On 9/15/2026 7:33 PM, Alan wrote:
[Apple] needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a
kernel for their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which
was developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
"XNU was originally developed by NeXT for the NeXTSTEP operating
system. It was a hybrid kernel derived from version 2.5 of the Mach >>>>> kernel, developed at Carnegie Mellon University, which incorporated >>>>> the bulk of the 4.3BSD kernel modified to run atop Mach primitives, >>>>> along with an application programming interface (API) in Objective- >>>>> C for writing drivers named DriverKit."
And none of that contradicts what I just said.
"incorporated the bulk of 4.3BSD kernel", so not "replacement for the
BSD kernel".
Didn't you just say that re-writing wasn't copying, doofus.
Make up your mind.
What does that have to do with anything above?
Some even buy the wrong "bargain" mini PCs and then have to replace
them almost immediately.
You really can be an ass, dude, there's nothing wrong with the first
one I bought, when I first bought it my intention was to replace
Win11 with Linux, in fact, I kept Win11 for a while because it wasn't
as bad as I expected, but buying a second mini PC *isn't* onerous,
you see, *unlike* buying multiple Apple computers, because they're
*inexpensive*.-a You should look into it.
It was stupid though.
Spending twice to end up with what you finally wanted to use.
Incorrect.-a I chose the first one based on Linux specs.-a And it would still run Linux well, today, if I wanted to run Linux.-a I went in the direction of Win11, and it wasn't performing on that box, so I bought another box.-a Big whoop.-a They're cheap.
[Apple] needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a >>>>>>>> kernel for their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which >>>>>>> was developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
"XNU was originally developed by NeXT for the NeXTSTEP operating
system. It was a hybrid kernel derived from version 2.5 of the
Mach kernel, developed at Carnegie Mellon University, which
incorporated the bulk of the 4.3BSD kernel modified to run atop
Mach primitives, along with an application programming interface
(API) in Objective- C for writing drivers named DriverKit."
And none of that contradicts what I just said.
"incorporated the bulk of 4.3BSD kernel", so not "replacement for
the BSD kernel".
Didn't you just say that re-writing wasn't copying, doofus.
Make up your mind.
What does that have to do with anything above?
Your claim was:
"[Apple] needed the low-level code from BSD's work"
Can you show there was any BSD code in the Mach kernel?
Except:
" Mach was developed as a REPLACEMENT for the kernel in the BSD version
of Unix, not requiring a new operating system to be designed around it."
They phased out the last BSD code in it by Mach 2.5, which was what
NextSTEP started with.
So there was no BSD code in Mach long before (as in 1989) Apple ever
bought NeXT.
Some even buy the wrong "bargain" mini PCs and then have to replace >>>>> them almost immediately.
You really can be an ass, dude, there's nothing wrong with the first
one I bought, when I first bought it my intention was to replace
Win11 with Linux, in fact, I kept Win11 for a while because it
wasn't as bad as I expected, but buying a second mini PC *isn't*
onerous, you see, *unlike* buying multiple Apple computers, because
they're *inexpensive*.-a You should look into it.
It was stupid though.
Spending twice to end up with what you finally wanted to use.
Incorrect.-a I chose the first one based on Linux specs.-a And it would
still run Linux well, today, if I wanted to run Linux.-a I went in the
direction of Win11, and it wasn't performing on that box, so I bought
another box.-a Big whoop.-a They're cheap.
So you chose a box for an operating system you didn't end up wanting to
use, and then buying another box to run the system you actually wanted.
You're in no position to call anyone else "idiot".
On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:36:53 +1000, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/2026 10:16 PM, Nick Charles wrote:
On Sep 14, 2026 at 9:40:48rC>PM EDT, "Nick Charles" <none@none.none>
wrote:
On Sep 14, 2026 at 7:11:11rC>PM EDT, ""Joel W. Crump""-aAnd BTW again, in 1980 IBM went to MS for the DOS and the BASIC
<joelcrump@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/14/2026 6:55 PM, Alan wrote:
The UNeducated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past andI see that in the many years that have passed since I used Safari, >>>>>>>>> Google actually used code from Apple's engine in Chromium,Whereby "bet" you actually mean:
though I
would still bet that Apple found some way to screw up Safari. >>>>>>>>
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be that >>>>>>> Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated:
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used Safari" >>>>>
Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain-damaged fools, >>>>> that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' BASIC interpreter
in the
Apple II series, that's why they appropriated BSD's kernel for OS
X/macOS, it's just pathetic and laughable.
