Amazon Cloud Unit Taken Down Twice By Its Own AI Tools: Reportai-tools-report
AmazonrCOs cloud-computing arm suffered at least two recent service
interruptions linked to the use of its own artificial intelligence
coding assistants, prompting some internal concerns about the
companyrCOs rapid deployment of autonomous software agents inside
production environments.
In mid-December, Amazon engineers allowed the companyrCOs Kiro AI
coding tool to implement system changes that ultimately led to a
roughly 13-hour disruption affecting one of the systems customers use
to analyze the cost of AWS services, people familiar with the matter
told the Financial Times.
The agentic tool - which is capable of taking autonomous actions on
behalf of users - reportedly determined that the optimal remediation
step was to delete and recreate a computing environment. AWS later
circulated an internal postmortem examining the outage.
Employees said the December incident marked the second time in recent
months that one of AmazonrCOs internally deployed AI development tools
had played a central role in a service disruption. In both cases,
engineers permitted the software agent to execute changes without
requiring secondary approval, a safeguard typically mandated for
manual interventions in production systems.
AWS accounts for roughly 60% of AmazonrCOs operating profit and is
investing heavily in artificial intelligence tools designed to
function as independent rCLagentsrCY capable of carrying out tasks based
on high-level human instructions. The company - along with other
large technology firms - is also positioning such tools for sale to
external enterprise customers. ...
https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/amazon-cloud-unit-taken-down-twice-its-own-
Why wait for your employees incompetence to kick in, when you can
automate it with AI?
Amazon tries to explain it away by saying "employees would have made the
same screw-up." That certainly helps build confidence in the AWS servers
and Amazon quality control, doesn't it?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 02:21:23 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Amazon Cloud Unit Taken Down Twice By Its Own AI Tools: Reportai-tools-report
AmazonrCOs cloud-computing arm suffered at least two recent service
interruptions linked to the use of its own artificial intelligence
coding assistants, prompting some internal concerns about the
companyrCOs rapid deployment of autonomous software agents inside
production environments.
In mid-December, Amazon engineers allowed the companyrCOs Kiro AI
coding tool to implement system changes that ultimately led to a
roughly 13-hour disruption affecting one of the systems customers use
to analyze the cost of AWS services, people familiar with the matter
told the Financial Times.
The agentic tool - which is capable of taking autonomous actions on
behalf of users - reportedly determined that the optimal remediation
step was to delete and recreate a computing environment. AWS later
circulated an internal postmortem examining the outage.
Employees said the December incident marked the second time in recent
months that one of AmazonrCOs internally deployed AI development tools
had played a central role in a service disruption. In both cases,
engineers permitted the software agent to execute changes without
requiring secondary approval, a safeguard typically mandated for
manual interventions in production systems.
AWS accounts for roughly 60% of AmazonrCOs operating profit and is
investing heavily in artificial intelligence tools designed to
function as independent rCLagentsrCY capable of carrying out tasks based >> on high-level human instructions. The company - along with other
large technology firms - is also positioning such tools for sale to
external enterprise customers. ...
https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/amazon-cloud-unit-taken-down-twice-its-own-
Why wait for your employees incompetence to kick in, when you can
automate it with AI?
Amazon tries to explain it away by saying "employees would have made the
same screw-up." That certainly helps build confidence in the AWS servers
and Amazon quality control, doesn't it?
You can fire an incompetent employee, but most would have tried to fix it instead of entirely recreating it because they would have understood and cared about what was at stake. Machines can't be fired, and don't usually care who they inconvenience.
I learned a long time ago that data techs and the IT Department wonks are >often myopic and clueless.
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
RonB wrote:
I learned a long time ago that data techs and the IT Department wonks
are often myopic and clueless.
One of my favorite IT memories was back in the 90's when they were
updating a lot of the office PC's to Win95, but there was no Win95
driver for the video. So, people were stuck with 640x400, flickering at
a 60Hz refresh rate. For the folks around me, I obtained a new video
card, installed the driver, and got them up to 800x600 at a smooth 75Hz.
They appreciated that!
Remember the bad old days of cheap 15" CRT monitors? Eww.
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:"-a --a lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
On 2/23/26 9:46 AM, DFS wrote:
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:"-a --a lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 9:46 AM, DFS wrote:
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:"-a --a lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,
Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short
inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/
Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence
market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't illegal
in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue gain.
Remember the bad old days of cheap 15" CRT monitors? Eww.
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only OSs
out there:" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
On 2/23/26 12:12 PM, -hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 9:46 AM, DFS wrote:
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:"-a --a lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,
Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short
inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/
Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a specific
market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence
market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is generally
considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue
gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally
have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is
definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make
any other choice.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but
the one of having majority of the market.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally
be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,
Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short
inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/ >>>> Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a specific
market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence
market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue
gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally
have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is
definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make
any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux.
This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of having
majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that Windows
comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in of itself
is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be no
other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
some dumb fsck wrote:
chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only OSs
out there:" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
On 2/23/26 2:54 PM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is aUnfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,
Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up
short inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$
itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems. >>>>
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence
market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue
gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally
have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is
definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make
any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux.
This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.-a If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are a
small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a close
substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.
I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there, the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as great, as between Winblows and macOS.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of having
majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the
Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.-a macOS
is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that Windows
comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in of itself
is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that having that
majority has given them significant pricing power leverage.
It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet Explorer.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be
no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly that would
probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a likely
outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere who'd come up
with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
chrisv wrote:
Remember the bad old days of cheap 15" CRT monitors? Eww.
I used the 12" monitor, maxing out at 640x480, from my 1991 IBM PS/1 until >1999. I had a client over for a Windows installation and he told me that I >should probably update the thing (he was only the latest person to make
fun of it). After that, I decided to upgrade to a 15" Sony Trinitron
monitor which was admittedly a lot better.
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a monopoly
because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.a GNU/Linux, OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, >>>>>> Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up
short inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$
itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like
systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux.
This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the legal patent process.
Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.
I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there, the
differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as great, as
between Winblows and macOS.
Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the
Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in
of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage.
It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be
no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere who'd
come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a monopoly
because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux, OTOH, is >>> compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
On 2/23/26 12:12 PM, -hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 9:46 AM, DFS wrote:
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:"-a --a lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,
Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short
inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/
Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a specific
market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence
market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is generally
considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue
gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally
have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is
definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make
any other choice.-a Windows not only has that definition in effect, but
the one of having majority of the market.-a If it were not for GNU and
Linus Torvalds, there would literally be no other choice that wasn't commercial.-a This is why savvy users choose GNU/Linux.-a It's not only
free as in freedom, but it's superior software, anyway.-a I can run
Debian on this four-core four-thread mini PC, and it performs very well nearly all the time, Win11 was OK but had its moments of lagging in performance.
On 2/23/26 2:54 PM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is aUnfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,
Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up
short inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$
itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems. >>>>
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence
market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue
gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally
have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is
definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make
any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux.
This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.-a If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are a
small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a close
substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.
I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there, the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as great, as between Winblows and macOS.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of having
majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the
Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.-a macOS
is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
On 2/23/26 4:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a monopoly >>>> because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has done >>>> a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux,
OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
Chris, I took you out of my killfile, today, because I'm trying to put
petty disputes behind me, but this is a ridiculous thing for you to say.
-aI'm not perfect - but I'm not "wrong about" everything, that's absurd.
-aYou don't agree with transgender identity, but that doesn't mean
you're right and I'm wrong about it, it means you have an opinion.-a You aren't God.-a I speak for God, though, and the truth is that transgender people are a valid developmental difference, they exist to test people's tolerance, whether they'd value all human life, or marginalize those few afflicted.-a Trans people are often suicidal, and it's because of
attitudes like yours.
So, is there anything *you* are right about, Chris?-a Inquiring minds
want to know ...
RonB wrote:
I learned a long time ago that data techs and the IT Department wonks are >>often myopic and clueless.
One of my favorite IT memories was back in the 90's when they were
updating a lot of the office PC's to Win95, but there was no Win95
driver for the video. So, people were stuck with 640x400, flickering
at a 60Hz refresh rate. For the folks around me, I obtained a new
video card, installed the driver, and got them up to 800x600 at a
smooth 75Hz. They appreciated that!
Remember the bad old days of cheap 15" CRT monitors? Eww.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:11:14 -0600, chrisv wrote:
RonB wrote:
I learned a long time ago that data techs and the IT Department wonks
are often myopic and clueless.
