On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this newsgroup......you'll finally be leaving?
On 5/4/26 3:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
On 2026-05-04, Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/26 3:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
Can't wait for this prick to wander off and die.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-04, Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/26 3:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
Can't wait for this prick to wander off and die.
Well, since it is obvious that his brain is already dead, it should not
take long.
He didnrCOt even know about the GD Music app in iOS. What it is called or how it works. And he claims to be an iOS rCLexpertrCY?
Then he rCLhumbly apologizedrCY and immediately continued to post more absolute
shit. That was first and last time I replied to him.
Check out the thread rCLFree adfree MP3 player that plays even when the screen is blankedrCY from March 4, 2026 for a good laugh at this moron.
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, >> com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM. I've done the test: the included NVMe is no
faster than the one you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, >>> com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, >>>> com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
Cry harder. Your salty tears are delicious!
On 2026-05-13 3:34 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
Cry harder. Your salty tears are delicious!
Notice what kind of computer I use in my signature.
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM.
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one
you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 3:34 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
Cry harder. Your salty tears are delicious!
Notice what kind of computer I use in my signature.
Notice me not caring.
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the _potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an increasingly small fraction
of their customer base.
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you
have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a known
trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the _potential_ of the
benefit of a future expansion ability by an increasingly small
fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or increase
their RAM alienate customers?
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you
have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to
switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a
known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the _potential_
of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an increasingly small
fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or increase
their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you
have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/ the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford R/
W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for myself).
On 2026-05-13 11:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM. I've done the test: the included NVMe is no
faster than the one you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the
speeds are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
Your biggest issue is that you don't think that companies should be free
to offer products as they see fit, and that people have the intelligence
to choose or not choose those offerings as THEY see fit.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 11:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM. I've done the test: the included NVMe is no
faster than the one you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the >>> speeds are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
Your biggest issue is that you don't think that companies should be free
to offer products as they see fit, and that people have the intelligence
to choose or not choose those offerings as THEY see fit.
I used to be of the same opinion. However, the last decade or so of democratic elections have demonstrated time and again that people do not
make rational decisions even about things that will directly affect them.
Yes, absolutely, Apple are completely free to make decisions in the
interest of their business. People buying into those business decisions
does not mean that that choice was the most appropriate one they (the consumers) could have made.
Take RAM upgrades for example. Removal of that capability has likely made Macs more reliable with fewer moving parts, sleeker, thinner and perhaps faster (with the unified design) nowadays.
However, consumers have been tied into the RAM FOMO which results in many buying than they need "just in case" and the only price available in the Apple dictated one. Since when does an upgrade from 8 -> 16 GB cost the
same as going 48 -> 64 GB?
Or they buy what they need today and then are stuck when their needs change in two years' time.I never claimed it was "wholly beneficial for the consumer"
It isn't obvious whether this is wholly beneficial for the consumer. It is clear that this has been beneficial for Apple.
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for >>>>> long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them >>>>> after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to
switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a
known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you >>>>> have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you really
needed higher performance, you should've selected a better spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford
R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what appears
to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
I was also aware that the
MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version when I bought it for as cheap
as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new would have cost as much as a PC
laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand Apple not including a decent GPU, but
there is no excuse for the older port for the NVMe.
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices
for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve >>>>>> them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us
to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a
known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one
you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster? >>>>
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you really
needed higher performance, you should've selected a better spec'ed
model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford
R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what appears
to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as its
SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in many
reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB config.
I was also aware that the MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version
when I bought it for as cheap as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new
would have cost as much as a PC laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which
would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand
Apple not including a decent GPU, but there is no excuse for the older
port for the NVMe.
The 'excuse' as you call it has already been explained:-a lower end
machines have to compete more on price, so to control costs and thus
retail prices, manufacturers pull cheaper parts from the parts bin.
It isn't obvious whether this is wholly beneficial for the consumer. It is clear that this has been beneficial for Apple.
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to
improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not
allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run
faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better
spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford
R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for
myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as
its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower
SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll
be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any less
than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance.
I was also aware that the MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version
when I bought it for as cheap as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new
would have cost as much as a PC laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which
would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand
Apple not including a decent GPU, but there is no excuse for the
older port for the NVMe.
The 'excuse' as you call it has already been explained:-a lower end
machines have to compete more on price, so to control costs and thus
retail prices, manufacturers pull cheaper parts from the parts bin.