So?-a-a Microsoft BOUGHT DOS for $50,000 and turned it into MS-DOS.
Microsoft BOUGHT Skype and destroyed it.
Microsoft BOUGHT Nokia (the Windows Phone manufacturer) and killed
THAT.
What was your point again?
And BTW, in 1978 Microsoft was The Standard BASIC interpreter.
Everyone was
using it.-a Radio Shack and Commodore, among others. Why wouldn't
Apple use it?
And BTW again, Apple did not "appropriate BSD's kernel". Apple
BOUGHT Next for
the NextStep OS and to get Steve Jobs back. That Unix OS is now the
very solid
foundation of MacOS, iOS, iPadOS anf WatchOS.
Microsoft WISHES they had an OS that flexible, modular and portable.
But they
are stuck with clunky, brain-dead Windows. Which can't scale up or
down to
anything other than Windows PCs.
Seriously. Perhaps you should stop the 24 hour, no-sleep drug
binges. MAYBE
your IQ would then rise above room temperature. Then MAYBE you could
actually
have intelligent conversations.
Interpreter in
ROM. Was THAT "pathetic and laughable"?
-aSeriously. You have no clue what you are babbling about. Drug-induced
delusions do not make rational conversation.
-aTo quote Dean Wormer in Animal House, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no
way to go
through life, son".
IBM was unable to create their own OS,
Bullshit
They just chose to buy it instead of creating it
On 2026-09-15 2:02 a.m., Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:36:53 +1000, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/14/2026 10:16 PM, Nick Charles wrote:
On Sep 14, 2026 at 9:40:48rC>PM EDT, "Nick Charles" <none@none.none>
wrote:
On Sep 14, 2026 at 7:11:11rC>PM EDT, ""Joel W. Crump""-aAnd BTW again, in 1980 IBM went to MS for the DOS and the BASIC
<joelcrump@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/14/2026 6:55 PM, Alan wrote:
The UNeducated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past and >>>>>> Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain-damaged fools, >>>>>> that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' BASIC interpreter >>>>>> in theI see that in the many years that have passed since I used Safari, >>>>>>>>>> Google actually used code from Apple's engine in Chromium, >>>>>>>>>> though IWhereby "bet" you actually mean:
would still bet that Apple found some way to screw up Safari. >>>>>>>>>
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be that >>>>>>>> Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated:
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used Safari" >>>>>>
Apple II series, that's why they appropriated BSD's kernel for OS
X/macOS, it's just pathetic and laughable.
So?-a-a Microsoft BOUGHT DOS for $50,000 and turned it into MS-DOS.
Microsoft BOUGHT Skype and destroyed it.
Microsoft BOUGHT Nokia (the Windows Phone manufacturer) and killed
THAT.
What was your point again?
And BTW, in 1978 Microsoft was The Standard BASIC interpreter.
Everyone was
using it.-a Radio Shack and Commodore, among others. Why wouldn't
Apple use it?
And BTW again, Apple did not "appropriate BSD's kernel". Apple
BOUGHT Next for
the NextStep OS and to get Steve Jobs back. That Unix OS is now the >>>>> very solid
foundation of MacOS, iOS, iPadOS anf WatchOS.
Microsoft WISHES they had an OS that flexible, modular and portable. >>>>> But they
are stuck with clunky, brain-dead Windows. Which can't scale up or
down to
anything other than Windows PCs.
Seriously. Perhaps you should stop the 24 hour, no-sleep drug
binges. MAYBE
your IQ would then rise above room temperature. Then MAYBE you could >>>>> actually
have intelligent conversations.
Interpreter in
ROM. Was THAT "pathetic and laughable"?