One of my favorite IT memories was back in the 90's when they were
updating a lot of the office PC's to Win95, but there was no Win95
driver for the video. So, people were stuck with 640x400, flickering at
a 60Hz refresh rate. For the folks around me, I obtained a new video
card, installed the driver, and got them up to 800x600 at a smooth 75Hz.
They appreciated that!
Remember the bad old days of cheap 15" CRT monitors? Eww.
I used the 12" monitor, maxing out at 640x480, from my 1991 IBM PS/1 until 1999. I had a client over for a Windows installation and he told me that I should probably update the thing (he was only the latest person to make
fun of it). After that, I decided to upgrade to a 15" Sony Trinitron
monitor which was admittedly a lot better.
rbowman wrote:
some dumb fsck wrote:
chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only OSs >>>> out there:" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
Liar.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
So, I really didn't realize that there were any OSs out there, other
than from MS & Apple? Because that was the snittish accusation.
--FU
Keep spewing your idiocy and your lies, DumFSck. Maybe you'll fool
someone, somewhere.
But everyone with a brain can see that you're nothing but a trolling jackasshole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
Shitty, lying trolls have long argued, in here, that there can be no monopoly, as long as *any* alternative exists, no matter how obscure
or expensive.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:46:08 -0500, DFS wrote:
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
CrudeSausage wrote:
chrisv wrote:
Remember the bad old days of cheap 15" CRT monitors? Eww.
I used the 12" monitor, maxing out at 640x480, from my 1991 IBM PS/1
until 1999. I had a client over for a Windows installation and he told
me that I should probably update the thing (he was only the latest
person to make fun of it). After that, I decided to upgrade to a 15"
Sony Trinitron monitor which was admittedly a lot better.
12" is small but not bad for 640x480. My Amiga A1000 has a 12" Sony Trinitron. The Amiga normally maxes out at 640x200 (640x400 in the
generally intolerable "interlaced" mode). Despite my Amiga's
superiority to PC's, there was a time when I was envious of flicker-free 640x480 VGA displays...
When I got my first Wintel PC (a Pentium 90), I went straight for a high-quality 17" Trinitron. It could do 1280x1024 at 75Hz, although I normally ran it at 1024x786.
Back then, I felt that the display was the most important part of the computer, not something to cheap-out on. Of course today any LCD does a
good job of it.
On 2026-02-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 07:11:14 -0600, chrisv wrote:
RonB wrote:
I learned a long time ago that data techs and the IT Department wonks >>>>are often myopic and clueless.
One of my favorite IT memories was back in the 90's when they were
updating a lot of the office PC's to Win95, but there was no Win95
driver for the video. So, people were stuck with 640x400, flickering
at a 60Hz refresh rate. For the folks around me, I obtained a new
video card, installed the driver, and got them up to 800x600 at a
smooth 75Hz.
They appreciated that!
Remember the bad old days of cheap 15" CRT monitors? Eww.
I used the 12" monitor, maxing out at 640x480, from my 1991 IBM PS/1
until 1999. I had a client over for a Windows installation and he told
me that I should probably update the thing (he was only the latest
person to make fun of it). After that, I decided to upgrade to a 15"
Sony Trinitron monitor which was admittedly a lot better.
For a few years I had a Sony Trinitron monitor (I think it was a 19"
one).
It was very heavy, but the quality of the screen was very good.
I remember TVs connected to computers and composite monitors. The ten
(or so) years I used my Sinclair QL was exclusively on an amber
composite monitor.
On 2026-02-23 09:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 12:12 PM, -hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system,
Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short
inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/ >>>> Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a specific
market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly influence
market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for undue
gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you literally
have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, that is
definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so loathe to make
any other choice.-a Windows not only has that definition in effect, but
the one of having majority of the market.-a If it were not for GNU and
Linus Torvalds, there would literally be no other choice that wasn't
commercial.-a This is why savvy users choose GNU/Linux.-a It's not only
free as in freedom, but it's superior software, anyway.-a I can run
Debian on this four-core four-thread mini PC, and it performs very
well nearly all the time, Win11 was OK but had its moments of lagging
in performance.
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
On 2026-02-23 12:11, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 2:54 PM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, >>>>>> Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up
short inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$
itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like
systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux.
This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The story that tells is that people really LIKE what they're getting.
"Small monopoly" is a great oxymoron...
...from a moron!
Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.
I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there, the
differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as great, as
between Winblows and macOS.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the
Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
Why would you be unsatisfied?
Mac apps are mostly the same apps as you can get on Windows.
On 2026-02-23 14:20, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 4:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly
because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has
done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux,
OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
Chris, I took you out of my killfile, today, because I'm trying to put
petty disputes behind me, but this is a ridiculous thing for you to
say. -a-aI'm not perfect - but I'm not "wrong about" everything, that's
absurd. -a-aYou don't agree with transgender identity, but that doesn't
mean you're right and I'm wrong about it, it means you have an
opinion.-a You aren't God.-a I speak for God, though, and the truth is
that transgender people are a valid developmental difference, they
exist to test people's tolerance, whether they'd value all human life,
or marginalize those few afflicted.-a Trans people are often suicidal,
and it's because of attitudes like yours.
So, is there anything *you* are right about, Chris?-a Inquiring minds
want to know ...
In my experience, you're wrong most of the time.
On 2/23/26 4:07 PM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it
comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace
with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix- >>>>>>> like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux. >>>> This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to not
be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a MustangI would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there,
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro. >>>
the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as
great, as between Winblows and macOS.
Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?
No, but it's kind of splitting hairs to worry about that degree of comparison, in this context.-a The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their popularity by price gouging, which unlike
with Apple is highly improbable.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so
the Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?
That is not even remotely a valid comparison.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said thatIt's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in >>>> of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage. >>>
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such as
a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating them, but they
were willing to back down from that.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be >>>>> no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is Chrome
OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an appliance-
grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even buy one for a
10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish them that way.
Nobody stopped any company from creating a tightly integrated phone,
computer and tablet ecosystem with operating systems taking
advantage of each devices unique features. So far Apple is the only
company that has succeeded in the marketplace. Google is the closest
behind. Linux is nowhere close.
On 2/23/26 4:07 PM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it
comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace
with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix- >>>>>>> like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or Linux. >>>> This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.-a They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to not
be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Look at automobiles for an example:-a GM can't manufacture a MustangI would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there,
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute.-a Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro. >>>
the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as
great, as between Winblows and macOS.
Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?
No, but it's kind of splitting hairs to worry about that degree of comparison, in this context.
The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly improbable.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so
the Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?
That is not even remotely a valid comparison.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said thatIt's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare in >>>> of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage. >>>
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such as
a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating them, but they
were willing to back down from that.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be >>>>> no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is Chrome
OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an appliance-
grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even buy one for a
10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish them that way.
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a >>>>>>>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it >>>>>>>> comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace >>>>>>>> with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other
Unix- like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't >>>>>>> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed >>>>>> platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or
Linux. This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another
choice. If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.
They are a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to
not be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd
be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are,
price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant
me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Seems like your opinion is "everything is always a monopoly".
Problem with that for software is that even though the computer
platforms are unique, they still have hundreds(+) of software companies writing Apps for those platforms, often supporting multiple "unique" operating systems - - one example being Adobe (Acrobat, Photoshop, etc).
The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly
improbable.
You're way too focused on cost & your perception of what you claim is
price gouging.-a Costs versus production scale are quite nonlinear at
both ends:-a a asymptotic (to variable costs) limit at the high end, and
a very steep hook up (fixed costs divided by zero) at the low end.
FWIW, your position sounds much more like personal envy, than actually
being a compelling principled argument on illegal monopoly power.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare
in of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated
that having that majority has given them significant pricing power
leverage.
It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such
as a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't
stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent
they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on
the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating
them, but they were willing to back down from that.
Willing to back down = because it was illegal use of monopoly power.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally
be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not
a likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is
Chrome OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an
appliance- grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even
buy one for a 10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish
them that way.
No, for it goes back to the "close substitutes" standard:-a each time
that someone checks their email on a smartphone, or browses the web or whatever .. is proof that those devices are substitutes for a desktop.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:33:07 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:
Nobody stopped any company from creating a tightly integrated phone,
computer and tablet ecosystem with operating systems taking
advantage of each devices unique features. So far Apple is the only
company that has succeeded in the marketplace. Google is the closest
behind. Linux is nowhere close.
Google builds its platform on Linux.
