• Re: Apple Abandons The Professional Workstation Market

    From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Apr 5 17:09:30 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-05 16:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
    On 4/5/26 7:42 PM, Alan wrote:

    You've found a device that you install internally that gives the >>>>>>>> same ports as a "hub" or "docking station"...

    ...and what I've been trying to tell you is that Thunderbolt
    let's you add something quite different:

    A PCI expansion CHASSIS.

    <https://www.sonnettech.com/product/echo-express-se3e/
    overview.html>

    That one lets you install up to 3 PCIe cards of all types in
    exactly the same manner as you would have installed them if you >>>>>>>> had a machine with internal PCIe slots.

    It is this facility that lets you use a Mac Studio...

    ...or any Mac with Thunderbolt ports as a workstation class device. >>>>>>>
    Kind of like an ATX motherboard would have without all this
    Thunderbolt foolishness.  Boycott Apple.

    So because the form factor is different, it's automatically worse? >>>>>>
    How do you put the computer that has that ATX motherboard into a
    laptop bag and take it with you...

    ...the way I could do with a Thunderbolt expansion chassis and my >>>>>> MacBook Air.

    I can have both a portable computer AND a computer with PCIe cards. >>>>>>
    :-)

    It'd make a lot more sense with a laptop.

    And you can DO IT with a laptop, you simpleton.

    I literally just said that.

    I literally understood you, which is why I commented that it'd make a
    lot more sense with a laptop [than the Studio].

    But the point is that what you get in either case has all the
    attributes you need from a workstation.

    It is IRRELEVANT that in one case you have two enclosures and in your
    example you have only one.


    Is it a mini PC or a workstation?

    Who cares what you call it? What matter is what you can DO with it.

      No sane person could give a straight
    answer, because it's trying to be both.

    Same response.

      It's Apple brain-damaged
    marketing, they know a few will sell, but it's not where their income
    stream is at.
    The point is that they can sell one product that will work for some
    people as a standalone, and work for still more by adding an expansion chassis.

    By contrast, a dedicated workstation machine would sell in smaller
    quantities because it only works well for one of those groups.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Joel W. Crump@joelcrump@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Apr 5 20:44:19 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/5/26 8:09 PM, Alan wrote:

    You've found a device that you install internally that gives >>>>>>>>> the same ports as a "hub" or "docking station"...

    ...and what I've been trying to tell you is that Thunderbolt >>>>>>>>> let's you add something quite different:

    A PCI expansion CHASSIS.

    <https://www.sonnettech.com/product/echo-express-se3e/
    overview.html>

    That one lets you install up to 3 PCIe cards of all types in >>>>>>>>> exactly the same manner as you would have installed them if you >>>>>>>>> had a machine with internal PCIe slots.

    It is this facility that lets you use a Mac Studio...

    ...or any Mac with Thunderbolt ports as a workstation class >>>>>>>>> device.

    Kind of like an ATX motherboard would have without all this
    Thunderbolt foolishness.  Boycott Apple.

    So because the form factor is different, it's automatically worse? >>>>>>>
    How do you put the computer that has that ATX motherboard into a >>>>>>> laptop bag and take it with you...

    ...the way I could do with a Thunderbolt expansion chassis and my >>>>>>> MacBook Air.

    I can have both a portable computer AND a computer with PCIe cards. >>>>>>>
    :-)

    It'd make a lot more sense with a laptop.

    And you can DO IT with a laptop, you simpleton.

    I literally just said that.

    I literally understood you, which is why I commented that it'd make
    a lot more sense with a laptop [than the Studio].

    But the point is that what you get in either case has all the
    attributes you need from a workstation.

    It is IRRELEVANT that in one case you have two enclosures and in your
    example you have only one.

    Is it a mini PC or a workstation?

    Who cares what you call it? What matter is what you can DO with it.

      No sane person could give a straight answer, because it's trying to
    be both.

    Same response.


    It's an impressive device from a tech viewpoint. Less so, to me at
    least, in how it would be used. It would feel cluttered to me, having
    the Thunderbolt-based attachments. I'm not disputing it can work, however.


      It's Apple brain-damaged marketing, they know a few will sell, but
    it's not where their income stream is at.

    The point is that they can sell one product that will work for some
    people as a standalone, and work for still more by adding an expansion chassis.

    By contrast, a dedicated workstation machine would sell in smaller quantities because it only works well for one of those groups.


    Ah, but that would indicate as I suggested that Apple's taking an easy
    route. Face it, they just don't make as much from Macs as iPhones.
    They never will, either. Macs are as *important*, in that specific
    people have specific uses for them, but important isn't always equal to extremely profitable. Apple was somewhat obscure before the iPhone, not
    tiny, but this product revolutionized what their entire business model
    would be.
    --
    Joel W. Crump
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sun Apr 5 22:49:24 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/4/2026 7:56 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 15:45:31 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    Consider that we work with gigahertz-order clock speeds nowadays.
    At those frequencies, an electrical signal can only travel a few
    centimetres in a single clock cycle. So the further away the expansion
    device is from the CPU, the longer it takes for things to happen. That’s called “latency”. It’s bad.

    OK, I can't take any more of this bullshit.