-aSeriously. You have no clue what you are babbling about. Drug-induced >>>> delusions do not make rational conversation.
-aTo quote Dean Wormer in Animal House, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no
way to go
through life, son".
IBM was unable to create their own OS,
Bullshit
They just chose to buy it instead of creating it
And they apparently chose CP/M before they settled with Microsoft and
the company's own purchase of QDOS. One can only imagine what the 80s
and 90s would have been like, technologically, had Microsoft never made
that deal with IBM.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-09-15 2:02 a.m., Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:36:53 +1000, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/14/2026 10:16 PM, Nick Charles wrote:
On Sep 14, 2026 at 9:40:48rC>PM EDT, "Nick Charles" <none@none.none> >>>>> wrote:
On Sep 14, 2026 at 7:11:11rC>PM EDT, ""Joel W. Crump""-aAnd BTW again, in 1980 IBM went to MS for the DOS and the BASIC
<joelcrump@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 9/14/2026 6:55 PM, Alan wrote:
The UNeducated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past and >>>>>>> Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain-damaged fools, >>>>>>> that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' BASIC interpreter >>>>>>> in theI see that in the many years that have passed since I used Safari, >>>>>>>>>>> Google actually used code from Apple's engine in Chromium, >>>>>>>>>>> though IWhereby "bet" you actually mean:
would still bet that Apple found some way to screw up Safari. >>>>>>>>>>
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be that >>>>>>>>> Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated:
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used Safari" >>>>>>>
Apple II series, that's why they appropriated BSD's kernel for OS >>>>>>> X/macOS, it's just pathetic and laughable.
So?-a-a Microsoft BOUGHT DOS for $50,000 and turned it into MS-DOS. >>>>>>
Microsoft BOUGHT Skype and destroyed it.
Microsoft BOUGHT Nokia (the Windows Phone manufacturer) and killed >>>>>> THAT.
What was your point again?
And BTW, in 1978 Microsoft was The Standard BASIC interpreter.
Everyone was
using it.-a Radio Shack and Commodore, among others. Why wouldn't
Apple use it?
And BTW again, Apple did not "appropriate BSD's kernel". Apple
BOUGHT Next for
the NextStep OS and to get Steve Jobs back. That Unix OS is now the >>>>>> very solid
foundation of MacOS, iOS, iPadOS anf WatchOS.
Microsoft WISHES they had an OS that flexible, modular and portable. >>>>>> But they
are stuck with clunky, brain-dead Windows. Which can't scale up or >>>>>> down to
anything other than Windows PCs.
Seriously. Perhaps you should stop the 24 hour, no-sleep drug
binges. MAYBE
your IQ would then rise above room temperature. Then MAYBE you could >>>>>> actually
have intelligent conversations.
Interpreter in
ROM. Was THAT "pathetic and laughable"?
-aSeriously. You have no clue what you are babbling about. Drug-induced >>>>> delusions do not make rational conversation.
-aTo quote Dean Wormer in Animal House, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no >>>>> way to go
through life, son".
IBM was unable to create their own OS,
Bullshit
They just chose to buy it instead of creating it
And they apparently chose CP/M before they settled with Microsoft and
the company's own purchase of QDOS. One can only imagine what the 80s
and 90s would have been like, technologically, had Microsoft never made
that deal with IBM.
Well, IBM wanted CP/M first, because that was the standard at the time.
But they could not get a deal with them, for whatever reasons. Microsoft QUICKLY agreed, and that was that.
QDOS was basically CP/M ported to the 8088 anyway. So MS bought QDOS and hired Tim Patterson to manage the project.
CP/M did eventually come out for the PC, but by then it was too late. We could have been using CP/M and GEM instead of DOS and Windows.
On 2026-09-14 18:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/14/2026 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>> Safari, Google actually used code from Apple's engine in >>>>>>>>>>>> Chromium, though I would still bet that Apple found some way >>>>>>>>>>>> to screw up Safari.
Whereby "bet" you actually mean:
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be >>>>>>>>>> that Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated:
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>> Safari"
The educated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past >>>>>>>> and Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain-
damaged fools, that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' >>>>>>>> BASIC interpreter in the Apple II series, that's why they
appropriated BSD's kernel for OS X/ macOS, it's just pathetic >>>>>>>> and laughable.