Both Google and Apple have products in all three of the market
segments you mention, but Linux is also widely present elsewhere, even
if you count consumer-only products (e.g. the Steam Deck).
You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a Macintosh.
On 2/24/2026 6:55 AM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a >>>>>>>>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it >>>>>>>>> comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace >>>>>>>>> with M$ itself.-a GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other >>>>>>>>> Unix- like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share:-a having very large share (often over 50%) is >>>>>>>> generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't >>>>>>>> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for >>>>>>>> undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though.-a Apple has created a closed >>>>>>> platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, >>>>>>> that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows.-a Or
Linux. This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story.-a The Mac fans are not easily turned to another
choice. If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact. >>>>> They are a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to
not be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean
they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really
matter is whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view
they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough*
to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played
the game cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get
overcharged, since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Seems like your opinion is "everything is always a monopoly".
Because it's such an essential part of modern life, yes.-a The personal computer/smartphone is huge.
Problem with that for software is that even though the computer
platforms are unique, they still have hundreds(+) of software
companies writing Apps for those platforms, often supporting multiple
"unique" operating systems - - one example being Adobe (Acrobat,
Photoshop, etc).
Indeed, the monopoly isn't on the entirety of a functioning system,
but on the access to the hardware and basic software.
The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly
improbable.
You're way too focused on cost & your perception of what you claim is
price gouging.-a Costs versus production scale are quite nonlinear at
both ends:-a a asymptotic (to variable costs) limit at the high end,
and a very steep hook up (fixed costs divided by zero) at the low end.
FWIW, your position sounds much more like personal envy, than actually
being a compelling principled argument on illegal monopoly power.
I understand the logic of the $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD, that you're paying for more than just the part itself, you're paying for having a
Mac with big storage.-a But it is gouging, objectively, my entire
computer was under $200 and has 512 GB.-a It's a steep upgrade price,
that many people would need to choose.
The 256 GB model is offered just to have a phony base cost,
that few people would actually settle for.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close.-a However, merely having majority marketshare >>>>>> in of itself is not sufficient:-a it also needs to be demonstrated >>>>>> that having that majority has given them significant pricing power >>>>>> leverage.
It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right.-a The issue when the feds >>>>> went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such
as a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't
stop anyone from installing another browser.-a However, to the extent
they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on
the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating
them, but they were willing to back down from that.
Willing to back down = because it was illegal use of monopoly power.
I know, but it was trivial to correct, ultimately.
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple aIf it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally >>>>>>> be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement? >>>>>
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context.-a Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly >>>>> that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not >>>>> a likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is
Chrome OS a full desktop OS.-a I've always seen Chromebooks as an
appliance- grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even
buy one for a 10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't
punish them that way.
No, for it goes back to the "close substitutes" standard:-a each time
that someone checks their email on a smartphone, or browses the web or
whatever .. is proof that those devices are substitutes for a desktop.
A smartphone is close to being a PC in what it can do, but not in how
the operating system functions relative to the apps.-a That's a
substantial difference.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 02:21:23 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Amazon Cloud Unit Taken Down Twice By Its Own AI Tools: Reportai-tools-report
AmazonrCOs cloud-computing arm suffered at least two recent service
interruptions linked to the use of its own artificial intelligence
coding assistants, prompting some internal concerns about the
companyrCOs rapid deployment of autonomous software agents inside
production environments.
In mid-December, Amazon engineers allowed the companyrCOs Kiro AI
coding tool to implement system changes that ultimately led to a
roughly 13-hour disruption affecting one of the systems customers use
to analyze the cost of AWS services, people familiar with the matter
told the Financial Times.
The agentic tool - which is capable of taking autonomous actions on
behalf of users - reportedly determined that the optimal remediation
step was to delete and recreate a computing environment. AWS later
circulated an internal postmortem examining the outage.
Employees said the December incident marked the second time in recent
months that one of AmazonrCOs internally deployed AI development tools
had played a central role in a service disruption. In both cases,
engineers permitted the software agent to execute changes without
requiring secondary approval, a safeguard typically mandated for
manual interventions in production systems.
AWS accounts for roughly 60% of AmazonrCOs operating profit and is
investing heavily in artificial intelligence tools designed to
function as independent rCLagentsrCY capable of carrying out tasks based >> on high-level human instructions. The company - along with other
large technology firms - is also positioning such tools for sale to
external enterprise customers. ...
https://www.zerohedge.com/ai/amazon-cloud-unit-taken-down-twice-its-own-
Why wait for your employees incompetence to kick in, when you can
automate it with AI?
Amazon tries to explain it away by saying "employees would have made the
same screw-up." That certainly helps build confidence in the AWS servers
and Amazon quality control, doesn't it?
You can fire an incompetent employee, but most would have tried to fix it instead of entirely recreating it because they would have understood and cared about what was at stake. Machines can't be fired, and don't usually care who they inconvenience.
"A computer can never be held accountable. Therefore, a computer should
never make management decisions" -IBM Users Manual, 1980s
On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.
Never said the word "perfectly".
On 2/23/26 4:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a monopoly >>>> because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has done >>>> a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux,
OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
Chris, I took you out of my killfile, today, because I'm trying to put
petty disputes behind me, but this is a ridiculous thing for you to say.
-aI'm not perfect - but I'm not "wrong about" everything, that's absurd.
You don't agree with transgender identity, but that doesn't mean
you're right and I'm wrong about it, it means you have an opinion.-a You aren't God.-a I speak for God, though,
and the truth is that transgender
people are a valid developmental difference, they exist to test people's tolerance, whether they'd value all human life, or marginalize those few afflicted.-a Trans people are often suicidal, and it's because of
attitudes like yours.
So, is there anything *you* are right about, Chris?-a Inquiring minds
want to know ...
On 2/23/2026 5:20 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 4:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly
because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has
done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux,
OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
Chris, I took you out of my killfile, today, because I'm trying to put
petty disputes behind me, but this is a ridiculous thing for you to
say. -a-aI'm not perfect - but I'm not "wrong about" everything, that's
absurd.
Your posts the last months are more cogent than before, in my opinion.
But "any proprietary OS is a monopoly" is nonsense.
The market that Windows, MacOS and Linux compete in is 'personal
computer operating systems', not Windows-compatible operating systems or MacOS-compatible operating systems or *nix-compatible operating systems.
(although since it's free of cost, Linux doesn't actually compete)
Since there have always been a variety of PC operating systems, Windows never had a monopoly.-a But their high market share in a market with high barriers to entry meant Microsoft probably held and might have abused "monopoly power": the ability to raise prices without suffering
significant declines in market share.
Instead, even in the face of enormous market share, the prices of
Windows and Office declined thru the years in real terms (relative to inflation), and held steady in nominal terms (absolute cost).
But what they doing more and more lately with non-dismissable telemetry, advertising and MS account logins could probably be labeled an abuse of power (or at least greed and contempt for users).-a If it were truly easy
to switch among operating systems, applications and document formats -
all of similar quality - MS would be more at the mercy of the market.
You don't agree with transgender identity, but that doesn't mean
you're right and I'm wrong about it, it means you have an opinion.
You aren't God.-a I speak for God, though,
You definitely do not (not that there is a God to speak for, but if
there were it wouldn't make a mean drunk its spokesman on Earth).
God's spokesperson would likely be a blonde, blue-eyed Caucasian (the standard of beauty across the world).
Maybe Jodie Foster-a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CiG9Wgvyj0
or
Chris Hemsworth https://www.businessinsider.com/chris-hemsworth-dad- alzheimers-reshaped-priorities-fatherhood-caregiving-kids-2025-12
and the truth is that transgender people are a valid developmental
difference, they exist to test people's tolerance, whether they'd
value all human life, or marginalize those few afflicted.-a Trans
people are often suicidal, and it's because of attitudes like yours.
Trannies are becoming more and more homicidal lately.-a You've noticed
that, right?
So, is there anything *you* are right about, Chris?-a Inquiring minds
want to know ...
SLAM.
shitv was right about one thing: his daughter is a dullard.
"dullards either stay with the Windows herd, or go with the
-adesigned-for-morons Mac."
"Windows is the right choice for my daughter"
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 07:24:51 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:
On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.
Never said the word "perfectly".
Maybe take out the word rCLtightlyrCY as well?
I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. ApplerCOs Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.
Has that been fixed yet?
I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. ApplerCOs Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.