    We have had gigahertz-order CPUs for over 20 years now. There is no "latency". You DO understand that electricity moves at 186,200 miles
    per second, right? So even sending a radio signal to the moon takes
    less than 2 seconds. How much "latency" are you going to see in a
    couple feet of cable?

    If there was any "latency" we would already be seeing it from 2 foot
    long SATA cables going from the motherboard to the drive at the top of
    the huge case. Not to mention 6/8/10 foot video cables from the box to
    the monitor. How about that mouse and keyboard with 6 foot cables?

    And the internet works just fine, doesn't it? Data routinely comes in constantly over the network from a server/drive thousands of miles away.

    You have NO idea what you are talking about. CPU frequency has NOTHING
    to do with the speed of electricity.

    Apple wants you to put up with latency, but smart people know better.

    Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Yes, smart people DO know better. Which clearly rules you out.

    This has nothing to do with Apple. ALL PCs have USB-C ports.
    "Thunderbolt" is just Apple's name for it. You can plug in USB-C docks
    to PCs running Windows and Linux. You can connect multiple monitors,
    network cables, SSDs and whatever to such docks. It replaces separate
    video cards, network cards and disk controllers. All on a single cable.

    Does HP/Microsoft/Dell/Lenovo/Linux "want you to put up with latency"?

    USB-C/Thunderbolt docks replace the old, clunky, proprietary docks that Dell/HP/Lenovo used to sell. These had like 100 pins and separate power supply that snapped onto the bottom of the laptop.

    BTW, where is the Apple press release that says "Apple Abandons The Professional Workstation Market"? They only abandoned the antique
    Intel architecture. A 32 Arm CPU/80 GPU/256GB RAM/unlimited storage
    Mac Studio is not aimed at home users, is it?

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 02:59:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:49:24 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    We have had gigahertz-order CPUs for over 20 years now. There is no "latency". You DO understand that electricity moves at 186,200 miles
    per second, right?

    No it doesn’t. Typical speed of electrical signals is about half that
    of light.

    How much "latency" are you going to see in a couple feet of cable?

    At gigahertz speeds? Several clock cycles. How many cycles do you need
    to complete a PCI-E bus transaction?

    *That’s* where the latency comes in.

    If there was any "latency" we would already be seeing it from 2 foot
    long SATA cables going from the motherboard to the drive at the top
    of the huge case.

    Hard drives are multiple orders of magnitude slower than, say a GPU
    card. Latencies matter less for the former, they do make a bigger
    difference to the latter.

    Remember, we’re talking about high-end professional workstations here,
    not ordinary consumer PCs. This market needs expandability beyond just
    adding more storage, or even more RAM (which Apple gear can’t do any
    more, anyway).
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tom Elam@thomas.e.elam@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 07:46:46 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/5/26 6:50 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2026-04-05 14:35, Tom Elam wrote:
    On 4/2/26 4:52 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2026-04-02 13:42, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 11:25:24 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    On 3/28/26 1:41 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

    On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 22:44:24 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    ... given that setup and a good external SSD and the speed of
    modern ports I really don't see the issue either.

    Is that your idea of a “professional” solution -- having to gate >>>>>> PCI-E expansion through a Thunderbolt interface to get back to the >>>>>> PCI-E bus again?

    You saw the professionals begging Apple for a less clunky solution. >>>>>> But Apple can no longer satisfy them.

    You can buy some incredible Thunderbolt 4 hubs for a lot less than
    the extra cost of the discontinued Mac that was priced out of the
    market.

    I’m sure you can, but given the cost of Apple hardware, is that saying >>>> much?

    In other words, there are more cost-effective expansion options
    available ... though not from Apple.

    So...

    ...you complain when Apple "makes" you buy everything from them...

    ...and now you're complaining that Apple supports expansion options,
    but doesn't make you buy them from Apple?

    Very true. My Mac has a Logitech mouse and keyboard, Plugable docking
    station, 2x Seagate external drives, Dell 4k monitor, 2x HP printers,
    Office 365, VideoPad and other software substitutes for Apple apps.
    None of my cables are genuine Apple. Not single driver download was
    required. I did install Logitech Options and HP Smart to get full
    access to all those device hardware options. Apple makes it easy to
    add non-Apple hardware. Why not?

    Other the a mouse, keyboard and monitor what other Mac expansion
    options can you even buy?

    Did you mean to say "what other Mac expansion options can you even buy?"...

    ...or "what other Mac expansion options can you even buy from Apple?"?

    Because the first version encompasses thousands of products.

    I meant "buy from Apple". And yes, quite an array of non-Apple stuff
    works just fine.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tom Elam@thomas.e.elam@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 08:03:44 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/5/26 5:44 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 17:35:18 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    Other the a mouse, keyboard and monitor what other Mac expansion
    options can you even buy?

    Not a lot, obviously. That’s why professional workstation users need
    their highly-expandable machines.

    I meant "buy from Apple". Apple's modern integrated motherboards rule
    out adding RAM and upgrading the CPU and GPU. You can upgrade the
    onboard SSD, but it's not easy. Outside that there are quite a few
    compatible device options.