And yet when pressed to explain exactly HOW Apple's software is >>>>>>> inferior, you can never get specific.
It's not necessarily that their software is inferior, but it
wasn't created in-house, at least.
What are you even TALKING about.
Apple has created almost ALL of its software in-house.
They never would've gotten the kernel from scratch.
And? So what?
The part that was developed outside of Apple is minuscule compared to
what Apple developed in-house.
I would not call that an accurate characterization of what they did.
They needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a kernel for
their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which was developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
If someone bought an Intel Mac Pro in 2023, when it was completely
And really, it doesn't end with that, how about the fact that >>>>>>>> macOS stops supporting moderately older devices?-a Pay another >>>>>>>> $1500, Apple users, time's up with your perfectly functional
device.-a I admit, Windows 10 became Win11 Lite, while still
pretending to support devices with HDDs, etc., and that's a fair >>>>>>>> criticism of Microsoft, but Apple is strangely no better even >>>>>>>> though its system *should* in theory still support these
somewhat older devices!
What "moderately older" device does Apple not support?
Define your terms.
macOS 27 is the first version that doesn't support Intel-based
Macs...
...which were discontinued with the last Intel Mac Pros in mid-2023. >>>>>>>
But Intel-based Macs will still be getting necessary updates
until 2028.
So five years for some Intel Macs.-a And they were still selling
Mac Pros with Xeon CPUs when Silicon was becoming a thing.-a Just >>>>>> amazing you'd tolerate such bastardization of hardware, by a
company charging the prices it charges for its gear.
<yawn>
Do Intel Macs still work? Yes.
Are they receiving updates through 2028? Yes.
It should be beyond 2028, though.
Because you know so much....
What about someone who purchased a Mac Pro in 2023?
obvious that it was an orphan product...
...well they're idiots.
On 2026-09-14 16:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-14 2:04 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 10:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-14 11:01 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 04:19, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-14 3:12 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-09-11 5:43 p.m., Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/11/2026 5:20 PM, Alan wrote:I'll say this much: I prefer the file management experience on >>>>>>>> Windows.
On 2026-09-11 13:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/11/2026 4:35 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-10 09:50, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/10/2026 8:52 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-09-09 8:16 p.m., Alan wrote:
In what way is Linux OR Win11 "more advanced"?
Don't worry, Joel is a technical genius and will be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explain it to you in detail.
The theoretical potential of macOS is equal to the other >>>>>>>>>>>>> OSes, but
the practical use of Windows and Linux is superior.
So you've retracted your claim that they're "more advanced", >>>>>>>>>>>> then?
I guess, if you want to make it about that, yes.
YOU made it about that.
And YOU couldn't state ONE THING that is supposedly "more >>>>>>>>>> advanced"
about either Windows or Linux.
I was talking about the experience, rather than the hardware. >>>>>>>>
On MacOS, it's somewhat lacking. Even uploading a batch of files to >>>>>>>> something like OneDrive is needlessly annoying, at least if you >>>>>>>> use Safari.
How different is it to windows? Also just use the onedrive app. >>>>>>> Drag and
drop and you're done.
Bah, I needed an excuse to go back to Brave and that was it. Even >>>>>> the back buttons of my mouse don't work in Safari. As for file
management, the way it works in Windows is rather intuitive
including allowing for the use of your mouse's back and forward
buttons. Maybe I'm just not used to it, I don't know, but the
Windows one feels better for the time being.
Standard Mac mice don't HAVE forward and back buttons.
But if you want a mouse with them, you can get them, install the
software that comes along with them and use them just as you would
on Windows.
Or just use any browser other than Safari.
Ummmm...no. That doesn't track.
Explain.
Razer DeathAdder 2 Hyperspeed + Logitech MX Ergo. Both are tracking
devices with back and forward buttons, both have their drivers
installed in MacOS. For neither does back work using the buttons in
Safari. With any other browser, it's fine. It's a known issue:
<https:// forums.macrumors.com/threads/mouse-back-forward-buttons-do-
not-work-in- safari.2448011/>
Of course, it's not really an issue since it is possible, with
Logitech at least, to map the button to a specific command.
