a new license in the future.
It probably violates an agreement with Microsoft (but not involving
you), but it's tolerated.
It happens that computer output doesn't appear on televisions. It
often has to do with the fact that either the refresh rate or the
resolution isn't exactly what it says it is. For example, my 2008 Sony
32" LCD TV is 720p/1080i but supports 1080p (even though it isn't
advertised). Nevertheless, if you run 720p or 1080p content on it,
you'll notice that some of the content isn't on the screen. The sides
are missing some content. It's quite possible, if the television isn't
from a reputable brand, that it simply didn't show anything because no
PC resolution or refresh rate was supported on it.
The TV was turned off and I really felt bad when I realized how simple
the problem was.
Here <https://www.theverge.com/news/769005/remarkable-paper-pro-move-e-note-notebook-stylus-tablet-e-ink>
is an example of the kind of product that Linux makes possible. It’s
not an Android tablet, and it’s not an Ipad. Apple could never make an
Ipad that works like that.
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for
doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's
devices calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a plus
for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and Linux as >>>> being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can switch to Linux
any time, but Microsoft is giving me a real choice that makes me
want to indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they wish to get.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much (in
your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten
times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
On 9/3/2025 7:23 PM, Alan wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for >>>>>>> doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's
devices calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a plus
for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and Linux
as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can switch to
Linux any time, but Microsoft is giving me a real choice that makes >>>>> me want to indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they wish to
get.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much (in
your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten
times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license for
a bit less.
... I want to provision a 10G switch, and since lot of $150 stuff that
tends to have high failure rates, I'm leaning towards a $300 Ubiquiti.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:57:44 -0400, -hh wrote:
... I want to provision a 10G switch, and since lot of $150 stuff that
tends to have high failure rates, I'm leaning towards a $300 Ubiquiti.
There is a lot of Cisco stuff on the second-hand market, still useful
even though it might be a decade or more old and no longer officially supported. And the range of functionality is just breathtaking.
I have been learning about some of it lately, for a client. One switch I
have here is running an OS called “Open IOS XE”, which uses a Linux kernel and even lets you write Python code to run on it.
On 2025-09-03 12:20 p.m., -hh wrote:
< snip >
As far as I know, the Mac Studio is nowhere near as affordable as
typical machine with PCIe 5.0.
< snip >
Care to provide an example of one of these "typical" PCIe 5 PCs?
MSI's offerings as of 2023: <https://www.techspot.com/news/97168-msi- new-laptops-among-first-feature-pcie-5.html>
FWIW, I did spend a little bit of time looking at a Dell Alienware
which advertised PCIe 5, but an element which stood out at me was that
had a 16x lane slot for a GPU, but since PCIe 5 specs are gamer-
centric and has up to 16 CPU PCIe 5.0 lanes and up to four CPU PCIe
4.0 lanes, the ramifications here are that if all 16x went to the GPU,
that only leaves a PCIe 4 4x slot for its NVMe slot ... which isn't a
performance boost at all for onboard storage.
After all, a standard PCIe-5 slot has half the bandwidth of a PCIe-4's
4x slot: ~The Devil's in the Details!~
I do believe that you are correct here, which would probably explain why most of the machines I looked at had PCIe 4.0 written as the type of NVMe.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:57:44 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1099hgo$15ibu$1@dont-email.me>:
On 9/2/25 20:55, vallor wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 13:23:18 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1094kq6$3snn8$3@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their >>>>> default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected >>>>> and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the >>>>> screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the >>>> net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since >>>> one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other >>>> SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
Have you priced out 10Gbit/s Ethernet NICs for Macs?
Yup.
Maybe I'm missing something, but most are over $100.
The Synology OEM PCIe card is ~$110 retail.
Both the Synology's I bought have multiple 10G connectors
built-in.
But I was comparing oranges to oranges -- if one wants to upgrade
a Mac Studio, one has to block down ~$120 or so.
PC, it's less than $50.
Can get one for PC for consumer prices, some less than $50:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWU8BEB
Don't need it for desktop, as the Macs now build that in.
That doesn't help those of us who already bought a Mac Studio.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 09:57:44 -0400, -hh wrote:
... I want to provision a 10G switch, and since lot of $150 stuff that
tends to have high failure rates, I'm leaning towards a $300 Ubiquiti.
There is a lot of Cisco stuff on the second-hand market, still useful even though it might be a decade or more old and no longer officially
supported. And the range of functionality is just breathtaking.