And it competes well. My commentary is mostly wishful thinking. After
all, being able to replace the NVMe and add RAM in a MacBook Air would
turn a relatively modest machine into a dream fairly easily. At the same time, allowing users to do such a thing would cut into potential profits
the company makes, so I don't blame them for going the route they did, especially if lots of customers are still getting in line to buy the hardware.
On 5/14/26 20:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to
improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not
allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run
faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it >>>>> helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better
spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can
afford R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified
for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as
its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower
SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll
be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any
less than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance.
FYI, going from 256 to 1TB helps some (see above reddit link; figure ballpark 3K GB/s), but if you really want high performance, you'll need
to step up from a base CPU (M1/2/3/4) to a Pro/Max/Ultra configuration,
as per the above, this is where the big I/O jump is.
Thus said, the "just how much?" question does come down to use case; I
have three M-based Macs now - - a base M1, an M1 Max, and a base M4.
I've found that for their respective use cases, the M1 Max is the one
which still does the heaviest lifting; I figure it will probably be fine
for another ~3 years, maybe longer.
I was also aware that the MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version
when I bought it for as cheap as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new
would have cost as much as a PC laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which
would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand
Apple not including a decent GPU, but there is no excuse for the
older port for the NVMe.
The 'excuse' as you call it has already been explained:-a lower end
machines have to compete more on price, so to control costs and thus
retail prices, manufacturers pull cheaper parts from the parts bin.
And it competes well. My commentary is mostly wishful thinking. After
all, being able to replace the NVMe and add RAM in a MacBook Air would
turn a relatively modest machine into a dream fairly easily. At the
same time, allowing users to do such a thing would cut into potential
profits the company makes, so I don't blame them for going the route
they did, especially if lots of customers are still getting in line to
buy the hardware.
Precisely.-a I gnash my teeth just a little at not being able to do DIY incremental hardware upgrades, but by the same token, I'm secretly happy that they're no longer a thing because it means that I can avoid a lot
of extra "free IT" work for one relative in particular who chronically under-spec their machines...their most recent example was a MacBook Air
with only 1TB SSD, for which they're trying to push 2TB of home photos
onto it and somehow can't figure out that that's never going to work.
On 2026-05-15 12:45 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 20:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to
improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not >>>>>>>>> allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an >>>>>>>> increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run >>>>>>>> faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it >>>>>> helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop >>>>>> model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better >>>>>> spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can
afford R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified >>>>>> for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as
its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower >>>> SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll
be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any
less than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance.
FYI, going from 256 to 1TB helps some (see above reddit link; figure
ballpark 3K GB/s), but if you really want high performance, you'll need
to step up from a base CPU (M1/2/3/4) to a Pro/Max/Ultra configuration,
as per the above, this is where the big I/O jump is.
Thus said, the "just how much?" question does come down to use case; I
have three M-based Macs now - - a base M1, an M1 Max, and a base M4.
I've found that for their respective use cases, the M1 Max is the one
which still does the heaviest lifting; I figure it will probably be fine
for another ~3 years, maybe longer.
The problem with the M1 is not so much that it can't perform; it's that Apple won't support it with updates for much longer.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-15 12:45 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 20:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:FYI, going from 256 to 1TB helps some (see above reddit link; figure
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to >>>>>>>>>> improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not >>>>>>>>>> allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an >>>>>>>>> increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..." >>>>>>>
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds >>>>>>>>>> are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run >>>>>>>>> faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it >>>>>>> helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop >>>>>>> model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better >>>>>>> spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can
afford R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified >>>>>>> for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as >>>>> its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower >>>>> SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll >>>> be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any
less than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance. >>>
ballpark 3K GB/s), but if you really want high performance, you'll need
to step up from a base CPU (M1/2/3/4) to a Pro/Max/Ultra configuration,
as per the above, this is where the big I/O jump is.
Thus said, the "just how much?" question does come down to use case; I
have three M-based Macs now - - a base M1, an M1 Max, and a base M4.
I've found that for their respective use cases, the M1 Max is the one
which still does the heaviest lifting; I figure it will probably be fine >>> for another ~3 years, maybe longer.
The problem with the M1 is not so much that it can't perform; it's that
Apple won't support it with updates for much longer.
Based on no facts whatsoever.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's three years of security updates.
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay off
the camera for a bit.
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a bunch
of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home movies too.
Based on no facts whatsoever.
Based on the fact that we have already established that Apple supports
the hardware they release for about seven years. I can't believe that we have to argue this yet again.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's
three years of security updates.
What you suspect and what Apple actually does are not necessarily the
same thing. If that's what happens, then I'm happy for you. What we've
seen is that seven years is the average.
On 2026-05-15 2:15 p.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
The problem with the M1 is not so much that it can't perform; it's that
Apple won't support it with updates for much longer.
Based on no facts whatsoever.
Based on the fact that we have already established that Apple supports
the hardware they release for about seven years. I can't believe that we have to argue this yet again.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's
three years of security updates.
What you suspect and what Apple actually does are not necessarily the
same thing. If that's what happens, then I'm happy for you. What we've
seen is that seven years is the average.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Based on no facts whatsoever.
Based on the fact that we have already established that Apple supports
the hardware they release for about seven years. I can't believe that we
have to argue this yet again.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's >>> three years of security updates.
What you suspect and what Apple actually does are not necessarily the
same thing. If that's what happens, then I'm happy for you. What we've
seen is that seven years is the average.
The iPhone hardware average is NOT 7 years, but Chris showed it was more
than five and likely almost if not almost exactly 6 years on average.
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home movies
too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their DVD
and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on both
Windows and Mac computers.
The iPhone hardware average is NOT 7 years, but Chris showed it was more
than five and likely almost if not almost exactly 6 years on average.
As is your wont, you're misrepresenting the data. Over the last decade the average is 6.5 years, plus all recently unsupported models have had 7 years of support.
The iPhone hardware average is NOT 7 years, but Chris showed it was more
than five and likely almost if not almost exactly 6 years on average.
As is your wont, you're misrepresenting the data. Over the last decade the average is 6.5 years, plus all recently unsupported models have had 7 years of support.
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam
for example.
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to
get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam
for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos
but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself
and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is
there a better solution?
On 5/17/26 12:24, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to >>>>>>>> lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try
to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam >>> for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of
photos but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external
disk myself and would easily be able to view the photos using
Microsoft Photos. Is there a better solution?
The better solution is simply to buy a big enough boot drive to begin
with, so that you don't waste your time trying to jump through various
hoops to find something that can be made to work...its the classical
"use the right tool for the job" paradigm.
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam
for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos
but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself
and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is
there a better solution?
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>>>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>>>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam >>> for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos
but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself
and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is
there a better solution?
Digikam can do the same. I use it over a network share where the database sits locally and the photos are on the network.
I wouldn't call MS Photos a "good" photo manager by any stretch of the imagination.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to
get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
On 2026-05-17 4:00 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/17/26 12:24, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs >>>>>>>>> to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try >>>>>> to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database.
Digikam for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of
photos but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external
disk myself and would easily be able to view the photos using
Microsoft Photos. Is there a better solution?
The better solution is simply to buy a big enough boot drive to begin
with, so that you don't waste your time trying to jump through various
hoops to find something that can be made to work...its the classical
"use the right tool for the job" paradigm.
I'm of the belief that tools that are good enough for the job right now
can also be made to be good enough for tomorrow's jobs. It's too bad
that Mac users have allowed themselves to be conditioned into thinking
that a new problem requires a new computer.
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to >>>>>>>> lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try
to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
I would think that it is to
store the photos on an external disk and have an application load them
in the same sort of way as how Microsoft Photos does. If there is a
better approach, let's stop beating around the bush and propose one.
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to
lay off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount
of iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped
from their DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can
work on both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to
get by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile
of 1TBs with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos. Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches. For example, >>>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs >>>>>>>>> to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try >>>>>> to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you already
have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy only 1TB?
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their DVD
and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on both >>>>>>> Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to >>>>>> get by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For >>>>>> example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile >>>>>> of 1TBs with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>>>
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you already
have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy only 1TB?
I would think that it is to store the photos on an external disk and
have an application load them in the same sort of way as how Microsoft
Photos does. If there is a better approach, let's stop beating around
the bush and propose one.
An external (2TB+) drive could be a suitable solution...but splitting a
2TB database across two generic 1TB drives (not configured as a RAID or JBOD) is more trouble than its worth.
Sometimes, "throwing money at the problem" is the correct solution.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:33:36 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,702 |