Nevertheless, it doesn't work by default and simply switching to
another browser allows it to work.
It turns out your thread is completely wrong; at least for the Logitech
MX Ergo.
Click the "Back" button on it, and the mouse sends a "Button 4"...
...which isn't <backspace> as the thread suggests.
So use Logi Options+ to set it to <Cmd>+<[> (and "Forward" to <Cmd>+<]>).
I'm not really seeing this as a big deal.
On 2026-09-15 12:01 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 18:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/14/2026 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari, Google actually used code from Apple's engine in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chromium, though I would still bet that Apple found some way >>>>>>>>>>>>> to screw up Safari.
Whereby "bet" you actually mean:
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be >>>>>>>>>>> that Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated:
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>> Safari"
The educated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past >>>>>>>>> and Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain- >>>>>>>>> damaged fools, that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' >>>>>>>>> BASIC interpreter in the Apple II series, that's why they
appropriated BSD's kernel for OS X/ macOS, it's just pathetic >>>>>>>>> and laughable.
And yet when pressed to explain exactly HOW Apple's software is >>>>>>>> inferior, you can never get specific.
It's not necessarily that their software is inferior, but it
wasn't created in-house, at least.
What are you even TALKING about.
Apple has created almost ALL of its software in-house.
They never would've gotten the kernel from scratch.
And? So what?
The part that was developed outside of Apple is minuscule compared to >>>> what Apple developed in-house.
I would not call that an accurate characterization of what they did.
They needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a kernel for
their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which was
developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
If someone bought an Intel Mac Pro in 2023, when it was completely
And really, it doesn't end with that, how about the fact that >>>>>>>>> macOS stops supporting moderately older devices?-a Pay another >>>>>>>>> $1500, Apple users, time's up with your perfectly functional >>>>>>>>> device.-a I admit, Windows 10 became Win11 Lite, while still >>>>>>>>> pretending to support devices with HDDs, etc., and that's a fair >>>>>>>>> criticism of Microsoft, but Apple is strangely no better even >>>>>>>>> though its system *should* in theory still support these
somewhat older devices!
What "moderately older" device does Apple not support?
Define your terms.
macOS 27 is the first version that doesn't support Intel-based >>>>>>>> Macs...
...which were discontinued with the last Intel Mac Pros in mid-2023. >>>>>>>>
But Intel-based Macs will still be getting necessary updates
until 2028.
So five years for some Intel Macs.-a And they were still selling >>>>>>> Mac Pros with Xeon CPUs when Silicon was becoming a thing.-a Just >>>>>>> amazing you'd tolerate such bastardization of hardware, by a
company charging the prices it charges for its gear.
<yawn>
Do Intel Macs still work? Yes.
Are they receiving updates through 2028? Yes.
It should be beyond 2028, though.
Because you know so much....
What about someone who purchased a Mac Pro in 2023?
obvious that it was an orphan product...
...well they're idiots.
I would have to agree with Alan here. The writing was already on the
wall that Apple Mx series was a success and that the company would be
moving forward with those chips alone.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-09-15 12:01 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 18:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/14/2026 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari, Google actually used code from Apple's engine in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chromium, though I would still bet that Apple found some way >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to screw up Safari.
Whereby "bet" you actually mean:
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be >>>>>>>>>>>> that Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated:
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>> Safari"
The educated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past >>>>>>>>>> and Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain- >>>>>>>>>> damaged fools, that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' >>>>>>>>>> BASIC interpreter in the Apple II series, that's why they
appropriated BSD's kernel for OS X/ macOS, it's just pathetic >>>>>>>>>> and laughable.
And yet when pressed to explain exactly HOW Apple's software is >>>>>>>>> inferior, you can never get specific.
It's not necessarily that their software is inferior, but it
wasn't created in-house, at least.
What are you even TALKING about.
Apple has created almost ALL of its software in-house.
They never would've gotten the kernel from scratch.
And? So what?