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days. At
    $12,599 for the maxed out M3 ultra version it should be VERY capable.
    But you get stuck with "only" 256GB RAM and a 16TB SSD. The wait time is
    4-6 months too. But shipping is free! The Apple site promises Sept 4
    pickup at my local Apple Store.


    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From rbowman@bowman@montana.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 16:29:07 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:49:24 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    ALL PCs have USB-C ports.
    "Thunderbolt" is just Apple's name for it.

    Incorrect.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 09:46:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-05 19:49, Nick Charles wrote:
    On 4/4/2026 7:56 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 15:45:31 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:


    Apple wants you to put up with latency, but smart people know better.

    Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.   Yes, smart people DO know better.  Which clearly rules you out.

    This has nothing to do with Apple.  ALL PCs have USB-C ports.
    "Thunderbolt" is just Apple's name for it.  You can plug in USB-C docks
    to PCs running Windows and Linux.  You can connect multiple monitors, network cables, SSDs and whatever to such docks.  It replaces separate video cards, network cards and disk controllers.  All on a single cable.

    Thunderbolt is NOT just Apple's name for USB-C.

    Thunderbolt is a unique hardware interface that can run ALONGSIDE USB
    and now uses the USB-C CONNECTOR.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 20:37:44 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Joel W. Crump@joelcrump@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 17:10:39 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/6/26 4:37 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.


    You act like Apple crapware requires anything big. The minimum
    configuration plus 512 GB or more storage for the Studio is all anyone
    is likely to need.
    --
    Joel W. Crump
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 19:00:19 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/6/2026 12:46 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2026-04-05 19:49, Nick Charles wrote:
    On 4/4/2026 7:56 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 15:45:31 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:


    Apple wants you to put up with latency, but smart people know better.

    Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.   Yes,
    smart people DO know better.  Which clearly rules you out.

    This has nothing to do with Apple.  ALL PCs have USB-C ports.
    "Thunderbolt" is just Apple's name for it.  You can plug in USB-C
    docks to PCs running Windows and Linux.  You can connect multiple
    monitors, network cables, SSDs and whatever to such docks.  It
    replaces separate video cards, network cards and disk controllers.
    All on a single cable.

    Thunderbolt is NOT just Apple's name for USB-C.

    Thunderbolt is a unique hardware interface that can run ALONGSIDE USB
    and now uses the USB-C CONNECTOR.

    So what is the practical difference? I have several USB-C docks here.
    All work the same on my Dell laptop, Mac Mini M4 and iPad Pro.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 16:55:31 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-06 13:37, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.

    Give a real world example.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 16:57:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-06 14:10, Joel W. Crump wrote:
    On 4/6/26 4:37 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.


    You act like Apple crapware requires anything big.  The minimum configuration plus 512 GB or more storage for the Studio is all anyone
    is likely to need.


    Apple "crapware", Joel? Really?

    Haven't you learned better, yet?
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From car@car@ma.sdf.org to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Apr 7 00:07:47 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.advocacy.]
    On 2026-04-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
    On 2026-04-02 08:25, Tom Elam wrote:
    On 3/28/26 1:41 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 22:44:24 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    ... given that setup and a good external SSD and the speed of modern
    ports I really don't see the issue either.

    Is that your idea of a “professional” solution -- having to gate PCI-E >>> expansion through a Thunderbolt interface to get back to the PCI-E bus
    again?

    You saw the professionals begging Apple for a less clunky solution.
    But Apple can no longer satisfy them.

    You can buy some incredible Thunderbolt 4 hubs for a lot less than the
    extra cost of the discontinued Mac that was priced out of the market.

    You should just stop pontificating on things about which you have NO understanding.

    A "Thunderbolt hub" is NOT a replacement for having PCI expansion slots.

    There are products that offers PCI expansion via Thunderbolt, but they
    are not referred to as "hubs".
    What is the workstation benefit of a Mac with a PCIe slot apart from
    storage expansion or 3rd party GPU?
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Apr 7 00:15:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:07:47 GMT, car wrote:

    What is the workstation benefit of a Mac with a PCIe slot apart from
    storage expansion or 3rd party GPU?

    Wanting to add an NVidia GPU seems to be a common need among the
    high-end professional market, as mentioned in the posting that started
    this thread.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Brock McNuggets@brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Apr 7 00:57:06 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Apr 6, 2026 at 4:55:31 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10r1h5j$2ffn2$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 2026-04-06 13:37, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.

    Give a real world example.

    If you buy a computer and later find you want more memory. My MacBook Air has 16 GB. Fine most of the time but if I could I might bump it up to 32 GB.

    Do not get me wrong, I am still very happy with my purchase and would use and recommend Macs to many... and I know there are tradeoffs. Having memory as
    they do helps to keep chips cheaper and -- more importantly -- adds
    efficiency, speed, and battery life. It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.
    --
    It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Joel W. Crump@joelcrump@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 21:16:19 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/6/26 7:57 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2026-04-06 14:10, Joel W. Crump wrote:
    On 4/6/26 4:37 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.

    You act like Apple crapware requires anything big.  The minimum
    configuration plus 512 GB or more storage for the Studio is all anyone
    is likely to need.

    Apple "crapware", Joel? Really?

    Haven't you learned better, yet?