Because iPods never had WiFi or Bluetooth: their inputs were limited to
the 30-pin cable interface. It wasn't until the iPod's replacement, the
2007 iPod Touch, that there was WiFi, for which one could notionally
purchase & download songs via iTunes - but these were linked to your
iTunes account, so it would synch onto your PC with the iTunes account.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 07:24:51 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:
On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
You claim ApplerCOs product line is rCLtightly integratedrCY, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.
Never said the word "perfectly".
Maybe take out the word rCLtightlyrCY as well?
I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. ApplerCOs Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.
Has that been fixed yet?
On 23 Feb 2026 19:45:07 GMT, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:46:08 -0500, DFS wrote:
On 2/23/2026 8:11 AM, chrisv wrote:
"[chrisv] refueses to realize that MS & Apple weren't ever the only
OSs out there:" - lying asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly
Only you are lying, asshole.
You called Microsoft Windows a "monopoly" hundreds of times.
FU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.
Yeah, the United States government seemed to believe that it was a
monopoly too.
chrisv wrote:
The Amiga was certainly better than PCs during the 1980s, but once the PC >moved out of EGA to VGA and allowed users to buy sound cards, it was all >over for Commodore. Even with AGA, it was too little too late. Of course,
it didn't even matter how good the hardware was: people bought PCs because >work had PCs and it was important for the files produced at home to load >correctly at work.
When I got my first Wintel PC (a Pentium 90), I went straight for a
high-quality 17" Trinitron. It could do 1280x1024 at 75Hz, although I
normally ran it at 1024x786.
Back then, I felt that the display was the most important part of the
computer, not something to cheap-out on. Of course today any LCD does a
good job of it.
Computing was so much fun back then.
I don't see the point of going any higher than 1080p myself, but I guess I'm >in the minority.
CrudeSausage wrote:
chrisv wrote:
The Amiga was certainly better than PCs during the 1980s, but once the
PC moved out of EGA to VGA and allowed users to buy sound cards, it was
all over for Commodore. Even with AGA, it was too little too late. Of >>course, it didn't even matter how good the hardware was: people bought
PCs because work had PCs and it was important for the files produced at >>home to load correctly at work.
Yeah.
When I got my first Wintel PC (a Pentium 90), I went straight for a
high-quality 17" Trinitron. It could do 1280x1024 at 75Hz, although I
normally ran it at 1024x786.
Back then, I felt that the display was the most important part of the
computer, not something to cheap-out on. Of course today any LCD does
a good job of it.
Computing was so much fun back then.
Expensive, though. I was thinking about the cost of that 17" monitor
($900 in 1995 dollars) and my thoughts turned to today's "ramageddon",
with 32GB memory kits recently quadrupling in price to $500. Compared
to what we spent on memory back then, still cheap!
I don't see the point of going any higher than 1080p myself, but I guess >>I'm in the minority.
I'm almost with you, there, but 16:9 monitors are too thin for my
tastes. 16:10 (e.g. 1920x1200) works well for me.
Expensive, though. I was thinking about the cost of that 17" monitor
($900 in 1995 dollars) and my thoughts turned to today's "ramageddon",
with 32GB memory kits recently quadrupling in price to $500. Compared
to what we spent on memory back then, still cheap!
I don't see the point of going any higher than 1080p myself, but I guess >>>I'm in the minority.
I'm almost with you, there, but 16:9 monitors are too thin for my
tastes. 16:10 (e.g. 1920x1200) works well for me.
I don't mind whether it is 16:9, 16:10 or even 4:3 as long as I have the >right amount of real estate and things aren't too big. Again, if you live >with 640x480 all the way to 1999, you're not likely to complain that
you're not working in 4k.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 05:40:17 -0600, chrisv wrote:
CrudeSausage wrote:
I don't see the point of going any higher than 1080p myself, but I guess >>> I'm in the minority.
I'm almost with you, there, but 16:9 monitors are too thin for my
tastes. 16:10 (e.g. 1920x1200) works well for me.
I don't mind whether it is 16:9, 16:10 or even 4:3 as long as I have the right amount of real estate and things aren't too big. Again, if you live with 640x480 all the way to 1999, you're not likely to complain that
you're not working in 4k.
chrisv wrote:
Expensive, though. I was thinking about the cost of that 17" monitor
($900 in 1995 dollars) and my thoughts turned to today's "ramageddon",
with 32GB memory kits recently quadrupling in price to $500. Compared
to what we spent on memory back then, still cheap!
I bought laptop memory, probably in the late '90s, and it was over $300.
The Airborne Express driver tossed the box on the neighbor's woodpile. I'd >already contacted the vendor who was going to send a replacement when the >neighbor's kid found the box when she was playing and brought it over.
For that matter the Osborne 1 CP/M was $1800 1981 dollars.
$500 for a second floppy drive
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
Why would you be unsatisfied?
Mac apps are mostly the same apps as you can get on Windows.
Yeah right, dude, heh, macOS apps are such goofy nerd crapware, although ironically I liked Microsoft Office for Mac, whereas I loathe it to
Hades under Windows.
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
On 2/23/2026 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-23 14:20, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 4:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly
because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has >>>>>> done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably
because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux,
OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
Chris, I took you out of my killfile, today, because I'm trying to
put petty disputes behind me, but this is a ridiculous thing for you
to say. -a-aI'm not perfect - but I'm not "wrong about" everything,
that's absurd. -a-aYou don't agree with transgender identity, but that
doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong about it, it means you have
an opinion.-a You aren't God.-a I speak for God, though, and the truth
is that transgender people are a valid developmental difference, they
exist to test people's tolerance, whether they'd value all human
life, or marginalize those few afflicted.-a Trans people are often
suicidal, and it's because of attitudes like yours.
So, is there anything *you* are right about, Chris?-a Inquiring minds
want to know ...
In my experience, you're wrong most of the time.
Yes, it's "wrong" to think $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD is a lot, you nailed it, heh.It is a lot. I've never said it wasn't.
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
...and people will be willing to pay more for it.--
BMWs are more expensive than Hondas.
And so forth.
On 2026-02-23 18:28, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:It is a lot. I've never said it wasn't.
On 2026-02-23 14:20, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 4:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly
because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has >>>>>>> done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably >>>>>>> because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux, >>>>>>> OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
Chris, I took you out of my killfile, today, because I'm trying to
put petty disputes behind me, but this is a ridiculous thing for you
to say. -a-aI'm not perfect - but I'm not "wrong about" everything,
that's absurd. -a-aYou don't agree with transgender identity, but that >>>> doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong about it, it means you have
an opinion.-a You aren't God.-a I speak for God, though, and the truth >>>> is that transgender people are a valid developmental difference, they >>>> exist to test people's tolerance, whether they'd value all human
life, or marginalize those few afflicted.-a Trans people are often
suicidal, and it's because of attitudes like yours.
So, is there anything *you* are right about, Chris?-a Inquiring minds >>>> want to know ...
In my experience, you're wrong most of the time.
Yes, it's "wrong" to think $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD is a lot, you
nailed it, heh.
But the fact that Apple can charge that much only indicates that its customers value what Apple is selling quite highly.
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
...and people will be willing to pay more for it.
BMWs are more expensive than Hondas.
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:28, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
Yes, it's "wrong" to think $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD is a lot,
you nailed it, heh.
It is a lot. I've never said it wasn't.
But the fact that Apple can charge that much only indicates that
its customers value what Apple is selling quite highly.
Either that or they're gullible and willing to be gouged.
On 2/26/26 03:06, RonB wrote:charts-graphs-they-sting/>
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:28, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
Yes, it's "wrong" to think $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD is a lot,
you nailed it, heh.
It is a lot. I've never said it wasn't.
But the fact that Apple can charge that much only indicates that its
customers value what Apple is selling quite highly.
Either that or they're gullible and willing to be gouged.
That's a possibility, but one can look at historical sales data to see
if there's been any appreciable "wake up" of consumers.
For example, consider Tesla:
<https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/04/long-term-tesla-quarterly-sales-
TL;DR: appears to have been getting good market traction and growthbloodbath/>
until ~2023, and after a flat period, has undergone a -30% QoQ shock.
Could be cessation of incentives, or something else: time will tell.
<https://electrek.co/2026/01/06/tesla-full-2025-data-europe-total-
-hh
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:28, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/2026 6:06 PM, Alan wrote:It is a lot. I've never said it wasn't.
On 2026-02-23 14:20, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/23/26 4:29 PM, chrisv wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 2/23/26 09:51, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a >>>>>>>> monopoly
because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, Wine has >>>>>>>> done
a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up short inevitably >>>>>>>> because it will never keep the pace with M$ itself.-a GNU/Linux, >>>>>>>> OTOH, is
compatible with other Unix-like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Is there *anything* that Joel isn't wrong about?