The part that was developed outside of Apple is minuscule compared to >>>>> what Apple developed in-house.
I would not call that an accurate characterization of what they did.
They needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a kernel for >>>> their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which was
developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
If someone bought an Intel Mac Pro in 2023, when it was completely
And really, it doesn't end with that, how about the fact that >>>>>>>>>> macOS stops supporting moderately older devices?-a Pay another >>>>>>>>>> $1500, Apple users, time's up with your perfectly functional >>>>>>>>>> device.-a I admit, Windows 10 became Win11 Lite, while still >>>>>>>>>> pretending to support devices with HDDs, etc., and that's a fair >>>>>>>>>> criticism of Microsoft, but Apple is strangely no better even >>>>>>>>>> though its system *should* in theory still support these
somewhat older devices!
What "moderately older" device does Apple not support?
Define your terms.
macOS 27 is the first version that doesn't support Intel-based >>>>>>>>> Macs...
...which were discontinued with the last Intel Mac Pros in mid-2023. >>>>>>>>>
But Intel-based Macs will still be getting necessary updates >>>>>>>>> until 2028.
So five years for some Intel Macs.-a And they were still selling >>>>>>>> Mac Pros with Xeon CPUs when Silicon was becoming a thing.-a Just >>>>>>>> amazing you'd tolerate such bastardization of hardware, by a
company charging the prices it charges for its gear.
<yawn>
Do Intel Macs still work? Yes.
Are they receiving updates through 2028? Yes.
It should be beyond 2028, though.
Because you know so much....
What about someone who purchased a Mac Pro in 2023?
obvious that it was an orphan product...
...well they're idiots.
I would have to agree with Alan here. The writing was already on the
wall that Apple Mx series was a success and that the company would be
moving forward with those chips alone.
The Intel Mac Pro was the only machine possible to have more than 192GB RAM until the 2025 Studio and M3 Ultra.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-09-15 12:01 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 18:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/14/2026 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari, Google actually used code from Apple's engine in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chromium, though I would still bet that Apple found some way >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to screw up Safari.
Whereby "bet" you actually mean:
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be >>>>>>>>>>>> that Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated:
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>> Safari"
The educated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past >>>>>>>>>> and Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain- >>>>>>>>>> damaged fools, that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' >>>>>>>>>> BASIC interpreter in the Apple II series, that's why they
appropriated BSD's kernel for OS X/ macOS, it's just pathetic >>>>>>>>>> and laughable.
And yet when pressed to explain exactly HOW Apple's software is >>>>>>>>> inferior, you can never get specific.
It's not necessarily that their software is inferior, but it
wasn't created in-house, at least.
What are you even TALKING about.
Apple has created almost ALL of its software in-house.
They never would've gotten the kernel from scratch.
And? So what?
The part that was developed outside of Apple is minuscule compared to >>>>> what Apple developed in-house.
I would not call that an accurate characterization of what they did.
They needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a kernel for >>>> their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which was
developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
If someone bought an Intel Mac Pro in 2023, when it was completely
And really, it doesn't end with that, how about the fact that >>>>>>>>>> macOS stops supporting moderately older devices?-a Pay another >>>>>>>>>> $1500, Apple users, time's up with your perfectly functional >>>>>>>>>> device.-a I admit, Windows 10 became Win11 Lite, while still >>>>>>>>>> pretending to support devices with HDDs, etc., and that's a fair >>>>>>>>>> criticism of Microsoft, but Apple is strangely no better even >>>>>>>>>> though its system *should* in theory still support these
somewhat older devices!
What "moderately older" device does Apple not support?
Define your terms.
macOS 27 is the first version that doesn't support Intel-based >>>>>>>>> Macs...
...which were discontinued with the last Intel Mac Pros in mid-2023. >>>>>>>>>
But Intel-based Macs will still be getting necessary updates >>>>>>>>> until 2028.
So five years for some Intel Macs.-a And they were still selling >>>>>>>> Mac Pros with Xeon CPUs when Silicon was becoming a thing.-a Just >>>>>>>> amazing you'd tolerate such bastardization of hardware, by a
company charging the prices it charges for its gear.