I have been learning about some of it lately, for a client. One switch IIn between more serious commitments, I'm trying to find the time to
have here is running an OS called “Open IOS XE”, which uses a Linux kernel
and even lets you write Python code to run on it.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten
times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
On 2025-09-03 18:00, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/3/2025 7:23 PM, Alan wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for >>>>>>>> doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's
devices calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a plus >>>>>> for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and Linux >>>>>> as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can switch to
Linux any time, but Microsoft is giving me a real choice that
makes me want to indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they wish to
get.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten
times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
On 9/3/2025 10:17 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten
times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
You ever hear of calling for help on the phone? Heh.I've heard of it of course.
On 2025-09-03 10:17 p.m., Alan wrote:Do you indeed?
On 2025-09-03 18:00, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/3/2025 7:23 PM, Alan wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for >>>>>>>>> doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's
devices calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a
plus for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and >>>>>>> Linux as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can
switch to Linux any time, but Microsoft is giving me a real
choice that makes me want to indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they wish
to get.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten
times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
When you buy the boxed product, you indeed get technical support if
anything goes wrong. I imagine that support is not available to people
who buy OEM licenses.
On 9/2/25 20:55, vallor wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 13:23:18 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1094kq6$3snn8$3@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than
expected
and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the >>>> screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since >>> one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
Have you priced out 10Gbit/s Ethernet NICs for Macs?
Yup.
I've become quite a fan of Ubiquiti's gear; I've installed it for a few clients and it's always worked really well.Maybe I'm missing something, but most are over $100.
The Synology OEM PCIe card is ~$110 retail.
Can get one for PC for consumer prices, some less than $50:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWU8BEB
Don't need it for desktop, as the Macs now build that in.
I've been wondering what 3rd party PCIe cards might work in the NAS, but haven't invested that much time in it, as saving just $60 on a non-OEM
card might be a false economy if it breaks the OEM auto-updating firmware/software stuff, particularly since its only one of the costs: I want to provision a 10G switch, and since lot of $150 stuff that tends
to have high failure rates, I'm leaning towards a $300 Ubiquiti.
On 2025-09-04 07:35, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-03 10:17 p.m., Alan wrote:Do you indeed?
On 2025-09-03 18:00, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/3/2025 7:23 PM, Alan wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me >>>>>>>>>> for doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's >>>>>>>>> devices calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a >>>>>>>> plus for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and >>>>>>>> Linux as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can
switch to Linux any time, but Microsoft is giving me a real
choice that makes me want to indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they wish >>>>>> to get.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten >>>>> times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
When you buy the boxed product, you indeed get technical support if
anything goes wrong. I imagine that support is not available to people
who buy OEM licenses.
Where is that guaranteed?
Here's the Microsoft page:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows>
You know what I don't see there?
Any way to contact a PERSON or even an AI.
Nor do I see any restriction on who can USE the resources that are
provided.
On 2025-09-04 12:16 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 07:35, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-03 10:17 p.m., Alan wrote:Do you indeed?
On 2025-09-03 18:00, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/3/2025 7:23 PM, Alan wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me >>>>>>>>>>> for doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's >>>>>>>>>> devices calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a >>>>>>>>> plus for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows >>>>>>>>> and Linux as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can >>>>>>>>> switch to Linux any time, but Microsoft is giving me a real >>>>>>>>> choice that makes me want to indefinitely wait on that.
Way to utterly miss the point.
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they wish >>>>>>> to get.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much >>>>>> (in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend
ten times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including >>>>> support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder
license for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
When you buy the boxed product, you indeed get technical support if
anything goes wrong. I imagine that support is not available to
people who buy OEM licenses.
Where is that guaranteed?
Here's the Microsoft page:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows>
You know what I don't see there?
Any way to contact a PERSON or even an AI.
Nor do I see any restriction on who can USE the resources that are
provided.
That's because you're willfully blind. Let's see what a routine search
on the web says about the matter:
"Yes, buying a Microsoft Windows license typically comes with technical support.
Microsoft provides support for downloading, installing, and activating Windows, as well as assistance with account-related questions.
1
When purchasing directly from Microsoft or authorized retailers, you can expect access to customer support and help with any issues that arise.
1
It's important to ensure that you are purchasing a legitimate license to avoid any legal or support issues.
1
For more detailed information, you can refer to the official Microsoft Support page."I'm not "infected".
It's funny. Back in the mid-2000s, I was primarily buying Apple
products. Somehow, I avoided becoming a zealot and could happily admit
that browsers on MacOS were a weak spot and that Windows XP machines ran
a lot faster. How did you get infected?
My 2022 M1 Max Studio came standard with 10Gbe, so I'd recommend
checking to see what version Ethernet port your Studio has.
On 2025-09-04 09:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 12:16 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 07:35, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-03 10:17 p.m., Alan wrote:Do you indeed?
On 2025-09-03 18:00, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/3/2025 7:23 PM, Alan wrote:
Way to utterly miss the point.You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me >>>>>>>>>>>> for doing the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's >>>>>>>>>>> devices calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a >>>>>>>>>> plus for Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows >>>>>>>>>> and Linux as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I >>>>>>>>>> can switch to Linux any time, but Microsoft is giving me a >>>>>>>>>> real choice that makes me want to indefinitely wait on that. >>>>>>>>>
I admitted that Mac enthusiasts have reason to get what they
wish to get.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too
much (in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend >>>>>>> ten times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price
including support I would never use, one can also get a System
Builder license for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
When you buy the boxed product, you indeed get technical support if
anything goes wrong. I imagine that support is not available to
people who buy OEM licenses.
Where is that guaranteed?
Here's the Microsoft page:
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows>
You know what I don't see there?
Any way to contact a PERSON or even an AI.
Nor do I see any restriction on who can USE the resources that are
provided.
That's because you're willfully blind. Let's see what a routine search
on the web says about the matter:
"Yes, buying a Microsoft Windows license typically comes with
technical support.
Microsoft provides support for downloading, installing, and activating
Windows, as well as assistance with account-related questions.
How do they provide it?
1
When purchasing directly from Microsoft or authorized retailers, you
can expect access to customer support and help with any issues that
arise.
Sounds like they're palming off the support, doesn't it?
1
It's important to ensure that you are purchasing a legitimate license
to avoid any legal or support issues.
1
Sorry, but where does it say you won't get that support with an OEM
license?
Where does it say you actually GET that support?
And if it is from a website, how is it restricted to only licenses
purchased at retail prices?
For more detailed information, you can refer to the official MicrosoftI'm not "infected".
Support page."
It's funny. Back in the mid-2000s, I was primarily buying Apple
products. Somehow, I avoided becoming a zealot and could happily admit
that browsers on MacOS were a weak spot and that Windows XP machines
ran a lot faster. How did you get infected?
I'm pointing out that paying $200 for something you can legally purchase
for $20 is ridiculous.
On 9/3/25 17:33, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-03 12:20 p.m., -hh wrote:
< snip >
As far as I know, the Mac Studio is nowhere near as affordable as
typical machine with PCIe 5.0.
< snip >
Care to provide an example of one of these "typical" PCIe 5 PCs?
MSI's offerings as of 2023: <https://www.techspot.com/news/97168-msi-
new-laptops-among-first-feature-pcie-5.html>
"The models featuring PCIe 5 are likely to be expensive. Tom's Hardware reports that the flagships will break the $5,000 mark, but the lower-end Pulse, Katana, and Cyborg systems will be more affordable."
There should be updates on those price estimates by now; for basic reference, the M4 Max Studio starts at $2K, although there's also other
Macs and other M4's, such as the mini with an M4 for $600, or an M4 Pro
for $1400, as well as thread-relevant updated M4 Macbook Air for $1K.
Plus a pretty loaded base M4 Max MacBook Pro for $3200 (14/32 cores with 36GB RAM/1TB SSD).
I do believe that you are correct here, which would probably explain
why most of the machines I looked at had PCIe 4.0 written as the type
of NVMe.
It was an unexpected & interesting find on my part, although it does
make sense: the customer demand pull is gaming, so that's where the
focus is. In the meantime, NVMe on PCIe-4 4x meets current "working purposes" capability needs, as illustrated by how my older system
benches fine for editing 8K video, and 12K only effectively exists in
the 'even more professional' realm, which means that NVMe only needs to
be one step ahead of the capability need instead of two steps ahead.
For what lies ahead, my guess is that the next step is more probably to
go to "PCIe-5.1" so as to expand out to more PCIe-5 lanes instead of
going to a PCIe-6 to double speeds without as much lane expansion.
Either way, time will tell.
On 9/3/2025 10:17 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten
times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
You ever hear of calling for help on the phone? Heh.
On 2025-09-04 9:55 a.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/3/2025 10:17 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten >>>>> times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
I can't help but notice that his behaviour is very Snit Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy-like. I wonder if it is common of Mac users to ask questions and then change the parameters of that question
when you answer it.
I'm asking what you are actually guaranteed for the extra $180.What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
You ever hear of calling for help on the phone? Heh.
I have to agree that he is being purposefully dishonest in his
interaction. I imagine that because Apple does a lot of hand-holding
both for the installation and any kind of technical support, he can't
fathom things being done even slightly differently.
On 2025-09-04 9:15 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 9/3/25 17:33, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-03 12:20 p.m., -hh wrote:
< snip >
As far as I know, the Mac Studio is nowhere near as affordable as
typical machine with PCIe 5.0.
< snip >
Care to provide an example of one of these "typical" PCIe 5 PCs?
MSI's offerings as of 2023: <https://www.techspot.com/news/97168-msi-
new-laptops-among-first-feature-pcie-5.html>
"The models featuring PCIe 5 are likely to be expensive. Tom's
Hardware reports that the flagships will break the $5,000 mark, but
the lower-end Pulse, Katana, and Cyborg systems will be more affordable."
There should be updates on those price estimates by now; for basic
reference, the M4 Max Studio starts at $2K, although there's also
other Macs and other M4's, such as the mini with an M4 for $600, or an
M4 Pro for $1400, as well as thread-relevant updated M4 Macbook Air
for $1K. Plus a pretty loaded base M4 Max MacBook Pro for $3200 (14/32
cores with 36GB RAM/1TB SSD).
Good catch. While they are available, only the most dedicated gamers
will see a point to spending that much. I'm more of a casual gamer and always have been, and I'm quite good with the RTX 3060 mobile from 2021
too. Heck, I just learned that an RTx 5060 mobile is only 43% faster
than what I have, and my PCIe 3.0 x4 is always way faster than I would
need to play a game.
...
I think that computers have been, for a while now, at a point where
they're still getting faster, but there is no point to upgrading unless
they break.
I'm sure that even the 2010 laptop I replaced in 2015 wouldProbably, although keeping up-to-date on software & OS is a factor too;
have done a decent job of completing most of my work today given a
chance.
I wouldn't be editing 4k video, but I don't even do that now.I knew that 4K video was in my roadmap when I bought this 2022 desktop.
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much
(in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend ten >>>>> times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including
support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder license
for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
You ever hear of calling for help on the phone? Heh.
I've heard of it of course.
What I'm asking for is what provision of the Windows 11 retail license purchase gets you support?
Can you quote it?
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too much >>>>>> (in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend
ten times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price including >>>>> support I would never use, one can also get a System Builder
license for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to be compensated for their work.
They tolerate this reselling of licenses
for a reason, and I don't care if someone takes advantage of it, but at
the end of the day it can come off like just because Microsoft is what
they are they deserve to basically support all these PCs for free. What they got for my license isn't large, it was part of a group of licenses
the business never got around to using and sold to the maker of my
device. Given that I've always supported Microsoft financially, I don't feel all that bad about it, and they clearly would allow me to do it.
But somewhere along the line, someone violated an agreement, it's fairly intuitive to think.
What support do you get when you buy a Windows 11 license?
I bet you can't quote it.
You ever hear of calling for help on the phone? Heh.
I've heard of it of course.
What I'm asking for is what provision of the Windows 11 retail license
purchase gets you support?
Can you quote it?
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.Do they?
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too
much (in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend >>>>>>> ten times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price
including support I would never use, one can also get a System
Builder license for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to be
compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.Do they?
For assistance forever and for all purposes?
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to be
compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
They tolerate this reselling of licenses for a reason, and I don't
care if someone takes advantage of it, but at the end of the day it
can come off like just because Microsoft is what they are they deserve
to basically support all these PCs for free. What they got for my
license isn't large, it was part of a group of licenses the business
never got around to using and sold to the maker of my device. Given
that I've always supported Microsoft financially, I don't feel all
that bad about it, and they clearly would allow me to do it. But
somewhere along the line, someone violated an agreement, it's fairly
intuitive to think.
So you think it's intuitive...
...and that just makes it true?
What I'm asking for is what provision of the Windows 11 retail
license purchase gets you support?
Can you quote it?
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.
Do they?
For assistance forever and for all purposes?
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too >>>>>>>> much (in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend >>>>>>>> ten times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price
including support I would never use, one can also get a System
Builder license for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to
be compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product ridiculous?
< snip >Free forever? Or for installation problems?
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.Do they?
For assistance forever and for all purposes?
Free technical help for all issues related to their own software. If a third-party doesn't run, they won't help you unless, obviously, it can
be proven that their software is the cause of the problem.
On 2025-09-04 16:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too >>>>>>>>> much (in your opinion)...
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to spend >>>>>>>>> ten times as much for a Windows license as he needs to.
To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price
including support I would never use, one can also get a System >>>>>>>> Builder license for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to
be compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product
ridiculous?
I'm not supposed to care about whether a developer gets compensated.
I make rational decisions for my best interest and assume they do the same.
< snip >Free forever? Or for installation problems?
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.Do they?
For assistance forever and for all purposes?
Free technical help for all issues related to their own software. If a
third-party doesn't run, they won't help you unless, obviously, it can
be proven that their software is the cause of the problem.
On 2025-09-04 8:13 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to >>>>> be compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product
ridiculous?
I'm not supposed to care about whether a developer gets compensated.
I make rational decisions for my best interest and assume they do the
same.
What are you looking for? Applause?
< snip >Free forever? Or for installation problems?
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.Do they?
For assistance forever and for all purposes?
Free technical help for all issues related to their own software. If
a third-party doesn't run, they won't help you unless, obviously, it
can be proven that their software is the cause of the problem.
I didn't realize that as an Apple user, you were incapable of looking
this up online. Here is your answer: "built-in virtual support, free
online and community resources, in-person free help at select centers."
I imagine that the next question is: "which centers?" or "which
resources?" or "what does free mean?" Grab yourself a dictionary and ask
a responsible grown-up to help you.
On 2025-09-04 8:13 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
The point is that you don't like the Mac because it costs too >>>>>>>>>> much (in your opinion)...To get it the right way, what I paid is Microsoft's price
...but decry someone as a "cheapskate" for not wanting to >>>>>>>>>> spend ten times as much for a Windows license as he needs to. >>>>>>>>>
including support I would never use, one can also get a System >>>>>>>>> Builder license for a bit less.
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest >>>>>> available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to >>>>> be compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product
ridiculous?
I'm not supposed to care about whether a developer gets compensated.
I make rational decisions for my best interest and assume they do the
same.
What are you looking for? Applause?
< snip >Free forever? Or for installation problems?
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.Do they?
For assistance forever and for all purposes?
Free technical help for all issues related to their own software. If
a third-party doesn't run, they won't help you unless, obviously, it
can be proven that their software is the cause of the problem.
I didn't realize that as an Apple user, you were incapable of looking
this up online. Here is your answer: "built-in virtual support, free
online and community resources, in-person free help at select centers."
I imagine that the next question is: "which centers?" or "which
resources?" or "what does free mean?" Grab yourself a dictionary and ask
a responsible grown-up to help you.
On 9/4/2025 9:30 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 8:13 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them
to be compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his
product ridiculous?
I'm not supposed to care about whether a developer gets compensated.
I make rational decisions for my best interest and assume they do the
same.
What are you looking for? Applause?
It surprises me to see Alan talking like the hypocrites I see mocking
paying the normal price. The same people who pretend to be ethical just doing the self-serving thing and bragging about it.
< snip >Free forever? Or for installation problems?
They give you a phone number to call for assistance.Do they?
For assistance forever and for all purposes?
Free technical help for all issues related to their own software. If
a third-party doesn't run, they won't help you unless, obviously, it
can be proven that their software is the cause of the problem.
I didn't realize that as an Apple user, you were incapable of looking
this up online. Here is your answer: "built-in virtual support, free
online and community resources, in-person free help at select centers."
I imagine that the next question is: "which centers?" or "which
resources?" or "what does free mean?" Grab yourself a dictionary and
ask a responsible grown-up to help you.
Many people don't need direct support. But Microsoft delivers on making their product accessible. Paying retail price for a product key says--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
that you either want that service or you just want the convenience, I
had media for Win10 at the time, getting a DVD-ROM was useless,
wasteful, even if cheaper for the System Builder license.
It surprises me to see Alan talking like the hypocrites I see mocking
paying the normal price. The same people who pretend to be ethical
just doing the self-serving thing and bragging about it.
So is it ethics...
...or the support you claim you get by purchase it for ten times the cost?
On 2025-09-04 18:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Many people don't need direct support. But Microsoft delivers on
making their product accessible. Paying retail price for a product
key says that you either want that service or you just want the
convenience, I had media for Win10 at the time, getting a DVD-ROM was
useless, wasteful, even if cheaper for the System Builder license.
On 9/4/2025 10:12 PM, Alan wrote:
It surprises me to see Alan talking like the hypocrites I see mocking
paying the normal price. The same people who pretend to be ethical
just doing the self-serving thing and bragging about it.
So is it ethics...
...or the support you claim you get by purchase it for ten times the
cost?
You're making sheer cost the only relevant factor. It isn't.
It surprises me to see Alan talking like the hypocrites I see
mocking paying the normal price. The same people who pretend to be
ethical just doing the self-serving thing and bragging about it.
So is it ethics...
...or the support you claim you get by purchase it for ten times the
cost?
You're making sheer cost the only relevant factor. It isn't.
You're the one who called people "cheapskates" for saving some money...
...and then implied they were unethical for getting a bargain.
In the meantime, NVMe on PCIe-4 4x meets current "working
purposes" capability needs,
as illustrated by how my older system
benches fine for editing 8K video, and 12K only effectively exists in
the 'even more professional' realm, which means that NVMe only needs to
be one step ahead of the capability need instead of two steps ahead.
Debunking 7 longstanding Linux myths that scare people off from
abandoning Windows <https://www.zdnet.com/article/ready-to-ditch-windows-10-i-debunked-7-linux-myths-so-you-can-switch-with-confidence/>,
ending with
Modern Linux is far more beautiful than either MacOS or Windows.
What are you looking for? Applause?
Did it seem I was?
I was merely correcting your outlandish idea that I should look out for
the welfare of software developers before my own.
I didn't realize that as an Apple user, you were incapable of looking
this up online. Here is your answer: "built-in virtual support, free
online and community resources, in-person free help at select centers."
I imagine that the next question is: "which centers?" or "which
resources?" or "what does free mean?" Grab yourself a dictionary and
ask a responsible grown-up to help you.
And where is that support limited to only retail purchases?
Certainly the ""built-in virtual support, free online and community resources" aren't.
And the only "in-person free help at select centers" I can find appears
to be for Microsoft Surface devices.
And it's odd that a phrase you put in quotes can't be Googled AS that
exact phrase:
'No results found for "built-in virtual support, free online and
community resources, in-person free help at select centers.".'
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22built- in+virtual+support%2C+free+online+and+community+resources%2C+in- person+free+help+at+select+centers. %22&client=safari&sca_esv=310e4980e99ea993&source=hp&ei=sUa6aP- iBMuP0PEP4_21gQ0&iflsig=AOw8s4IAAAAAaLpUwd7SUTKyRYyLQ81Ya8wIdSGDKIWX&ved=0ahUKEwi_v63JxcCPAxXLBzQIHeN-LdAQ4dUDCBo&uact=5&oq=%22built-in+virtual+support%2C+free+online+and+community+resources%2C+in-person+free+help+at+select+centers.%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6ImciYnVpbHQtaW4gdmlydHVhbCBzdXBwb3J0LCBmcmVlIG9ubGluZSBhbmQgY29tbXVuaXR5IHJlc291cmNlcywgaW4tcGVyc29uIGZyZWUgaGVscCBhdCBzZWxlY3QgY2VudGVycy4iSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAZgCAKACAJgDAJIHAKAHALIHALgHAMIHAMgHAA&sclient=gws-wiz>
Weird, huh?
So how is it you were able to find it?
On 2025-08-24 13:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/24/2025 2:23 PM, Alan wrote:
the typical home user is better off with something else [than a
Mac], because of the ridiculous expense of the Apple platform, even
if they like macOS, it's just throwing money down the toilet. Maybe >>>> they have money to burn, I could understand that, but it would never
click with me even if I did have a billion dollars, because my brain
doesn't work that way to prefer Apple's quirkware.
"Ridiculous expense"? Please.
Yes: my MacBook Air (M3) cost me $2,200CAD, but based on my
experience, this is a computer I can easily use for the next 5 years.
That's $37 a month.
Even if a decent laptop with Linux cost me a third of that (and I
very much doubt you can find one as good for that number), the
difference is about $25/month.
That's hardly a huge barrier to entry.
The point is, for that price, you could've gotten more hardware with
another platform. It's like buying a Hyundai over a Honda, is it
literally as good, maybe not in someone's OCD mind, but it's clearly a
better value financially.
And had a far worse overall experience.
I know how to use macOS, Windows (every version), Linux...
...and I know what works well.
I also know that of the hundreds of people I've seen transition to using Macs, only two (yes: literally just 2) have ever expressed any desire to return to Windows and one of those was a man in his 70s who was just too
set in his ways to change at that age.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines are basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t work the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he has given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Interesting. Will Linux run MS Office? Quicken? MS Teams? Current
Acrobat version? Spektrum Programmer (RC model airplane firmware)? Go
Pro software? ForeFlight (or a substitute)?
Give examples for each of the given examples. What would you use to replace:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 13:17:32 -0700, Alan wrote:
Give examples for each of the given examples. What would you use to replace:
Sorry. I have no inclination to accommodate an ignoramus troll.
But I'll give you a slight hint.
GNU/Linux users will carefully craft their workflow to lie within
the bounds of available FOSS software.
This kind of digital expertise is well beyond the pointy-clicky
mentality of the average (and above average) Microshit/Apphole
user.
???
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to be
compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product >ridiculous?
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest
available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to be >>>> compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product
ridiculous?
There is no moral obligation to pay anything more than what the
product is legally available for.
On 9/5/2025 5:41 PM, chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates.
Not at all.
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest >>>>>> available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them to be >>>>> compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product
ridiculous?
There is no moral obligation to pay anything more than what the
product is legally available for.
You can be sold an MAK license that could get all its activations used
up, that can't happen if you buy a key that is individually yours. The digital license will work with the first device but won't transfer to another.
On 8/24/2025 5:32 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 04:52:22 -0400, Joel W. Crump wrote:
But no, buying a fucking Mac is not the answer. It's too expensive.
And lacking in expandability and versatility. All Apple’s machines are
basically just glorified laptops now.
And the OS may have licensed the “Unix” trademark, but it doesn’t work
the
way people expect traditional “Unix” systems to work.
Ask one of the original Bell Labs crew, Ken “Mr Unix” Thompson: he has >> given up on Apple and switched to Linux.
Interesting. Will Linux run MS Office?
Quicken?
MS Teams?
Current
Acrobat version?
Spektrum Programmer (RC model airplane firmware)?
Go
Pro software?
ForeFlight (or a substitute)?
I use all these on a frequent basis. All are readily available on
Windows and/or iOS/Mac OS.
On 2025-09-05 14:50, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/5/2025 5:41 PM, chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
Not at all.And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates. >>>>>>>
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest >>>>>>> available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them
to be
compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product
ridiculous?
There is no moral obligation to pay anything more than what the
product is legally available for.
You can be sold an MAK license that could get all its activations used
up, that can't happen if you buy a key that is individually yours.
The digital license will work with the first device but won't transfer
to another.
You keep making excuses...
On 9/5/2025 5:57 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-05 14:50, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/5/2025 5:41 PM, chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-09-04 7:45 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-04 16:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/4/2025 12:09 PM, Alan wrote:
Not at all.And the story suddenly changes!
NO, Alan, YOU have changed, to be one of unethical cheapskates. >>>>>>>>
How is it "unethical" to purchase something legally for the lowest >>>>>>>> available price.
If you cared about the businesses you patronize, you'd want them >>>>>>> to be
compensated for their work.
You're getting more and more ridiculous, dude.
How is the desire to see a developer get compensation for his product >>>>> ridiculous?
There is no moral obligation to pay anything more than what the
product is legally available for.
You can be sold an MAK license that could get all its activations
used up, that can't happen if you buy a key that is individually
yours. The digital license will work with the first device but won't
transfer to another.
You keep making excuses...
That's a funny thing for you to say when you're excusing circumventing
the license agreements and assailing doing the right thing. I like
doing things the honest way. $146 isn't outrageous for the basic license.
On 9/5/2025 4:59 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 13:17:32 -0700, Alan wrote:
Give examples for each of the given examples. What would you use to
replace:
Sorry. I have no inclination to accommodate an ignoramus troll.
But I'll give you a slight hint.
GNU/Linux users will carefully craft their workflow to lie within
the bounds of available FOSS software.
This kind of digital expertise is well beyond the pointy-clicky
mentality of the average (and above average) Microshit/Apphole
user.
I'm using FOSS software under Windows, not for everything, but you're clearly wrong that Windows is only for proprietary, corporate software.
You can be sold an MAK license that could get all its activations
used up, that can't happen if you buy a key that is individually
yours. The digital license will work with the first device but won't
transfer to another.
You keep making excuses...
That's a funny thing for you to say when you're excusing circumventing
the license agreements and assailing doing the right thing. I like
doing things the honest way. $146 isn't outrageous for the basic
license.
I'm not excusing any such thing.
And while $146 isn't outrageous, I agree, I find your posture very
strange for someone who claims about Macs costing more.
I'm using FOSS software under Windows, not for everything, but you're
clearly wrong that Windows is only for proprietary, corporate software.
I'm doing the same. Betterbird, Handbrake, MakeMKV are three such programs.
On 9/5/2025 6:12 PM, Alan wrote:
You can be sold an MAK license that could get all its activations
used up, that can't happen if you buy a key that is individually
yours. The digital license will work with the first device but
won't transfer to another.
You keep making excuses...
That's a funny thing for you to say when you're excusing
circumventing the license agreements and assailing doing the right
thing. I like doing things the honest way. $146 isn't outrageous
for the basic license.
I'm not excusing any such thing.
And while $146 isn't outrageous, I agree, I find your posture very
strange for someone who claims about Macs costing more.
If I'm buying a System Builder or retail license I'm assemblingAnd you want it both ways!
hardware, you bet your sweet ass it'll blow away what Apple's offering.
I was on such a budget with this PC that I'm accepting their gift of an
MAK activation. But I had two modern Windows Pro licenses that I gave away.
And while $146 isn't outrageous, I agree, I find your posture very
strange for someone who claims about Macs costing more.
If I'm buying a System Builder or retail license I'm assembling
hardware, you bet your sweet ass it'll blow away what Apple's
offering. I was on such a budget with this PC that I'm accepting their
gift of an MAK activation. But I had two modern Windows Pro licenses
that I gave away.
And you want it both ways!
Cheap is good when you use it to compare against a Mac, but cheap is bad when someone else uses it!
On 9/5/2025 6:54 PM, Alan wrote:
And while $146 isn't outrageous, I agree, I find your posture very
strange for someone who claims about Macs costing more.
If I'm buying a System Builder or retail license I'm assembling
hardware, you bet your sweet ass it'll blow away what Apple's
offering. I was on such a budget with this PC that I'm accepting
their gift of an MAK activation. But I had two modern Windows Pro
licenses that I gave away.
And you want it both ways!
Cheap is good when you use it to compare against a Mac, but cheap is
bad when someone else uses it!
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant to meetYou're... ...really not bright.
the basic standards of a device.
Will Linux run MS Office?
Quicken?
MS Teams?
Current Acrobat version?
Spektrum Programmer (RC model airplane firmware)?
Go Pro software?
ForeFlight (or a substitute)?
I use all these on a frequent basis. All are readily available on
Windows and/or iOS/Mac OS.
And while $146 isn't outrageous, I agree, I find your posture very
strange for someone who claims about Macs costing more.
If I'm buying a System Builder or retail license I'm assembling
hardware, you bet your sweet ass it'll blow away what Apple's
offering. I was on such a budget with this PC that I'm accepting
their gift of an MAK activation. But I had two modern Windows Pro
licenses that I gave away.
And you want it both ways!
Cheap is good when you use it to compare against a Mac, but cheap is
bad when someone else uses it!
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant to
meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
On 9/5/2025 7:15 PM, Alan wrote:
And while $146 isn't outrageous, I agree, I find your posture very >>>>>> strange for someone who claims about Macs costing more.
If I'm buying a System Builder or retail license I'm assembling
hardware, you bet your sweet ass it'll blow away what Apple's
offering. I was on such a budget with this PC that I'm accepting
their gift of an MAK activation. But I had two modern Windows Pro >>>>> licenses that I gave away.
And you want it both ways!
Cheap is good when you use it to compare against a Mac, but cheap is
bad when someone else uses it!
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant to
meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a license at
an absurdly low price.
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant to
meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a license
at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
On 9/5/2025 7:58 PM, Alan wrote:
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant to >>>>> meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a license
at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
Is there a meaningful difference? It's either right or wrong.
On 9/5/2025 7:58 PM, Alan wrote:
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant to >>>>> meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a license
at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
Is there a meaningful difference? It's either right or wrong.You must be very young.
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant to >>>>>> meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a license
at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
Is there a meaningful difference? It's either right or wrong.
You must be very young.
On 9/5/2025 9:01 PM, Alan wrote:
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant >>>>>>> to meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a
license at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
Is there a meaningful difference? It's either right or wrong.
You must be very young.
48, but this isn't something one needs to be old to know.It's usually the very young who see the world in just black and white.
Tell you want. Pick the best ONE to exemplify your claim:
MS Office
<https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/microsoft-365>
MS Teams <https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/microsoft-teams/group-chat-software>
Full version of Acrobat
<https://www.adobe.com/ca/acrobat/acrobat-pro.html>
Spektrum Programmer
<https://www.spektrumrc.com>
Go Pro software
Foreflight (flight management software)
https://foreflight.com
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant >>>>>>>> to meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a
license at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
Is there a meaningful difference? It's either right or wrong.
You must be very young.
48, but this isn't something one needs to be old to know.
It's usually the very young who see the world in just black and white.
So I'll just assume you're very immature.
On 2025-09-05 18:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/5/2025 9:01 PM, Alan wrote:It's usually the very young who see the world in just black and white.
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant >>>>>>>> to meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a
license at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
Is there a meaningful difference? It's either right or wrong.
You must be very young.
48, but this isn't something one needs to be old to know.
So I'll just assume you're very immature.
On 9/5/2025 10:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-09-05 18:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/5/2025 9:01 PM, Alan wrote:It's usually the very young who see the world in just black and white.
I'm not comparing my device to any of the Mac ones. It's meant >>>>>>>>> to meet the basic standards of a device.
You're... ...really not bright.
I am bright enough to recognize the logical flaw in buying a
license at an absurdly low price.
I thought it was an ethical flaw.
You said that, right?
Is there a meaningful difference? It's either right or wrong.
You must be very young.
48, but this isn't something one needs to be old to know.
So I'll just assume you're very immature.
Really, Alan Baker is not the one who detects the slightest flaw in a
post and from that point on labels the author a liar?
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,069 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 78:59:15 |
| Calls: | 13,726 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,961 |
| D/L today: |
5,358 files (1,397M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,410,368 |