Chris, I took you out of my killfile, today, because I'm trying to
put petty disputes behind me, but this is a ridiculous thing for you >>>>> to say. -a-aI'm not perfect - but I'm not "wrong about" everything,
that's absurd. -a-aYou don't agree with transgender identity, but that >>>>> doesn't mean you're right and I'm wrong about it, it means you have
an opinion.-a You aren't God.-a I speak for God, though, and the truth >>>>> is that transgender people are a valid developmental difference, they >>>>> exist to test people's tolerance, whether they'd value all human
life, or marginalize those few afflicted.-a Trans people are often
suicidal, and it's because of attitudes like yours.
So, is there anything *you* are right about, Chris?-a Inquiring minds >>>>> want to know ...
In my experience, you're wrong most of the time.
Yes, it's "wrong" to think $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD is a lot, you
nailed it, heh.
But the fact that Apple can charge that much only indicates that its
customers value what Apple is selling quite highly.
Either that or they're gullible and willing to be gouged.
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the price. That's just gouging.
Alan wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS:Yes, but "basically" is covering a lot of ground there.
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
...and people will be willing to pay more for it.
BMWs are more expensive than Hondas.
And have basically the same function.
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows >>>>> that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole", dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying
for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
On 2/27/26 07:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit
admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows >>>>>> that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it
works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
Not necessarily true, because on some Mac models, the change from
minimum (eg, 256 to 512) also incorporated a configuration change.
IIRC, the change was from using one slot to two, with a reconfiguration
to a RAID0-like configuration.-a The outward net result for customers was that their systems ran faster thanks to ~doubled bandwidth performance.
--You're still paying for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's
gouging, you are defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
Do you think customers would be willing to pay more than merely the commodity price difference if the change *also* doubles its performance?
Put a number on it.
FYI, before you try to claim that bandwidth speed isn't important,
recall that essentially every PC manufacturer has changed from HDDs to
SSDs, despite SSDs being much more expensive per TB.
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the price. That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
On 2/27/2026 8:55 AM, -hh wrote:
On 2/27/26 07:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't >>>>>>>> "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit
admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple >>>>>>> knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice
the price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it
works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
Not necessarily true, because on some Mac models, the change from
minimum (eg, 256 to 512) also incorporated a configuration change.
IIRC, the change was from using one slot to two, with a
reconfiguration to a RAID0-like configuration.-a The outward net result
for customers was that their systems ran faster thanks to ~doubled
bandwidth performance.
That would still mean that the 512 GB should be the minimum, not the 256
GB.
You're still paying for the original SSD that you no longer get!
It's gouging, you are defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond
belief.
Do you think customers would be willing to pay more than merely the
commodity price difference if the change *also* doubles its performance?
Put a number on it.
FYI, before you try to claim that bandwidth speed isn't important,
recall that essentially every PC manufacturer has changed from HDDs to
SSDs, despite SSDs being much more expensive per TB.
On 2/27/26 09:00, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/27/2026 8:55 AM, -hh wrote:
On 2/27/26 07:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't >>>>>>>>> "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit >>>>>>>>> admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple >>>>>>>> knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice
the price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it
works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
Not necessarily true, because on some Mac models, the change from
minimum (eg, 256 to 512) also incorporated a configuration change.
IIRC, the change was from using one slot to two, with a
reconfiguration to a RAID0-like configuration.-a The outward net
result for customers was that their systems ran faster thanks to
~doubled bandwidth performance.
That would still mean that the 512 GB should be the minimum, not the
256 GB.
No, it means that Apple made a business decision to offer varying
products with different performance levels at different price points.
There's COLA posters who have advocated for Linux under the principle of
it providing greater choice - - so please explain to them how Apple
choosing to offer more choices is now "bad" in your opinion.-a I'll wait.
You're still paying for the original SSD that you no longer get!
It's gouging, you are defending that, because you are a fanboy
beyond belief.
Do you think customers would be willing to pay more than merely the
commodity price difference if the change *also* doubles its performance? >>>
Put a number on it.
FYI, before you try to claim that bandwidth speed isn't important,
recall that essentially every PC manufacturer has changed from HDDs
to SSDs, despite SSDs being much more expensive per TB.
Dodge/Evasion detected:-a put a number on it already.
At Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:39:25 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple
compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >> >>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
Praise be!!
Sing it, Brother!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
Hmmm...I'm not convinced.
I mean: if that's the case, why is it that a) it's expandable,
and b) with external PCIE cables?
How can you people not get this?
Why doesn't Apple want you to crack their case?
I mean: if that's the case, why is it that a) it's expandable, and b)
with external PCIE cables?
On 2026-02-23 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
Why would you be unsatisfied?
Mac apps are mostly the same apps as you can get on Windows.
Yeah right, dude, heh, macOS apps are such goofy nerd crapware,
although ironically I liked Microsoft Office for Mac, whereas I loathe
it to Hades under Windows.
Name a specific macOS app that you think is "goofy nerd crapware"...
...AND explain why you think that is true.
Try not to use adjectives.
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows >>>>> that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole", dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.-a You're still paying for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows
that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the price. >> That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>>>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows >>>>>> that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.-a You're still paying >> for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
The question is never, "How much is this particular bit to upgrade?",
but, "How much is the price of the whole product and is that price commensurate with the value I will get?".
On 2026-02-25 18:58, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the
library of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of
users-wise. macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied
with its apps.
Why would you be unsatisfied?
Mac apps are mostly the same apps as you can get on Windows.
Yeah right, dude, heh, macOS apps are such goofy nerd crapware,
although ironically I liked Microsoft Office for Mac, whereas I
loathe it to Hades under Windows.
Name a specific macOS app that you think is "goofy nerd crapware"...
...AND explain why you think that is true.
Try not to use adjectives.
What a shock: no answer.
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit
admission
that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows >>>>>> that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it
works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.-a You're still
paying for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you
are defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
The question is never, "How much is this particular bit to upgrade?",
but, "How much is the price of the whole product and is that price commensurate with the value I will get?".
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't
"Apple compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other
companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit
admission that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple
knows that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
And yet Apple gouges on the price of RAM and drives. I guess they do
this because they can. But it doesn't change the fact that it is
gouging. Back before I went with Linux I wanted to get away from Windows
and briefly considered moving to a Mac. Apple's inflated prices for
lesser hardware kept me from doing this. Just the facts.
If you're willing to be gouged on price, that's fine. Choice is good.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 23:52:04 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't
"Apple compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit
admission that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple
knows that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the
price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works
for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
And yet Apple gouges on the price of RAM and drives. I guess they do
this because they can. But it doesn't change the fact that it is
gouging. Back before I went with Linux I wanted to get away from Windows
and briefly considered moving to a Mac. Apple's inflated prices for
lesser hardware kept me from doing this. Just the facts.
If you're willing to be gouged on price, that's fine. Choice is good.
At this point, the price Apple charges for memory isn't much different
from what the computer stores themselves are charging. Buying the parts themselves is still cheaper, but not by much. AI has really ruined everything for builders.
On 2026-02-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 23:52:04 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't
"Apple compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit
admission that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple
knows that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the >>>>> price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it
works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
And yet Apple gouges on the price of RAM and drives. I guess they do
this because they can. But it doesn't change the fact that it is
gouging. Back before I went with Linux I wanted to get away from
Windows and briefly considered moving to a Mac. Apple's inflated
prices for lesser hardware kept me from doing this. Just the facts.
If you're willing to be gouged on price, that's fine. Choice is good.
At this point, the price Apple charges for memory isn't much different
from what the computer stores themselves are charging. Buying the parts
themselves is still cheaper, but not by much. AI has really ruined
everything for builders.
I guess there's a limit to how much Apple can gouge and still sell their computers. And you're right about AI. AI is the crap that just keeps crapping.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 07:07:46 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 23:52:04 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't >>>>>>>>> "Apple compatible devices", but "personal computing devices". >>>>>>>>>
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit
admission that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple >>>>>>>> knows that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the >>>>>> price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it
works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
And yet Apple gouges on the price of RAM and drives. I guess they do
this because they can. But it doesn't change the fact that it is
gouging. Back before I went with Linux I wanted to get away from
Windows and briefly considered moving to a Mac. Apple's inflated
prices for lesser hardware kept me from doing this. Just the facts.