<yawn>
Do Intel Macs still work? Yes.
Are they receiving updates through 2028? Yes.
It should be beyond 2028, though.
Because you know so much....
What about someone who purchased a Mac Pro in 2023?
obvious that it was an orphan product...
...well they're idiots.
I would have to agree with Alan here. The writing was already on the
wall that Apple Mx series was a success and that the company would be
moving forward with those chips alone.
The Intel Mac Pro was the only machine possible to have more than 192GB RAM until the 2025 Studio and M3 Ultra.
On 2026-09-17 10:15 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-09-15 12:01 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 18:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/14/2026 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari, Google actually used code from Apple's engine in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chromium, though I would still bet that Apple found some way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to screw up Safari.
Whereby "bet" you actually mean:
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be >>>>>>>>>>>>> that Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated: >>>>>>>>>>>>
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>> Safari"
The educated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past >>>>>>>>>>> and Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain- >>>>>>>>>>> damaged fools, that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' >>>>>>>>>>> BASIC interpreter in the Apple II series, that's why they >>>>>>>>>>> appropriated BSD's kernel for OS X/ macOS, it's just pathetic >>>>>>>>>>> and laughable.
And yet when pressed to explain exactly HOW Apple's software is >>>>>>>>>> inferior, you can never get specific.
It's not necessarily that their software is inferior, but it >>>>>>>>> wasn't created in-house, at least.
What are you even TALKING about.
Apple has created almost ALL of its software in-house.
They never would've gotten the kernel from scratch.
And? So what?
The part that was developed outside of Apple is minuscule compared to >>>>>> what Apple developed in-house.
I would not call that an accurate characterization of what they did. >>>>> They needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a kernel for >>>>> their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which was
developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
If someone bought an Intel Mac Pro in 2023, when it was completely
And really, it doesn't end with that, how about the fact that >>>>>>>>>>> macOS stops supporting moderately older devices?-a Pay another >>>>>>>>>>> $1500, Apple users, time's up with your perfectly functional >>>>>>>>>>> device.-a I admit, Windows 10 became Win11 Lite, while still >>>>>>>>>>> pretending to support devices with HDDs, etc., and that's a fair >>>>>>>>>>> criticism of Microsoft, but Apple is strangely no better even >>>>>>>>>>> though its system *should* in theory still support these >>>>>>>>>>> somewhat older devices!
What "moderately older" device does Apple not support?
Define your terms.
macOS 27 is the first version that doesn't support Intel-based >>>>>>>>>> Macs...
...which were discontinued with the last Intel Mac Pros in >>>>>>>>>> mid-2023.
But Intel-based Macs will still be getting necessary updates >>>>>>>>>> until 2028.
So five years for some Intel Macs.-a And they were still selling >>>>>>>>> Mac Pros with Xeon CPUs when Silicon was becoming a thing.-a Just >>>>>>>>> amazing you'd tolerate such bastardization of hardware, by a >>>>>>>>> company charging the prices it charges for its gear.
<yawn>
Do Intel Macs still work? Yes.
Are they receiving updates through 2028? Yes.
It should be beyond 2028, though.
Because you know so much....
What about someone who purchased a Mac Pro in 2023?
obvious that it was an orphan product...
...well they're idiots.
I would have to agree with Alan here. The writing was already on the
wall that Apple Mx series was a success and that the company would be
moving forward with those chips alone.
The Intel Mac Pro was the only machine possible to have more than
192GB RAM
until the 2025 Studio and M3 Ultra.
Yeah, I recall that being the case. Nevertheless, it still seemed like a
bad decision. Would you buy a car you knew wouldn't have parts available
for repair two or three years after purchase?
On 2026-09-17 10:15 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-09-15 12:01 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 18:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/14/2026 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:If someone bought an Intel Mac Pro in 2023, when it was completely
Do Intel Macs still work? Yes.
Are they receiving updates through 2028? Yes.
It should be beyond 2028, though.
Because you know so much....
What about someone who purchased a Mac Pro in 2023?
obvious that it was an orphan product...
...well they're idiots.