    Well, being based on a non-Apple OS core is a good thing (10.x and
    later), and if one prefers Mac software, Apple's GUI could be a lot
    worse. Frankly, I can't perceive a meaningful difference in the overall efficiency of either macOS or GNU/Linux. And yet, I'd take Linux every
    single time. I'd even take Win11 because it will continue to mature and hardware will get more powerful. Win12 is irrelevant. We already have
    the final desktop OSes in effect, because in Linux's case they aren't so
    jumpy about changing things. Mint's centered start button might be a
    notable exception, but Cinnamon can be corrected, in Debian's Cinnamon
    the default is to put it on the left.
    --
    Joel W. Crump
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Joel W. Crump@joelcrump@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 21:20:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/6/26 8:57 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
    On Apr 6, 2026 at 4:55:31 PM MST, "Alan" wrote <10r1h5j$2ffn2$1@dont-email.me>:
    On 2026-04-06 13:37, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.

    Give a real world example.

    If you buy a computer and later find you want more memory. My MacBook Air has 16 GB. Fine most of the time but if I could I might bump it up to 32 GB.

    Do not get me wrong, I am still very happy with my purchase and would use and recommend Macs to many... and I know there are tradeoffs. Having memory as they do helps to keep chips cheaper and -- more importantly -- adds efficiency, speed, and battery life. It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.


    This is one problem I have with Apple for a PC. The mini is the only
    one I'd want, and I can get something about as good for half the price
    from a place like I got my current one from. Likewise, your Air is effectively stuck in RAM. Could I acknowledge laptops aren't as
    long-term investments as some other PCs? Probably self-evident that
    it's so. But they aren't just disposable, either. Apple better keep 16
    GB usable for a while.
    --
    Joel W. Crump
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From rbowman@bowman@montana.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Apr 7 01:51:13 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 19:00:19 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    On 4/6/2026 12:46 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2026-04-05 19:49, Nick Charles wrote:
    On 4/4/2026 7:56 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 15:45:31 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:


    Apple wants you to put up with latency, but smart people know better.

    Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.   Yes,
    smart people DO know better.  Which clearly rules you out.

    This has nothing to do with Apple.  ALL PCs have USB-C ports.
    "Thunderbolt" is just Apple's name for it.  You can plug in USB-C
    docks to PCs running Windows and Linux.  You can connect multiple
    monitors, network cables, SSDs and whatever to such docks.  It
    replaces separate video cards, network cards and disk controllers. All
    on a single cable.

    Thunderbolt is NOT just Apple's name for USB-C.

    Thunderbolt is a unique hardware interface that can run ALONGSIDE USB
    and now uses the USB-C CONNECTOR.

    So what is the practical difference? I have several USB-C docks here.
    All work the same on my Dell laptop, Mac Mini M4 and iPad Pro.


    For starters Thunderbolt was developed by Apple and Intel and is a
    proprietary format. Initially there was a royalty for its use that
    discouraged many PC manufacturers from using it. This was unfortunate
    since it was superior to USB at the time. Additionally since Intel was involved AMD systems found it difficult to be certified.

    Yes, it uses the same connector as USB-C, and Thunderbolt is compatible
    with USB 2.0, 3.2, and 4 but that does not mean it's the same. Try daisy- chaining USB.

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nick Charles to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Mon Apr 6 22:32:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/6/2026 9:51 PM, rbowman wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 19:00:19 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    On 4/6/2026 12:46 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2026-04-05 19:49, Nick Charles wrote:
    On 4/4/2026 7:56 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 15:45:31 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:


    Apple wants you to put up with latency, but smart people know better. >>>>
    Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.   Yes,
    smart people DO know better.  Which clearly rules you out.

    This has nothing to do with Apple.  ALL PCs have USB-C ports.
    "Thunderbolt" is just Apple's name for it.  You can plug in USB-C
    docks to PCs running Windows and Linux.  You can connect multiple
    monitors, network cables, SSDs and whatever to such docks.  It
    replaces separate video cards, network cards and disk controllers. All >>>> on a single cable.

    Thunderbolt is NOT just Apple's name for USB-C.

    Thunderbolt is a unique hardware interface that can run ALONGSIDE USB
    and now uses the USB-C CONNECTOR.

    So what is the practical difference? I have several USB-C docks here.
    All work the same on my Dell laptop, Mac Mini M4 and iPad Pro.


    For starters Thunderbolt was developed by Apple and Intel and is a proprietary format. Initially there was a royalty for its use that discouraged many PC manufacturers from using it. This was unfortunate
    since it was superior to USB at the time. Additionally since Intel was involved AMD systems found it difficult to be certified.

    Yes, it uses the same connector as USB-C, and Thunderbolt is compatible
    with USB 2.0, 3.2, and 4 but that does not mean it's the same. Try daisy- chaining USB.

    I was not trying to be a wise guy. I am genuinely curious.

    So for some/many/most (take your pick) users, there is little practical difference. Got it.

    None of which negates my main points here. There is no electrical
    "latency" in a few feet of cabling. And this is not an Apple thing.
    All modern PCs can connect monitors/drives/network cables/whatever via
    USB-C and/or Thunderbolt. Internal dedicated slots are 50 years old and
    no longer needed. A single connector cable than can handle everything
    is a much better solution.

    My main point was that the Mac Studio is a great machine for high end professional users. Apple did NOT "abandon the professional market".

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Brock McNuggets@brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Apr 7 03:03:42 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Apr 6, 2026 at 6:20:40 PM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <IZYAR.171114$kD1.26942@fx48.iad>:

    On 4/6/26 8:57 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
    On Apr 6, 2026 at 4:55:31 PM MST, "Alan" wrote
    <10r1h5j$2ffn2$1@dont-email.me>:
    On 2026-04-06 13:37, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 08:03:44 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:

    And the Mac Studio line appears to be pretty capable these days.

    I’m sure it is ... if you can be satisfied with what you get in the
    box. If your business requires adaptability to changing conditions,
    dealing with new, unexpected challenges, solving whatever problems
    customers might throw at you ... then you may find it falls short.

    Give a real world example.

    If you buy a computer and later find you want more memory. My MacBook Air has
    16 GB. Fine most of the time but if I could I might bump it up to 32 GB.

    Do not get me wrong, I am still very happy with my purchase and would use and
    recommend Macs to many... and I know there are tradeoffs. Having memory as >> they do helps to keep chips cheaper and -- more importantly -- adds
    efficiency, speed, and battery life. It is a fine tradeoff and I have no
    regrets with the machine.

    This is one problem I have with Apple for a PC. The mini is the only
    one I'd want, and I can get something about as good for half the price
    from a place like I got my current one from. Likewise, your Air is effectively stuck in RAM. Could I acknowledge laptops aren't as
    long-term investments as some other PCs? Probably self-evident that
    it's so. But they aren't just disposable, either. Apple better keep 16
    GB usable for a while.

    The only time I have run into issues is when I have Pages with many tabs, Numbers with many tabs, Safari with many tabs, Chrome with many tabs (it is a hog), and more.
    --
    It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From car@car@news.newshosting.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Apr 7 05:09:33 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.advocacy.]
    On 2026-04-07, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Tue, 07 Apr 2026 00:07:47 GMT, car wrote:

    What is the workstation benefit of a Mac with a PCIe slot apart from
    storage expansion or 3rd party GPU?

    Wanting to add an NVidia GPU seems to be a common need among the
    high-end professional market, as mentioned in the posting that started
    this thread.

    It's been 7 years since Apple released a computer with PCIe GPU support. Between 2013 and 2019 they didn't have a computer with PCIe slots at all.
    The 2013 model shipped with AMD graphics not nVidia (no CUDA) and was outperformed by GTX TITAN in FP32 even with the most expensive dual D500
    setup. If your workstation application required nVidia tooling (CUDA!)
    then you would NOT be using a Mac because the last Mac nVidia CUDA driver was released in 2019. The Mac Pro moved very few sales because it was a
    niche product very few wanted or needed.

    For companies that have build/render servers or have employees timeshare
    one big computer over SSH (+ X11), it doesn't really matter if
    the workstations are PCs or Macs or Linux boxes. Companies that bought
    Macs in the past aren't going to suddenly stop buying Macs because they
    dropped support for something that hasn't been supported well for over
    13 years at this point. And remember that Mac firmware has not supported the IBM PC-compatible VBIOSes out of the box ever. I have a RX480 in my 2012 Mac Pro and it's black screen on startup until it loads the OS. Even worse
    on PowerPC where it just doesn't work.

    The Mac Studio is the continuation of the 2013 Mac Pro concept. If
    anything the 2019 model was an abnormality. I don't think anyone was
    under the impression that the Mac is the platform for sticking 4 RTX
    GPUs in... use Windows or Linux for that.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Tue Apr 7 07:06:37 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/5/26 22:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:49:24 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    We have had gigahertz-order CPUs for over 20 years now. There is no
    "latency". You DO understand that electricity moves at 186,200 miles
    per second, right?

    No it doesn’t. Typical speed of electrical signals is about half that
    of light.

    How much "latency" are you going to see in a couple feet of cable?

    At gigahertz speeds? Several clock cycles. How many cycles do you need
    to complete a PCI-E bus transaction?

    You're who raised the point, so you tell us.

    *That’s* where the latency comes in.

    But does it make any significant difference to a workflow?

    Notionally, if the answer to the above is ten additional clock cycles,
    on a typical 3GHz CPU, it has added ~3.33 nanoseconds (ns) to the task.
    Even if it adds +100 clock cycles, its still ~33 ns (0.033 microseconds)

    So how would a sub-sub-μs process increase be noticed?

    On a 120 Hz display, its refresh rate is ~8.333 milliseconds between
    frames, so adding +100 clock cycles is (0.033μs/8.33ms) = 0.0004% of the
    per frame time budget. Doesn't sound all that profound to me.

    Similarly, if this +100 clocks is per frame of 120Hz video, 2 hours of
    video is 864,000 frames, so 28,512 μs = 28.5 milliseconds of delay.


    Remember, we’re talking about high-end professional workstations here,
    not ordinary consumer PCs. This market needs expandability beyond just
    adding more storage, or even more RAM (which Apple gear can’t do any
    more, anyway).

    Which is why that market shifted ~20 years ago to clusters...right?


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Alan@nuh-uh@nope.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Apr 8 10:51:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-06 16:00, Nick Charles wrote:
    On 4/6/2026 12:46 PM, Alan wrote:
    On 2026-04-05 19:49, Nick Charles wrote:
    On 4/4/2026 7:56 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sat, 4 Apr 2026 15:45:31 -0400, Tom Elam wrote:


    Apple wants you to put up with latency, but smart people know better.

    Again, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.   Yes,
    smart people DO know better.  Which clearly rules you out.

    This has nothing to do with Apple.  ALL PCs have USB-C ports.
    "Thunderbolt" is just Apple's name for it.  You can plug in USB-C
    docks to PCs running Windows and Linux.  You can connect multiple
    monitors, network cables, SSDs and whatever to such docks.  It
    replaces separate video cards, network cards and disk controllers.
    All on a single cable.

    Thunderbolt is NOT just Apple's name for USB-C.

    Thunderbolt is a unique hardware interface that can run ALONGSIDE USB
    and now uses the USB-C CONNECTOR.

    So what is the practical difference?   I have several USB-C docks here. All work the same on my Dell laptop, Mac Mini M4 and iPad Pro.

    The point is that you didn't understand that they ARE different.

    And you got the details wrong:

    "You can connect multiple monitors [using USB]". No, USB 4 supports ONE
    4K monitor. Thunderbolt 4 supports 2 4Ks, and Thunderbolt 5 supports 3.

    And there are other important details you missed.

    USB 4 is only required to deliver 20Gb/s bandwith (in each direction),
    whereas Thunderbolt 4 delivers twice that, and Thunderbolt 5 twice that
    gain; 80Gb/s AND can dynamically reconfigure that to 120Gb/s in one
    direction while keeping 40Gb/s in the other direction (typically for
    high resolution display output)

    USB 4 can OPTIONALLY provide 16Gb/s PCIe bandwith, where has TB 4 & 5
    provide 32Gb/s & 64Gb/s respectively.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Apr 8 22:00:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Tue, 07 Apr 2026 05:09:33 GMT, car wrote:

    Companies that bought Macs in the past aren't going to suddenly stop
    buying Macs because they dropped support for something that hasn't
    been supported well for over 13 years at this point.

    That plea to Apple to support NVidia was from 2018. I guess some
    people were willing to show some patience to Apple, in the hope that
    it would change its ways. No doubt they’re giving up now.

    The Mac Studio is the continuation of the 2013 Mac Pro concept.

    That was the (in)famous “Trash Can” Mac. Apple realized the design
    was a mistake.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Apr 8 22:03:03 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:32:09 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    There is no electrical "latency" in a few feet of cabling.

    Yes there is, and it is measurable in whole clock cycles these days.
    Electrical signals do travel at a finite speed, you know.

    All modern PCs can connect monitors/drives/network cables/whatever
    via USB-C and/or Thunderbolt.

    I notice you didn’t mention GPUs. I gave them as an example of where
    it matters.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Apr 8 22:04:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 07 Apr 2026 00:57:06 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.

    You do. Others don’t.

    Remember we’re talking about professional workstation users here.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From CrudeSausage@crude@sausa.ge to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Apr 8 18:12:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-08 6:04 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On 07 Apr 2026 00:57:06 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.

    You do. Others don’t.

    Remember we’re talking about professional workstation users here.

    Mr. Electricity Snit Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
    needs a top-notch Mac for his top-notch trolling.
    --
    CrudeSausage
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Brock McNuggets@brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Wed Apr 8 23:03:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On Apr 8, 2026 at 3:04:04 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10r6jck$3tp31$3@dont-email.me>:

    On 07 Apr 2026 00:57:06 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.

    You do.

    No, I don't.

    Others don’t.

    OK.

    Remember we’re talking about professional workstation users here.

    Sure. And with all such workstations there are tradeoffs.
    --
    It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From pothead@pothead@snakebite.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.politics on Thu Apr 9 01:02:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
    On 2026-04-08 6:04 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On 07 Apr 2026 00:57:06 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.

    You do. Others don’t.

    Remember we’re talking about professional workstation users here.

    Mr. Electricity Snit Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy needs a top-notch Mac for his top-notch trolling.

    Indeed!

    And the US taxpayers are funding it because snit Michael Glasser
    doesn't nor does he have any intention of working for a living.
    --
    pothead

    "Nothing rankles a Democrat elitist like seeing a former
    blue collar worker rise to someone who has built their own
    successful business and enjoying the fruits of their labor.
    They deeply resent and disdain people like that because liberals
    feel they are socially and academically superior to them
    and therefore undeserving of such success."

    -- Author Unknown


    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From CrudeSausage@crude@sausa.ge to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.politics on Thu Apr 9 08:47:11 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-08 9:02 p.m., pothead wrote:
    On 2026-04-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
    On 2026-04-08 6:04 p.m., Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On 07 Apr 2026 00:57:06 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.

    You do. Others don’t.

    Remember we’re talking about professional workstation users here.

    Mr. Electricity Snit Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer Guy
    needs a top-notch Mac for his top-notch trolling.

    Indeed!

    And the US taxpayers are funding it because snit Michael Glasser
    doesn't nor does he have any intention of working for a living.

    Is Mr. Electricity Snit Michael Glasser Prescott Parasite and Computer
    Guy Somalian?
    --
    CrudeSausage
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Thu Apr 9 20:33:10 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/7/26 07:06, -hh wrote:
    On 4/5/26 22:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:49:24 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    We have had gigahertz-order CPUs for over 20 years now. There is no
    "latency". You DO understand that electricity moves at 186,200 miles
    per second, right?

    No it doesn’t. Typical speed of electrical signals is about half that
    of light.

    How much "latency" are you going to see in a couple feet of cable?

    At gigahertz speeds? Several clock cycles. How many cycles do you need
    to complete a PCI-E bus transaction?

    You're who raised the point, so you tell us.

    *That’s* where the latency comes in.

    But does it make any significant difference to a workflow?

    Notionally, if the answer to the above is ten additional clock cycles,
    on a typical 3GHz CPU, it has added ~3.33 nanoseconds (ns) to the task.
    Even if it adds +100 clock cycles, its still ~33 ns (0.033 microseconds)

    So how would a sub-sub-μs process increase be noticed?

    On a 120 Hz display, its refresh rate is ~8.333 milliseconds between
    frames, so adding +100 clock cycles is (0.033μs/8.33ms) = 0.0004% of the per frame time budget.  Doesn't sound all that profound to me.

    Similarly, if this +100 clocks is per frame of 120Hz video, 2 hours of
    video is 864,000 frames, so 28,512 μs = 28.5 milliseconds of delay.


    Remember, we’re talking about high-end professional workstations here,
    not ordinary consumer PCs. This market needs expandability beyond just
    adding more storage, or even more RAM (which Apple gear can’t do any
    more, anyway).

    Which is why that market shifted ~20 years ago to clusters...right?

    "bump". Seems that old Larry 'overlooked' this query.


    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From vallor@vallor@vallor.earth to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Apr 10 06:53:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    At Wed, 8 Apr 2026 22:04:04 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On 07 Apr 2026 00:57:06 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    It is a fine tradeoff and I have no regrets with the machine.

    You do. Others don’t.

    Remember we’re talking about professional workstation users here.

    Well, as I said before: one reason we bought our Mac Studio
    was due to it being one of the last commercial UNIX(r) workstations
    on the market.

    (But it's not better than my System76 Linux workstation, that's for
    sure.)
    --
    -v ASUS TUF DASH F15 x86_64 Mem: 15.9G
    OS: Linux 6.17.0-20-generic D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
    NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (6G) 580.126.09
    "Dain Bramaged."
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From vallor@vallor@vallor.earth to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Apr 10 08:33:28 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    At Thu, 9 Apr 2026 20:33:10 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

    On 4/7/26 07:06, -hh wrote:
    On 4/5/26 22:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:49:24 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    We have had gigahertz-order CPUs for over 20 years now. There is no
    "latency". You DO understand that electricity moves at 186,200 miles
    per second, right?

    No it doesn’t. Typical speed of electrical signals is about half that
    of light.

    How much "latency" are you going to see in a couple feet of cable?

    At gigahertz speeds? Several clock cycles. How many cycles do you need
    to complete a PCI-E bus transaction?

    You're who raised the point, so you tell us.

    *That’s* where the latency comes in.

    But does it make any significant difference to a workflow?

    Notionally, if the answer to the above is ten additional clock cycles,
    on a typical 3GHz CPU, it has added ~3.33 nanoseconds (ns) to the task. Even if it adds +100 clock cycles, its still ~33 ns (0.033 microseconds)

    So how would a sub-sub-μs process increase be noticed?

    On a 120 Hz display, its refresh rate is ~8.333 milliseconds between frames, so adding +100 clock cycles is (0.033μs/8.33ms) = 0.0004% of the per frame time budget.  Doesn't sound all that profound to me.

    Similarly, if this +100 clocks is per frame of 120Hz video, 2 hours of video is 864,000 frames, so 28,512 μs = 28.5 milliseconds of delay.


    Remember, we’re talking about high-end professional workstations here, >> not ordinary consumer PCs. This market needs expandability beyond just
    adding more storage, or even more RAM (which Apple gear can’t do any
    more, anyway).

    Which is why that market shifted ~20 years ago to clusters...right?

    "bump". Seems that old Larry 'overlooked' this query.


    -hh

    Clusters have their uses.

    But if you're doing the video editing yourself, you might
    have a workstation -- potentially with a few extra controllers...

    Don't forget the administrative overhead of maintaining a cluster,
    when you can have a 128-thread threadripper workstation for less.
    Or at least, you _could_ before RAM prices took off...AI bros are
    messing up the market.
    --
    -v ASUS TUF DASH F15 x86_64 Mem: 15.9G
    OS: Linux 6.17.0-20-generic D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
    NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (6G) 580.126.09
    "Life is only as long as you live it."
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From -hh@recscuba_google@huntzinger.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Apr 10 12:54:41 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 4/10/26 04:33, vallor wrote:
    At Thu, 9 Apr 2026 20:33:10 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

    On 4/7/26 07:06, -hh wrote:
    On 4/5/26 22:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:49:24 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    We have had gigahertz-order CPUs for over 20 years now. There is no
    "latency". You DO understand that electricity moves at 186,200 miles >>>>> per second, right?

    No it doesn’t. Typical speed of electrical signals is about half that >>>> of light.

    How much "latency" are you going to see in a couple feet of cable?

    At gigahertz speeds? Several clock cycles. How many cycles do you need >>>> to complete a PCI-E bus transaction?

    You're who raised the point, so you tell us.

    *That’s* where the latency comes in.

    But does it make any significant difference to a workflow?

    Notionally, if the answer to the above is ten additional clock cycles,
    on a typical 3GHz CPU, it has added ~3.33 nanoseconds (ns) to the task.
    Even if it adds +100 clock cycles, its still ~33 ns (0.033 microseconds) >>>
    So how would a sub-sub-μs process increase be noticed?

    On a 120 Hz display, its refresh rate is ~8.333 milliseconds between
    frames, so adding +100 clock cycles is (0.033μs/8.33ms) = 0.0004% of the >>> per frame time budget.  Doesn't sound all that profound to me.

    Similarly, if this +100 clocks is per frame of 120Hz video, 2 hours of
    video is 864,000 frames, so 28,512 μs = 28.5 milliseconds of delay.


    Remember, we’re talking about high-end professional workstations here, >>>> not ordinary consumer PCs. This market needs expandability beyond just >>>> adding more storage, or even more RAM (which Apple gear can’t do any >>>> more, anyway).

    Which is why that market shifted ~20 years ago to clusters...right?

    "bump". Seems that old Larry 'overlooked' this query.


    -hh

    Clusters have their uses.>
    But if you're doing the video editing yourself, you might
    have a workstation -- potentially with a few extra controllers...

    Don't forget the administrative overhead of maintaining a cluster,
    when you can have a 128-thread threadripper workstation for less.
    Or at least, you _could_ before RAM prices took off...AI bros are
    messing up the market.


    A fair enough point ... but it doesn't talk to the main thing that Larry
    was harping on here, which was increased latency from a PCIe-type GPU connection being passed also through Thunderbolt/USB-4.

    -hh
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From pothead@pothead@snakebite.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Fri Apr 10 23:31:41 2026
    From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

    On 2026-04-10, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
    On 4/10/26 04:33, vallor wrote:
    At Thu, 9 Apr 2026 20:33:10 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

    On 4/7/26 07:06, -hh wrote:
    On 4/5/26 22:59, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 5 Apr 2026 22:49:24 -0400, Nick Charles wrote:

    We have had gigahertz-order CPUs for over 20 years now. There is no >>>>>> "latency". You DO understand that electricity moves at 186,200 miles >>>>>> per second, right?

    No it doesn’t. Typical speed of electrical signals is about half that >>>>> of light.

    How much "latency" are you going to see in a couple feet of cable?

    At gigahertz speeds? Several clock cycles. How many cycles do you need >>>>> to complete a PCI-E bus transaction?

    You're who raised the point, so you tell us.

    *That’s* where the latency comes in.

    But does it make any significant difference to a workflow?

    Notionally, if the answer to the above is ten additional clock cycles, >>>> on a typical 3GHz CPU, it has added ~3.33 nanoseconds (ns) to the task. >>>> Even if it adds +100 clock cycles, its still ~33 ns (0.033 microseconds) >>>>
    So how would a sub-sub-μs process increase be noticed?

    On a 120 Hz display, its refresh rate is ~8.333 milliseconds between
    frames, so adding +100 clock cycles is (0.033μs/8.33ms) = 0.0004% of the >>>> per frame time budget.  Doesn't sound all that profound to me.

    Similarly, if this +100 clocks is per frame of 120Hz video, 2 hours of >>>> video is 864,000 frames, so 28,512 μs = 28.5 milliseconds of delay.


    Remember, we’re talking about high-end professional workstations here, >>>>> not ordinary consumer PCs. This market needs expandability beyond just >>>>> adding more storage, or even more RAM (which Apple gear can’t do any >>>>> more, anyway).

    Which is why that market shifted ~20 years ago to clusters...right?

    "bump". Seems that old Larry 'overlooked' this query.


    -hh

    Clusters have their uses.>
    But if you're doing the video editing yourself, you might
    have a workstation -- potentially with a few extra controllers...

    Don't forget the administrative overhead of maintaining a cluster,
    when you can have a 128-thread threadripper workstation for less.
    Or at least, you _could_ before RAM prices took off...AI bros are
    messing up the market.


    A fair enough point ... but it doesn't talk to the main thing that Larry
    was harping on here, which was increased latency from a PCIe-type GPU connection being passed also through Thunderbolt/USB-4.

    -hh

    I don't understand this latency issue. How is he seeing this and what problems does it cause?
    Is it lagging when playing a game or something like that?
    What type of numbers are being seen?
    --
    pothead

    "Nothing rankles a Democrat elitist like seeing a former
    blue collar worker rise to someone who has built their own
    successful business and enjoying the fruits of their labor.
    They deeply resent and disdain people like that because liberals
    feel they are socially and academically superior to them
    and therefore undeserving of such success."

    -- Author Unknown


    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2