If you're willing to be gouged on price, that's fine. Choice is good.
At this point, the price Apple charges for memory isn't much different
from what the computer stores themselves are charging. Buying the parts
themselves is still cheaper, but not by much. AI has really ruined
everything for builders.
I guess there's a limit to how much Apple can gouge and still sell their
computers. And you're right about AI. AI is the crap that just keeps
crapping.
I recently read an article that Mozilla allows you to completely disable
AI in Firefox if you have no interest in any of it. The fact that they
have such a functionality is pretty cool. I've seen what AI can already do and needless to say, I'd rather not embolden the people developing it.
On 2026-03-01, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 07:07:46 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 23:52:04 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
That's absolutely true.No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't >>>>>>>>>> "Apple compatible devices", but "personal computing devices". >>>>>>>>>>
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from >>>>>>>>>> other companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit >>>>>>>>>> admission that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple >>>>>>>>> knows that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD. >>>>>>>>
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice >>>>>>> the price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it
works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
And yet Apple gouges on the price of RAM and drives. I guess they do >>>>> this because they can. But it doesn't change the fact that it is
gouging. Back before I went with Linux I wanted to get away from
Windows and briefly considered moving to a Mac. Apple's inflated
prices for lesser hardware kept me from doing this. Just the facts.
If you're willing to be gouged on price, that's fine. Choice is
good.
At this point, the price Apple charges for memory isn't much
different from what the computer stores themselves are charging.
Buying the parts themselves is still cheaper, but not by much. AI has
really ruined everything for builders.
I guess there's a limit to how much Apple can gouge and still sell
their computers. And you're right about AI. AI is the crap that just
keeps crapping.
I recently read an article that Mozilla allows you to completely
disable AI in Firefox if you have no interest in any of it. The fact
that they have such a functionality is pretty cool. I've seen what AI
can already do and needless to say, I'd rather not embolden the people
developing it.
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill it
all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's
actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox to
put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap at
all. Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even better.
I recently read an article that Mozilla allows you to completely disable
AI in Firefox if you have no interest in any of it. The fact that they
have such a functionality is pretty cool. I've seen what AI can already
do and needless to say, I'd rather not embolden the people developing
it.
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill it
all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's
actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox to
put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap at
all.
Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even
better.
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-01, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 07:07:46 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 23:52:04 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
That's absolutely true.No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't >>>>>>>>>>> "Apple compatible devices", but "personal computing devices". >>>>>>>>>>>
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from >>>>>>>>>>> other companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit >>>>>>>>>>> admission that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple >>>>>>>>>> knows that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD. >>>>>>>>>
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice >>>>>>>> the price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it >>>>>>> works for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
And yet Apple gouges on the price of RAM and drives. I guess they do >>>>>> this because they can. But it doesn't change the fact that it is
gouging. Back before I went with Linux I wanted to get away from
Windows and briefly considered moving to a Mac. Apple's inflated
prices for lesser hardware kept me from doing this. Just the facts. >>>>>>
If you're willing to be gouged on price, that's fine. Choice is
good.
At this point, the price Apple charges for memory isn't much
different from what the computer stores themselves are charging.
Buying the parts themselves is still cheaper, but not by much. AI has >>>>> really ruined everything for builders.
I guess there's a limit to how much Apple can gouge and still sell
their computers. And you're right about AI. AI is the crap that just
keeps crapping.
I recently read an article that Mozilla allows you to completely
disable AI in Firefox if you have no interest in any of it. The fact
that they have such a functionality is pretty cool. I've seen what AI
can already do and needless to say, I'd rather not embolden the people
developing it.
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill it
all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's
actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox to
put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap at
all. Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even
better.
I don't see the point. If you can disable it in the regular browser,
there's no need to create an entirely new version and further confuse the potential user.
On 01 Mar 2026 12:25:46 GMT, CrudeSausage wrote:
I recently read an article that Mozilla allows you to completely disable
AI in Firefox if you have no interest in any of it. The fact that they
have such a functionality is pretty cool. I've seen what AI can already
do and needless to say, I'd rather not embolden the people developing
it.
https://chaos.social/@librewolf/115716906957137196
N++
LibreWolf
@librewolf@chaos.social
As there seems to have been recent confusion about this, just a quick "official" toot to then pin: we haven't and won't support "generative AI" related stuff in LibreWolf. If you see some features like that (like Perplexity search recently, or the link preview feature now) it is solely because it "slipped through". As soon as we become aware of something like this / it gets reported to us, we will remove/disable it ASAP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreWolf
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill it
all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's
actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox to
put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap at
all.
Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even
better.
It's called Librewolf.
On 2/27/2026 4:02 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-25 18:58, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the
library of software.-a It's what keeps it on top, percentage of
users-wise. macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied >>>>>> with its apps.
Why would you be unsatisfied?
Mac apps are mostly the same apps as you can get on Windows.
Yeah right, dude, heh, macOS apps are such goofy nerd crapware,
although ironically I liked Microsoft Office for Mac, whereas I
loathe it to Hades under Windows.
Name a specific macOS app that you think is "goofy nerd crapware"...
...AND explain why you think that is true.
Try not to use adjectives.
What a shock: no answer.
I don't remember the names.
On 2026-03-01, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill
it all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's
actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox
to put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap
at all.
Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even
better.
It's called Librewolf.
Okay. I'll try to remember to give it a trial run.
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>>>>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows >>>>>>> that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the >>>>> price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works >>>> for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.-a You're still paying >>> for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
On 2/27/2026 4:04 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.-a You're still
paying for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging,
you are defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
The question is never, "How much is this particular bit to upgrade?",
but, "How much is the price of the whole product and is that price
commensurate with the value I will get?".
And yet you have never addressed the fundamental point, that $200 is a
lot for this particular upgrade.-a Until you do, this conversation will
go in circles.
I'm just thinking of unnecessary bloat for those who are never going to
use AI. And also, in my opinion, you should *opt in* for AI crap, and
not have to *opt out* of it.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:46:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill
It's called Librewolf.
Okay. I'll try to remember to give it a trial run.
That's a comparison of Librewolf and Waterfox.
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:46:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either
kill
It's called Librewolf.
Okay. I'll try to remember to give it a trial run.
That's a comparison of Librewolf and Waterfox.
Firefox Librewolf Waterfox
Anyone remember Iceweasel? :-)
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:42:27 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
I'm just thinking of unnecessary bloat for those who are never going to
use AI. And also, in my opinion, you should *opt in* for AI crap, and
not have to *opt out* of it.
VS Code is getting annoying. It seems every update is more AI crap. It was always a slow load on Fedora so I run 'sudo dnf update -x code' to skip updating it. I should dig a little deeper. On Ubuntu I used 'apt-mark
hold' to ignore all LibreOffice updates.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:46:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-01, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill
it all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's >>>> actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox
to put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap
at all.
Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even
better.
It's called Librewolf.
Okay. I'll try to remember to give it a trial run.
My main browser is Brave but the closest Mozilla derivative is Librewolf
as far as privacy.
https://en.linuxadictos.com/Waterfox-vs-LibreWolf:-Real-Differences-and- Which-One-Is-Right-for-You-If-Firefox-Switches-to-AI.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF1I-J77i70
That's a comparison of Librewolf and Waterfox. There is something I had to enable WebGL on Brave for the site to load. I thought it was stoat.chat
but that loads in Librewolf at least now. I haven't hit a lot of problems with Librewolf, no more than the sites where I have to switch the Brave shields off.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 07:07:21 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:46:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either
kill
It's called Librewolf.
Okay. I'll try to remember to give it a trial run.
That's a comparison of Librewolf and Waterfox.
Firefox Librewolf Waterfox
Anyone remember Iceweasel? :-)
Debian has had an interesting history. Their free software guidelines managed to start a feud both with Mozilla and the FSF.
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/26/2026 7:39 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-26 00:04, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-26, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-23 18:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
No. Because the "specific market[s]" that Apple serves aren't "Apple >>>>>>>>> compatible devices", but "personal computing devices".
Anyone who uses Apple's devices is free to buy devices from other >>>>>>>>> companies that run other OSes.
The "fans" being "loathe" to make any other CHOICE is tacit admission >>>>>>>>> that they are free to MAKE a choice.
Yeah, but they don't want Windows or Linux, is the point, Apple knows >>>>>>>> that, so they can charge $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
That's absolutely true.
Make a better product...
It's not "making a better product" to sell the same memory twice the >>>>>> price.
That's just gouging.
No.
BECAUSE THE PRODUCT IS NOT ***JUST*** THE DRIVE!!!
The product is the whole thing and it's value is based on how it works >>>>> for people...
...AS A WHOLE!
How can you people not get this?
The upgrade to 512 GB doesn't change "the product ... as a whole",
dumbass.-a It only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.-a You're still paying >>>> for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has sufficient value at that price.
On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:get!-a It's gouging, you are
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that Apple is price gouging though.
On 2026-03-02, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:46:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-01, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill >>>>> it all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's >>>>> actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox >>>>> to put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap >>>>> at all.
Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even
better.
It's called Librewolf.
Okay. I'll try to remember to give it a trial run.
My main browser is Brave but the closest Mozilla derivative is Librewolf
as far as privacy.
https://en.linuxadictos.com/Waterfox-vs-LibreWolf:-Real-Differences-and-
Which-One-Is-Right-for-You-If-Firefox-Switches-to-AI.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF1I-J77i70
That's a comparison of Librewolf and Waterfox. There is something I had to >> enable WebGL on Brave for the site to load. I thought it was stoat.chat
but that loads in Librewolf at least now. I haven't hit a lot of problems >> with Librewolf, no more than the sites where I have to switch the Brave
shields off.
I think my issue had something to do with the customization I automatically do in Firefox, but that may have one of the other Firefox forks. I'll try to give LibreWolf a test run today or tomorrow and see if I can remember what the issue was (if it still exists).
My brother is a Windows programmer and he's disgusted at just about all
of his new tools these days. He keeps saying he's going to retire and I
keep telling to do it but, so far, he always finds some reason to stay.
As for VS Code, I installed VS Codium a while back to run a screenplay extension called Better Fountain. I haven't looked at it in least a
year, maybe two years. But this is not programming and it was pre most
of the AI crap that has been coming out.
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 22:03:06 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
My brother is a Windows programmer and he's disgusted at just about all
of his new tools these days. He keeps saying he's going to retire and I
keep telling to do it but, so far, he always finds some reason to stay.
It was an easy decision for me -- the division shut down in 2024. They provided extended support for the clients to find a new vendor so I stuck around but iirc I only did one bug fix and pointed people to
documentation. I was officially fired December 25 :)
As for VS Code, I installed VS Codium a while back to run a screenplay
extension called Better Fountain. I haven't looked at it in least a
year, maybe two years. But this is not programming and it was pre most
of the AI crap that has been coming out.
I've got Code-OSS on one box but don't use it much. I could load all the extensions I normally use. I should put codium on the Fedora box where I turned off code updates. Seems there is a dnf extension for that. I zapped LibreOffice while I was at it. The Raspberry Pi Pico extension is the one
I use the most and I assume Codium wouldn't have a problem with it.
I did read today the MS has released a new extension to deal with venvs. Might be interesting but probably only for Code.
On 2026-03-02, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2026-03-02, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 00:46:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-01, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
Yes, as of Firefox 148 there is an AI killswitch. You can either kill >>>>>> it all or select specific sections of AI to kill. I kill it all. (It's >>>>>> actually called "Block it," not kill it.) Now if we could get Firefox >>>>>> to put out a version of Firefox that simply doesn't have any AI crap >>>>>> at all.
Call it "Firefox Thin" or something like that, that would be even
better.
It's called Librewolf.
Okay. I'll try to remember to give it a trial run.
My main browser is Brave but the closest Mozilla derivative is Librewolf >>> as far as privacy.
https://en.linuxadictos.com/Waterfox-vs-LibreWolf:-Real-Differences-and- >>> Which-One-Is-Right-for-You-If-Firefox-Switches-to-AI.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF1I-J77i70
That's a comparison of Librewolf and Waterfox. There is something I had to >>> enable WebGL on Brave for the site to load. I thought it was stoat.chat >>> but that loads in Librewolf at least now. I haven't hit a lot of problems >>> with Librewolf, no more than the sites where I have to switch the Brave >>> shields off.
I think my issue had something to do with the customization I automatically >> do in Firefox, but that may have one of the other Firefox forks. I'll try to
give LibreWolf a test run today or tomorrow and see if I can remember what >> the issue was (if it still exists).
I like waterfox under Linux.
Nice and lite and works with the majority of sites.
On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
It doesn't explain $200 moreNope.
in overall device price.-a Alan is clearly defending price gouging.
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has >>>> sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
It doesn't explain $200 more in overall device price.-a Alan is clearlyNope.
defending price gouging.
I'm defending the right of a BUSINESS to set prices that it thinks will
make it the most PROFIT.
No business sells you a computer for just the cost of the components;
not even the cost of the components plus the cost of assembly.
EVERY company marks up those costs to make a PROFIT.
Does Apple mark up some components more?
Yes.
Does that make it "gouging"?
No.
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-02, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:longer get!-a It's gouging, you are
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it >>>>> has
sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making it
not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an advanced interface.-a However, since $200 is the price to replace the 256 GB
drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more than*
$200.-a There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.
It doesn't explain $200 more in overall device price.-a Alan isNope.
clearly defending price gouging.
I'm defending the right of a BUSINESS to set prices that it thinks
will make it the most PROFIT.
No business sells you a computer for just the cost of the components;
not even the cost of the components plus the cost of assembly.
EVERY company marks up those costs to make a PROFIT.
Does Apple mark up some components more?
Yes.
Does that make it "gouging"?
No.
Then switch to Windows, you clearly don't value macOS enough to put upYou've yet to give a single example of anything that you think is
with the crap software for it.
I learned that, even though Codium is open source, it uses the same extensions as Code, so you really don't escape M$. It may not load as
much AI by default, however. So that might be a plus.
On 2026-03-02 19:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making
it not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an
advanced interface.-a However, since $200 is the price to replace the
256 GB drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more
than* $200.-a There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.
That's some fine bullshit math there...
On 3/3/26 00:21, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 19:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB
one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
Its a misinterpretation of what was said, probably due to Joel's
technical incompetence.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making
it not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an
advanced interface.-a However, since $200 is the price to replace the
256 GB drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more
than* $200.-a There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.
That's some fine bullshit math there...
Math aside, Joel is not understanding the the interface wasn't more "advanced", but simply that it was using two lanes instead of one, which increased the useful bandwidth:
There's been ample discussion of this over the years and it has become
part of the independent testing of each product variation to see where
it was/wasn't present.-a For example:
"Apple released the new M3 MacBook Air this week, with faster
performance, Wi-Fi 6E, and support for dual external displays. As it
turns out, Apple also addressed another problem that plagued the previous-generation base model MacBook Air: SSD storage speeds.
The backstory here is that base model M2 MacBook Air with 256GB of
storage offered slower SSD speeds than higher-tier configurations. This
was due to the fact that the base model used one 256GB storage chip,
rather than two 128GB storage chips."
<https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/09/macbook-air-m3-storage-speeds/>
TL;DR:-a a change from 256 to 512 isn't merely twice as big, but because
of increasing the employment of the same "interface technology" from one
to two, it is (figuratively) twice as fast.
Gaining higher bandwidth performance has a tangible value to customers
which is obviously more than merely being twice as much storage size.
This factor is what is totally absent from Joel's attempted math.
On 3/3/2026 3:21 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/3/26 00:21, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 19:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB
one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
Its a misinterpretation of what was said, probably due to Joel's
technical incompetence.
You confirm it's accurate below.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells,
making it not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but
having an advanced interface.-a However, since $200 is the price to
replace the 256 GB drive, that makes the total amount out of the
$800 price *more than* $200.-a There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that
much.
That's some fine bullshit math there...
Math aside, Joel is not understanding the the interface wasn't more
"advanced", but simply that it was using two lanes instead of one,
which increased the useful bandwidth:
Which is more advanced.
There's been ample discussion of this over the years and it has become
part of the independent testing of each product variation to see where
it was/wasn't present.-a For example:
"Apple released the new M3 MacBook Air this week, with faster
performance, Wi-Fi 6E, and support for dual external displays. As it
turns out, Apple also addressed another problem that plagued the
previous-generation base model MacBook Air: SSD storage speeds.
The backstory here is that base model M2 MacBook Air with 256GB of
storage offered slower SSD speeds than higher-tier configurations.
This was due to the fact that the base model used one 256GB storage
chip, rather than two 128GB storage chips."
<https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/09/macbook-air-m3-storage-speeds/>
TL;DR:-a a change from 256 to 512 isn't merely twice as big, but
because of increasing the employment of the same "interface
technology" from one to two, it is (figuratively) twice as fast.
Gaining higher bandwidth performance has a tangible value to customers
which is obviously more than merely being twice as much storage size.
This factor is what is totally absent from Joel's attempted math.
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.
The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent
on capacity of hardware.
On 3/3/2026 5:02 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about
the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems
are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton headers
in my text NNTP posts.
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about
the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems
are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton headers
in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and trying
to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about
the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems
are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton
headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent.
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about >>>>> the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows
systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton
headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent
on capacity of hardware.
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care
about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows >>>>>> systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux >>>>> does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton
headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021.-a That machine was a premie
for Windows 11.-a I've recreated the environment with a mini PC.-a It is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care
about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft
Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way
Linux does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting
Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021.-a That machine was a premie
for Windows 11.-a I've recreated the environment with a mini PC.-a It is
true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent >>> on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD, >>>> makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent >>>> on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The
software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the
cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The
software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the
cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are- surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket. Intel and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so
many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care >>>>>>>> about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft
Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way
Linux does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting
Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD >>>>>> change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and >>>>>> trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021.-a That machine was a premie
for Windows 11.-a I've recreated the environment with a mini PC.-a It
is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's a lot.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though?-a It seems we're both pretty informed.No, actually.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:LOL!
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD, >>>> makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent >>>> on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.-a The software >>>>> and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book.-a It's just that he obfuscates price.-a Apple
is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
On 3/3/2026 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.-a The
software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the
cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are >>>>> dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are-
surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket. Intel and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so
many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
On 2026-03-03 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care >>>>>>>>> about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft
Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way >>>>>>>> Linux does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting >>>>>>>> Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200
SSD change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, >>>>>>> and trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021.-a That machine was a
premie for Windows 11.-a I've recreated the environment with a mini
PC.-a It is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's a
lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though?-a It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk about.
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the >>>>>> SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.-a The software >>>>>> and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book.-a It's just that he obfuscates price.-a Apple
is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the-a "smart" comment...
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't know
what "obfuscates" means.
On 2026-03-03 20:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the >>>>>> SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.-a The >>>>>> software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the >>>>>> cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are >>>>>> dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are-
surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket. Intel
and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so
many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
There's no doubt that Apple's "gear" is more expensive.
There's also no doubt that they command tremendous brand loyalty
suggesting that their customers find the gear WORTH the added cost.
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021.-a That machine was a
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:How does that address what he said?
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care >>>>>>>>>> about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft >>>>>>>>>> Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to.-a Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way >>>>>>>>> Linux does.-a Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting >>>>>>>>> Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 >>>>>>>> SSD change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth
performance, and trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent. >>>>>>
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making? >>>>>
premie for Windows 11.-a I've recreated the environment with a mini >>>>> PC.-a It is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's
a lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.-a A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though?-a It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only
the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.-a The
software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost. >>>>>>> However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book.-a It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the-a "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't know
what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing what
I said.
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's
a lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.-a A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
Stipulated.
So what?
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though?-a It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk
about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
On 2026-03-03 21:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book.-a It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the-a "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't know
what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing
what I said.
Clearly you do not.
At no time in any conversation I've ever had on this group have I ever "obfuscated" the price of ANYTHING.
On 3/4/2026 12:53 AM, Alan wrote:
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000,
that's a lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.-a A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
Stipulated.
So what?
Apple is luxury-car.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though?-a It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk
about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
I beg to differ.-a Win11 is the state of the art.-a So are multiple Linux distros.-a macOS can be too.You've yet to provide a single way in which Win11 or Linux is more
On 3/4/2026 12:54 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 21:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book.-a It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the-a "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't
know what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing
what I said.
Clearly you do not.
At no time in any conversation I've ever had on this group have I ever
"obfuscated" the price of ANYTHING.
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades areI claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
On 2026-03-03 22:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:54 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 21:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book.-a It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the-a "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't
know what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing
what I said.
Clearly you do not.
At no time in any conversation I've ever had on this group have I
ever "obfuscated" the price of ANYTHING.
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
Apple is luxury-car.
Apple is better appointed car.
People will pay for better.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though?-a It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk
about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
I beg to differ.-a Win11 is the state of the art.-a So are multiple
Linux distros.-a macOS can be too.
You've yet to provide a single way in which Win11 or Linux is more
"state of the art" than macOS.
Isn't it neat the way you keep throwing out claims you never support?
:-)
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:How does that address what he said?
...
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 >>>>>>>> SSD change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth
performance, and trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading.-a Another $200 can be spent. >>>>>>
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
On 3/4/2026 1:29 AM, Alan wrote:
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021.
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Apple's prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent
on their OS, to justify buying their goods.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really?-a I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
On 3/4/26 02:02, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 1:29 AM, Alan wrote:
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021.
Plus there was $100 for that 4100 graphic card, remember?
Plus extra RAM (~$50) to get to 32GB, remember?
Plus the $200 that you spent on a Win10 license, remember?
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least $1840 (& counting).
Apple's prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent on
their OS, to justify buying their goods.
Or merely folks who've gotten tired of being nickeled and dime'd.
Raymond wrote:
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Which still has him ahead of Joel.
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really?-a I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from peopleThat's not a valid response to his request.
who are beholden to its platform.
On 3/4/2026 12:17 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 20:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the >>>>>>> SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.-a The >>>>>>> software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the >>>>>>> cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are >>>>>>> dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are-
surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket.
Intel and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so >>>> many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
There's no doubt that Apple's "gear" is more expensive.
There's also no doubt that they command tremendous brand loyalty
suggesting that their customers find the gear WORTH the added cost.
Also known as serving themselves piles of money.-a We made your Mac mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, or iMac.-a Feed us, white people.
On 3/4/2026 1:28 AM, Alan wrote:
Apple is luxury-car.
Apple is better appointed car.
People will pay for better.
I wouldn't.-a Linux or Win11 can't be worse than paying $800 for a modest mini PC.
No, actually.Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked? >>>>>>>Do you reciprocate, though?-a It seems we're both pretty informed. >>>>>
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk >>>>>> about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
I beg to differ.-a Win11 is the state of the art.-a So are multiple
Linux distros.-a macOS can be too.
You've yet to provide a single way in which Win11 or Linux is more
"state of the art" than macOS.
Isn't it neat the way you keep throwing out claims you never support?
:-)
The point is that for you, a Mac would shine.The point is that you keep making bullshit claims you can't support.
On 2026-03-04 05:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a >>>>> speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really?-a I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
That's not a valid response to his request.
A Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD is $799.
Show a standard mini PC you can buy from a PC manufacturer that is "far less".
For instance, Dell's least expensive desktop PC starts at $499, for that
you get far less performance. Just 8GB of RAM and an Intel Core i3
process that is absolutely CRUSHED by the M4 cpu in the Mac Mini. It
does start with a 512GB SSD though.
Upgrade it to an i5 process (which is still outperformed by the M4) and 16GB, and all of a sudden, Dell's least expensive desktop will cost you $849.99...
...or $51 more than the Mac Mini.
<https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/desktop-computers/dell-slim-desktop/ spd/dell-ecs1250-slim-desktop/useecs1250pbtshmgp#customization-anchor>
So go ahead:
Show us.
On 3/4/2026 11:27 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-04 05:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increaseOK, and it costs $800.
(a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD. >>>>>
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
You were totally busted out there.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really?-a I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
That's not a valid response to his request.
A Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD is $799.
Show a standard mini PC you can buy from a PC manufacturer that is
"far less".
For instance, Dell's least expensive desktop PC starts at $499, for
that you get far less performance. Just 8GB of RAM and an Intel Core
i3 process that is absolutely CRUSHED by the M4 cpu in the Mac Mini.
It does start with a 512GB SSD though.
Upgrade it to an i5 process (which is still outperformed by the M4)
and 16GB, and all of a sudden, Dell's least expensive desktop will
cost you $849.99...
...or $51 more than the Mac Mini.
<https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/desktop-computers/dell-slim-desktop/
spd/dell-ecs1250-slim-desktop/useecs1250pbtshmgp#customization-anchor>
So go ahead:
Show us.
My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, but it
has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD.-a Apple is selling lower demands on
hardware, because it's less advanced software than Microsoft is selling.
-aLinux can fit that need without the need for Apple hardware.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:51:26 |
| Calls: | 812 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
20 files (23,248K bytes) |
| Messages: | 210,075 |