I would have to agree with Alan here. The writing was already on the
wall that Apple Mx series was a success and that the company would be
moving forward with those chips alone.
The Intel Mac Pro was the only machine possible to have more than 192GB RAM >> until the 2025 Studio and M3 Ultra.
Yeah, I recall that being the case. Nevertheless, it still seemed like a
bad decision. Would you buy a car you knew wouldn't have parts available
for repair two or three years after purchase?
On 2026-09-17 07:15, Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-09-15 12:01 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2026-09-14 18:54, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/14/2026 9:40 PM, Alan wrote:
I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari, Google actually used code from Apple's engine in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chromium, though I would still bet that Apple found some way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to screw up Safari.
Whereby "bet" you actually mean:
"guess with no clue whatsoever".
It's an educated guess, but yeah, I don't know.-a It could be >>>>>>>>>>>>> that Safari is competitive with Chrome and Firefox.
No. You just admitted that it is completely UNeducated: >>>>>>>>>>>>
"I see that in the many years that have passed since I used >>>>>>>>>>>> Safari"
The educated aspect comes from having used Safari in the past >>>>>>>>>>> and Apple's software generally, they're incompetent, brain- >>>>>>>>>>> damaged fools, that's why Microsoft was sourced for a friggin' >>>>>>>>>>> BASIC interpreter in the Apple II series, that's why they >>>>>>>>>>> appropriated BSD's kernel for OS X/ macOS, it's just pathetic >>>>>>>>>>> and laughable.
And yet when pressed to explain exactly HOW Apple's software is >>>>>>>>>> inferior, you can never get specific.
It's not necessarily that their software is inferior, but it >>>>>>>>> wasn't created in-house, at least.
What are you even TALKING about.
Apple has created almost ALL of its software in-house.
They never would've gotten the kernel from scratch.
And? So what?
The part that was developed outside of Apple is minuscule compared to >>>>>> what Apple developed in-house.
I would not call that an accurate characterization of what they did. >>>>> They needed the low-level code from BSD's work, to create a kernel for >>>>> their own product.
Ummmmm...absolutely 100% wrong.
Mac OS X came out of NeXTSTEP, which used the Mach kernel, which was
developed as a replacement for the BSD kernel.
If someone bought an Intel Mac Pro in 2023, when it was completely
And really, it doesn't end with that, how about the fact that >>>>>>>>>>> macOS stops supporting moderately older devices?-a Pay another >>>>>>>>>>> $1500, Apple users, time's up with your perfectly functional >>>>>>>>>>> device.-a I admit, Windows 10 became Win11 Lite, while still >>>>>>>>>>> pretending to support devices with HDDs, etc., and that's a fair >>>>>>>>>>> criticism of Microsoft, but Apple is strangely no better even >>>>>>>>>>> though its system *should* in theory still support these >>>>>>>>>>> somewhat older devices!
What "moderately older" device does Apple not support?
Define your terms.
macOS 27 is the first version that doesn't support Intel-based >>>>>>>>>> Macs...
...which were discontinued with the last Intel Mac Pros in mid-2023. >>>>>>>>>>
But Intel-based Macs will still be getting necessary updates >>>>>>>>>> until 2028.
So five years for some Intel Macs.-a And they were still selling >>>>>>>>> Mac Pros with Xeon CPUs when Silicon was becoming a thing.-a Just >>>>>>>>> amazing you'd tolerate such bastardization of hardware, by a >>>>>>>>> company charging the prices it charges for its gear.
<yawn>
Do Intel Macs still work? Yes.
Are they receiving updates through 2028? Yes.
It should be beyond 2028, though.
Because you know so much....
What about someone who purchased a Mac Pro in 2023?
obvious that it was an orphan product...
...well they're idiots.
I would have to agree with Alan here. The writing was already on the
wall that Apple Mx series was a success and that the company would be
moving forward with those chips alone.
The Intel Mac Pro was the only machine possible to have more than 192GB RAM >> until the 2025 Studio and M3 Ultra.
And for some people, that tradeoff (buying an orphan design for the RAM)
was worth it, I'm sure.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:10:31 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |