On 2026-01-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-01-29 17:14, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-01-29 16:56, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
It's obvious he is an extreme Apple fanboy (being paid?) and aLOL!
lunatic who goes on the offensive as soon as a person mentions an >>>>>>> alternative to an Apple anything.Even if no claims of which is
better other than choice. That's a snit technique. Totally bogus. >>>>>>>> The guy is a certified lunatic.
ROTFLMAO!!!
So can you hide an air tag in a wallet?
In a purse?
No. But then when this first came up, you misidentified the product you >>>> were talking about...
...didn't you?
:-)
Nope.
Nice try.
All my comparisons are vs Apple Airtag 1 as the Airtag 2 was just released. >> How utterly astonishing that you "misread" what I was saying.
Let me quote your entry into this topic:
'Even though I have both an Android and iPhone, I use "Spotminders tags"'
Not "Spotminders Tracking Cards".
"TAGS"
Spotminders MAKES a "tag".
So wonder of wonders, when you called it a "tag", I assumed you meant
what you wrote.
Nice try, though.
Yawwn....
Playing the semantic game again.
You know exactly what I meant.
Why can't you simply accept that Apple devices aren't always superior to the buyer?
Do you work for Apple?
On 2026-01-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/29/26 18:23, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-29, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
...
FWIW, what I find curious is the "both use the Apple Find My Network": >>>>
does this mean that Spotminder is freeloading their product off of
someone else's services/infrastructure?
Nope.
Spotminders is MFI certified my Apple.
Next.
<https://www.spotminders.com/products/spotminders-tracking-cards>
Okay, so that's how they've done it.
Yes.
And Apple approves so.......
...
Yea, and where are you going to find a battery when your luggage is in pengo pengo?
Pack a spare battery just in case you forgot to check pre-trip. BTDT.
An option.
But then there is battery swelling to deal with.
Probably rare but still it happens.
People don't maintain their electronics anymore.
But odds of it going dead while on a trip is pretty low, as Apple has an
automatic "low battery" push notice, and IME the Airtag's battery life
is easily a few weeks longer, enough to get home from a typical one week
long trip. All in all, it is quite low maintenance.
So does Spotminders, plus they send an email based upon when your purchased letting you it's time to charge.
As usual you play with minutia while avoiding the obvious.
Nah, the obvious is that the Spotminders' much shorter battery life
pragmatically requires that they be regularly removed from where they're
deployed to be recharged, and since its battery life claim is the usual
marking caveat of "up to", the effective timeline requires ~4x/year.
Yawn.
Warranty is lifetime.
Stick on a wireless charger and it's good for another 6 months or so.
Easy peasy.
And no danger of leaking, at least not to the level of a CR2032 which
can swell and leak.
YMMV on one's personal cost of convenience tolerance is, but since the
Airtag's annual operation cost is <$1/yr, its probably well within most
American's budget.
Spotminders is cheaper.
Aslo you need to purchase another device if you want to put an Airtag on a keyring
so that will cost you more for the much touted key ring advantage of the Airtag.
Obvious things like:
Super slim. looks like an ordinary credit card...
Sure, but that's only a meaningful differentiator if one needs a credit
card form factor, such as for a gentleman's wallet. The rest of the use
cases don't matter.
Purse.
Ask your wife about hidden pockets in purses.
Passport is another popular spot.
Luggage, can easily be hidden in the lining, unlike an Airtag.
Car, easily hidden, maybe in a headliner, stuck on the center console lid etc.
Unlike an Airtag.
Easy to hide in plain sight unlike an Apple Airtag.
And what does "hide in plain sight" really mean here? I can't see
hanging a credit card off of the car keys in my pocket as being less
bulky -- or unsightly -- as a "fat coin" form factor.
Actually if you park in a commercial or even an HOA garage card keys are popular
and people hang them on their key ring. However Spotminders does make a Smarttag
which is designed for a key ring and unlike Apple it has a hole in it so you don't have to buy an extra piece.
So Spotminders makes different devices.
Apple makes one size fits all.
Many more advantages ...
Such as?
Warranty.
Sound is louder than Apple.
Construction gets higher marks as being superior.
If you buy on sale, price is less.
Here is a special on the SmartTag, 5 for $87:00
I got the credit card version 4 for $88.00
Apple can't beat that other than maybe them liquidating
their AirTag V1 since they just introduced Airtag v2.
<https://www.spotminders.com/products/spotminders-smart-tag>
however what I find interesting is how Anal, not you hh, jumped all
over my initial post where all I said was i use Spotminders rather than Airtag.
I glanced through them - just what was so wrong?
Just because I mentioned a competitor's product he went bonkers.
And I'm not an Apple hater in any way.
As stated I have an Apple Watch and iPhone and have had many versions
over the years.
They are excellent devices.
But Alan can't handle that.
Apple is his entire life and world.
Going back, I see the following points:
* you were corrected on two factual errors (battery is replaceable,
waterproof ratings are the same);
Yes.
From a website that was incorrect.
Neither was really a consideration for me at the time though.
I don't typically take my purse/wallet into the water when I am at the beach.
* the claim of "Low-grade plastic" is (% remains) unsubstantiated;
Serial number is engraved on Spotminders rather than a sticker.
That says quality to me, but yea marketing stuff.
* the claim of "no risk of battery swelling" needs an explanation why;
There is no separate battery like a CR 2032.
It's an internal lithium polymer battery (I think?).
Another advantage is the card is eco friendly, which I'm sure you will like. No CR 2032 batteries to dispose of.
It's kind of funny seeing an Apple fanboy like Alan promoting replaceable parts like batteries when most Apple devices are the exact opposite.
Like I've said, he will argue about anything to make Apple look good.
Consistency doesn't matter.
* he agreed that a credit card sized product has it's place (but often
isn't a differentiator);
* his point that a "lifetime guarantee" is a valid risk for relatively
new companies;
Pure speculation.
Lifetime warranty vs 1 year warranty.
Easy peasy.
* he concluded that you're paying extra for a worse product when form
factor isn't needed.
He is wrong.
I've explained this many times already.
The biggest thing that I saw wrong from the above was that Alan used an
overly high price for the Airtag for ROI comparisons, so instead of the
Spotminder's breakeven point being at ~4.5 years, its out at ~19 years.
There you go into the minutia rabbit hole again.
You misstated the product you were talking about...
FWIW, in addition to luggage we've frequently deployed Airtags in purses
& similar small bags ... but the places that I've never even thought
about deploying them are inside my wallet (which is where a CC form
factor would apply) or within a moneybelt/passport carrier.
Everyone is different.
I stated MY needs and initially I never stated an Apple vs Spotminders comparison.
Alan was the one who went bonkers on that one.
On 2026-01-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/29/26 18:23, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-29, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Yea, and where are you going to find a battery when your luggage is in pengo pengo?...
Pack a spare battery just in case you forgot to check pre-trip. BTDT.
An option.
But then there is battery swelling to deal with.
Probably rare but still it happens.
People don't maintain their electronics anymore.
But odds of it going dead while on a trip is pretty low, as Apple has an
automatic "low battery" push notice, and IME the Airtag's battery life
is easily a few weeks longer, enough to get home from a typical one week
long trip. All in all, it is quite low maintenance.
So does Spotminders, plus they send an email based upon when your purchased letting you it's time to charge.
As usual you play with minutia while avoiding the obvious.
Nah, the obvious is that the Spotminders' much shorter battery life
pragmatically requires that they be regularly removed from where they're
deployed to be recharged, and since its battery life claim is the usual
marking caveat of "up to", the effective timeline requires ~4x/year.
Yawn.
Warranty is lifetime.
Stick on a wireless charger and it's good for another 6 months or so.
Easy peasy.
And no danger of leaking, at least not to the level of a CR2032 which
can swell and leak.
YMMV on one's personal cost of convenience tolerance is, but since the
Airtag's annual operation cost is <$1/yr, its probably well within most
American's budget.
Spotminders is cheaper.
Aslo you need to purchase another device if you want to put an Airtag on a keyring
so that will cost you more for the much touted key ring advantage of the Airtag.
Obvious things like:
Super slim. looks like an ordinary credit card...
Sure, but that's only a meaningful differentiator if one needs a credit
card form factor, such as for a gentleman's wallet. The rest of the use
cases don't matter.
Purse.
Ask your wife about hidden pockets in purses.
Passport is another popular spot.
Luggage, can easily be hidden in the lining, unlike an Airtag.
Car, easily hidden, maybe in a headliner, stuck on the center console lid etc.
Unlike an Airtag.
Easy to hide in plain sight unlike an Apple Airtag.
And what does "hide in plain sight" really mean here? I can't see
hanging a credit card off of the car keys in my pocket as being less
bulky -- or unsightly -- as a "fat coin" form factor.
Actually if you park in a commercial or even an HOA garage card keys are popular
and people hang them on their key ring. However Spotminders does make a Smarttag
which is designed for a key ring and unlike Apple it has a hole in it so you don't have to buy an extra piece.
So Spotminders makes different devices.
Apple makes one size fits all.
Many more advantages ...
Such as?
Warranty.
Sound is louder than Apple.
Construction gets higher marks as being superior.
If you buy on sale, price is less.
Here is a special on the SmartTag, 5 for $87:00
I got the credit card version 4 for $88.00
however what I find interesting is how Anal, not you hh, jumped all
over my initial post where all I said was i use Spotminders rather than Airtag.
I glanced through them - just what was so wrong?
Just because I mentioned a competitor's product he went bonkers.
Going back, I see the following points:
* you were corrected on two factual errors (battery is replaceable,
waterproof ratings are the same);
Yes.
From a website that was incorrect.
Neither was really a consideration for me at the time though.
I don't typically take my purse/wallet into the water when I am at the beach.
* the claim of "Low-grade plastic" is (% remains) unsubstantiated;
Serial number is engraved on Spotminders rather than a sticker.
That says quality to me, but yea marketing stuff.
* the claim of "no risk of battery swelling" needs an explanation why;
There is no separate battery like a CR 2032.
It's an internal lithium polymer battery (I think?).
Another advantage is the card is eco friendly, which I'm sure you will like. No CR 2032 batteries to dispose of.
* he agreed that a credit card sized product has it's place (but often
isn't a differentiator);
* his point that a "lifetime guarantee" is a valid risk for relatively
new companies;
Pure speculation.
Lifetime warranty vs 1 year warranty.
Easy peasy.
* he concluded that you're paying extra for a worse product when form
factor isn't needed.
He is wrong.
I've explained this many times already.
The biggest thing that I saw wrong from the above was that Alan used an
overly high price for the Airtag for ROI comparisons, so instead of the
Spotminder's breakeven point being at ~4.5 years, its out at ~19 years.
There you go into the minutia rabbit hole again.
FWIW, in addition to luggage we've frequently deployed Airtags in purses
& similar small bags ... but the places that I've never even thought
about deploying them are inside my wallet (which is where a CC form
factor would apply) or within a moneybelt/passport carrier.
Everyone is different.
I stated MY needs and initially I never stated an Apple vs Spotminders comparison.
Alan was the one who went bonkers on that one.
On 1/29/26 8:41 PM, Alan wrote:
The problem with the iPhone is that it's an Apple
product.
So despite your claims about Apple users, this is really
about your irrational reaction to a particular company.
Got it.
My claims about Apple users are bullshit, yeah. I mean,
there are extreme examples that could caricature Mac users,
but that doesn't hold up to the statistics of people using
Macs. It's fair to say that Apple makes me pretty deranged
and yet they behave pretty deranged, so, ya know.
No. I do NOT know.
I've worked with people who use Macs and iPhones (and iPads)
for decades, and they're no more "deranged" than any other
group.
I was talking about Apple corporate.
And in what way are THEY "deranged".
Watch out for circular argument here.
Objectively, Apple isn't interested in competition, that's purely a
facade. They need Microsoft to be what it is, so they can be the
quirky alternative for quirky alternative people. As such, their
hardware and software both languish under mediocre development.
We should want to punish Apple any way possible.
Why? What have they done to deserve (and I can absolutely
believe you'd use this word): "punishment"?
Well, let's think about it from a perspective we'd at least
agree is worth considering - Apple through their Mac product
line does serve a real need in computing.
That's an unsupported assertion.
Apple's Mac product line serves the real needs of its users so
well, they almost never EVER want to use anything else ever
again.
Yeah so ask yourself why, you yourself have talked up
repeatedly buying Macs, you probably have the slightest
insight.
Again: not really English.
Again: you are admitting not really being able to read English.
"Real need in computing" here means that there is more than a
niche market for macOS and software designed for it.
Circular argument.
macOS and software designed for it encompass the vast majority of
things that people want to do with personal computers.
OK but why are they choosing the Mac?
Is it just what was placed
in front of them? Usually, it's a very intentional choice, in fact,
and I'm recognizing that but since I'm expecting Apple to up its
game in response,
you leap into attacking me and avoiding addressing
Apple's deranged behavior.
You're loyal, to be sure, but more to
Apple's derangement itself, as if you work for them.
I myself almost liked it, I admit, the Unix components made it
something of value, but the Apple GUI is just too tragic.
In some way you'll never actually articulate...
It's just inferior software, I know it when I see it.
But for those who really benefit from using Macs, there isn't
an alternative, and it seems that Apple could do more to offer
them something of a competitive deal on a system.
Apple's role as a manufacturer and seller of...
...well, anything...
...is to produce products that people are willing to purchase, and
to make a profit while doing so.
Or do you not understand how a market economy works?
If you want to see Apple in the context of the market economy,
well, that opens up a whole can of worms, they're bourgeois,
mediocre, very typical of how people with too much money will find
ways to spend it and yet get next to nothing for their efforts,
because they're too much of gigantic dorks to know the right shit to
buy.
You're welcome, fanboy.
There are people who simply get better results using
Apple's equipment for a PC, their software to run it.
Not even an understandable sentence...
You're not trying very hard, then. But that's OK, I know your
only goal here is to compete with me.
You think far too highly of yourself.
It's funny you'd say that though given how you seem to perceive
yourself, but OK.
As such, the price gouging on hardware sales does trouble
me, as a regulator.
You're NOT a "regulator".
I could make Apple repay its customers for overcharging them
over a long period of time. But I know better than to overuse
authority.
Your megalomania is showing again.
Your ignorance might be, if you really think I'm a megalomaniac.
I don't know that it crosses the line into requiring
government oversight and yet it certainly does ask that
question.
Only in your (self-admitted) deranged mind.
They probably would end up getting away with it because it's
like some proprietary luxuries, unfortunately, you pay to play
and these right- brained Mac users are gonna have to play by
Apple's rules, even as it makes them look like sheep. I can't
just wave my hand and set their prices, though they push their
luck about it frankly.
And here you go again with your circular argument.
The point is, if I were crazy, I could do anything I wanted to
Apple, but I'm not crazy,
I'm willing to work with them, but the
bully pulpit still exists, particularly here on Usenet, so I'm not
going to pretend to admire Apple.
If they're continuing to make the base unit have 256 GB
storage, but the next step up is $200 extra, at what point
is that not just transparent gouging?
Because offering people products they freely purchase isn't
gouging of any kind.
It is gouging because if they want a non-joke of a computer they
have to pay so much extra that they're doing more than their
fair share to support the product line. It's ridiculous.
Circular.
It'll never be circular when half of a 512 GB SSD is $200. You have
not addressed that basic fact.
Why is 256 still an option?
Because it still works fine for many users.
And it's reasonable to cost $200 to double it?
If people are willing to pay it? Yes, absolutely.
Spoken like an Apple employee.
How friggin' cheap is the company that isn't cheap to buy
from?!
How is that relevant?
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's
weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware,
but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from a
false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
and you end up having a point because I have more judgment than
to meddle in their pricing scheme, obvious though it is to be
gouging in real truth, self-evident observation, but the Apple
fanboys will come up with whatever stoned theory why it makes
sense to pay $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
More belittling.
Got it.
Unlike you constantly do to me? What a joke.
- but fortunately Samsung comes to the rescue, as they
have for some time.
In what way? Are their smartphones notably less expensive
than the equivalent iPhones?
Not less expensive but as good without being iPhones.
So it's about your hatred, not articulable, objective facts.
Got it.
Basically yeah, I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to
the point of obsession.
Oh, well past that point.
I do other things with my time than debate computers on Usenet.
It has led me to even exaggerate including personal attacks on
Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real matters
at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.
Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase
and stick with in the face of less expensive alternatives...
...and you have to pretend that must mean they are "stoned" or in
some other way, less than your "brilliant" self...
...rather than admit that they are rational, reasonable people
making rational, reasonable choices.
$200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
No serious person has owned an iPhone since the early
2010s.
And you finish with a "no true Scotsman" fallacy!
It's obviously hyperbole.
Is it now?
So then you admit many "serious person[s]" own iPhones and
choose to continue to use iPhones when it comes time to buy a
new smartphone...
...right?
As I mentioned, I bought one for another person. That I would
do, she wanted that particular model. I had some extra money to
spend at the time, and it seemed cool. But if it were for me,
it would not be an iPhone.
Which literally has NOTHING to do with my text which preceded it.
You wanted me to admit serious people could choose an iPhone, I gaveYou having bought a phone for ONE person is hardly an admission about
an example of it that I was directly involved with. If that
"literally has NOTHING to do with" what you said, maybe you need a
break from this shit.
And you lost the argument from your first reply to me, above.
Tell me how I put an Apple Airtag in a wallet?
It's also easily hidden in a purse or a car.
On 2026-01-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-01-29 17:51, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-01-29 17:14, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-01-29 16:56, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
It's obvious he is an extreme Apple fanboy (being paid?) and a >>>>>>>>> lunatic who goes on the offensive as soon as a person mentions an >>>>>>>>> alternative to an Apple anything.Even if no claims of which is >>>>>>>>> better other than choice. That's a snit technique. Totally bogus. >>>>>>>>>> The guy is a certified lunatic.LOL!
ROTFLMAO!!!
So can you hide an air tag in a wallet?
In a purse?
No. But then when this first came up, you misidentified the product you >>>>>> were talking about...
...didn't you?
:-)
Nope.
Nice try.
All my comparisons are vs Apple Airtag 1 as the Airtag 2 was just released.
How utterly astonishing that you "misread" what I was saying.
Let me quote your entry into this topic:
Projection fail, once again.
You really do sound like snit.
Are you snit?
Which is why you had to snip your OWN WORDS:
'Even though I have both an Android and iPhone, I use "Spotminders tags"
because they work great, at least for me.'
Do you agree those were your words?
Of course I agree.
Do you have at least that much integrity?
Do you agree that Spotminders DOES sell tags as well as their "Tracking
Cards"?
I described what I use Spotminders for many times which anyone reading would realize that I use the cards regardless of what I call them.
How do you hide a tag in a wallet for example?
You're grasping at straws here Alan.
Do you have at least that much integrity?
I do.
You don't though.
But since you brought up the topic of tags, Spotminders offers both the cards AND tag devices.
Does Apple?
Yet another win for Spotminders.
Objectively, Apple isn't interested in competition, that's purely a
facade.-a They need Microsoft to be what it is, so they can be the
quirky alternative for quirky alternative people.-a As such, their
hardware and software both languish under mediocre development.
You clearly don't know what "objectively" means.
Apple produces products and those products compete with other personal digital devices in the market place.
Apple's hardware is clearly leading the way in certain areas...
...and you've never been able to articulate a single issue with their software.
We should want to punish Apple any way possible.
Why? What have they done to deserve (and I can absolutely
believe you'd use this word): "punishment"?
Well, let's think about it from a perspective we'd at least
agree is worth considering - Apple through their Mac product
line does serve a real need in computing.
That's an unsupported assertion.
Apple's Mac product line serves the real needs of its users so
well, they almost never EVER want to use anything else ever
again.
Yeah so ask yourself why, you yourself have talked up
repeatedly buying Macs, you probably have the slightest
insight.
Again: not really English.
Again:-a you are admitting not really being able to read English.
No. I'm stating that you wrote a sentence that makes no sense.
Let's remove the somewhat parenthetical clause from the middle of the sentence, and look at what you wrote:
"Yeah so ask yourself why you probably have the slightest insight.
In what world does that sentence make sense?
"Real need in computing" here means that there is more than a
niche market for macOS and software designed for it.
Circular argument.
macOS and software designed for it encompass the vast majority of
things that people want to do with personal computers.
OK but why are they choosing the Mac?
That's a very good question.
How about: because they've found it works well for them.
Is it just what was placed
in front of them?-a Usually, it's a very intentional choice, in fact,
and I'm recognizing that but since I'm expecting Apple to up its
game in response,
Why would Apple "up its game" in response to people being ferociously
loyal to their products.
I'm serious:
I've used, sold, supported both Macs and PCs for more than 30 years.
And in all that time, I've encountered less half a dozen people who
tried a Mac and wanted to go back to a PC.
My current work is computer and network support, and while I TECHNICALLY have clients with Macs for whom I provide support, the truth is that
they almost never need assistance.
There are people who simply get better results using
Apple's equipment for a PC, their software to run it.
Not even an understandable sentence...
You're not trying very hard, then.-a But that's OK, I know your
only goal here is to compete with me.
You think far too highly of yourself.
It's funny you'd say that though given how you seem to perceive
yourself, but OK.
Learn proper English punctuation.
As such, the price gouging on hardware sales does trouble
me, as a regulator.
You're NOT a "regulator".
I could make Apple repay its customers for overcharging them
over a long period of time.-a But I know better than to overuse
authority.
Your megalomania is showing again.
Your ignorance might be, if you really think I'm a megalomaniac.
LOL!
If they're continuing to make the base unit have 256 GB
storage, but the next step up is $200 extra, at what point
is that not just transparent gouging?
Because offering people products they freely purchase isn't
gouging of any kind.
It is gouging because if they want a non-joke of a computer they
have to pay so much extra that they're doing more than their
fair share to support the product line.-a It's ridiculous.
Circular.
It'll never be circular when half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.-a You have
not addressed that basic fact.
It doesn't need address.
Apple offers products for sale.
People freely buy them.
Why is 256 still an option?
Because it still works fine for many users.
And it's reasonable to cost $200 to double it?
If people are willing to pay it? Yes, absolutely.
Spoken like an Apple employee.
Spoken like someone who understands free market capitalism.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's
weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware,
but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from a
false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to
the point of obsession.
Oh, well past that point.
I do other things with my time than debate computers on Usenet.
Yet you reply to almost every post of mine instantly.
It has led me to even exaggerate including personal attacks on
Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real matters
at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.
Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase
and stick with in the face of less expensive alternatives...
...and you have to pretend that must mean they are "stoned" or in
some other way, less than your "brilliant" self...
...rather than admit that they are rational, reasonable people
making rational, reasonable choices.
$200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
$200 to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB.
Yes.
So...
...what?
On 2/2/26 4:45 PM, Alan wrote:
Objectively, Apple isn't interested in competition, that's purely a
facade.-a They need Microsoft to be what it is, so they can be the
quirky alternative for quirky alternative people.-a As such, their
hardware and software both languish under mediocre development.
You clearly don't know what "objectively" means.
Oh sure Apple boy, you tell me what objectivity is, I'll be all ears for that, heh.
Apple produces products and those products compete with other personal
digital devices in the market place.
Apple's hardware is clearly leading the way in certain areas...
...and you've never been able to articulate a single issue with their
software.
To the extent they haven't gone out of business yet, you have a point.
We should want to punish Apple any way possible.
Why? What have they done to deserve (and I can absolutely
believe you'd use this word): "punishment"?
Well, let's think about it from a perspective we'd at least
agree is worth considering - Apple through their Mac product
line does serve a real need in computing.
That's an unsupported assertion.
Apple's Mac product line serves the real needs of its users so
well, they almost never EVER want to use anything else ever
again.
Yeah so ask yourself why, you yourself have talked up
repeatedly buying Macs, you probably have the slightest
insight.
Again: not really English.
Again:-a you are admitting not really being able to read English.
No. I'm stating that you wrote a sentence that makes no sense.
Let's remove the somewhat parenthetical clause from the middle of the
sentence, and look at what you wrote:
"Yeah so ask yourself why you probably have the slightest insight.
In what world does that sentence make sense?
Uh dude, that is simple mental retardation.-a I didn't write that. You're literally gluing two completely separate phrases into one.-a Were you serious about that?-a If so, you need to see if you can pass a cognitive test like Trump.
"Real need in computing" here means that there is more than a
niche market for macOS and software designed for it.
Circular argument.
macOS and software designed for it encompass the vast majority of
things that people want to do with personal computers.
OK but why are they choosing the Mac?
That's a very good question.
How about: because they've found it works well for them.
Is it just what was placed
in front of them?-a Usually, it's a very intentional choice, in fact,
and I'm recognizing that but since I'm expecting Apple to up its
game in response,
Why would Apple "up its game" in response to people being ferociously
loyal to their products.
I'm serious:
I've used, sold, supported both Macs and PCs for more than 30 years.
And in all that time, I've encountered less half a dozen people who
tried a Mac and wanted to go back to a PC.
My current work is computer and network support, and while I
TECHNICALLY have clients with Macs for whom I provide support, the
truth is that they almost never need assistance.
It's good to know that their needs are met.
There are people who simply get better results using
Apple's equipment for a PC, their software to run it.
Not even an understandable sentence...
You're not trying very hard, then.-a But that's OK, I know your
only goal here is to compete with me.
You think far too highly of yourself.
It's funny you'd say that though given how you seem to perceive
yourself, but OK.
Learn proper English punctuation.
Get a brain.
As such, the price gouging on hardware sales does trouble
me, as a regulator.
You're NOT a "regulator".
I could make Apple repay its customers for overcharging them
over a long period of time.-a But I know better than to overuse
authority.
Your megalomania is showing again.
Your ignorance might be, if you really think I'm a megalomaniac.
LOL!
Laugh all you want, but you will see it in certain terms soon.
If they're continuing to make the base unit have 256 GB
storage, but the next step up is $200 extra, at what point
is that not just transparent gouging?
Because offering people products they freely purchase isn't
gouging of any kind.
It is gouging because if they want a non-joke of a computer they
have to pay so much extra that they're doing more than their
fair share to support the product line.-a It's ridiculous.
Circular.
It'll never be circular when half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.-a You have
not addressed that basic fact.
It doesn't need address.
Apple offers products for sale.
People freely buy them.
Then answer me why my $190 mini PC has a 512 GB SSD *along with the rest
of its parts*, how are they so much better able than Apple to get parts?
-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so you're
getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Why is 256 still an option?
Because it still works fine for many users.
And it's reasonable to cost $200 to double it?
If people are willing to pay it? Yes, absolutely.
Spoken like an Apple employee.
Spoken like someone who understands free market capitalism.
Uh huh except for the little fact that this favors those with more
means, they can pay for the privilege of having pretty Apple hardware in their house to keep up with the Joneses, how nice for them.-a If you're
OK with supporting such a racket, it's your money I guess.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's
weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware,
but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from a
false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew what they were
actually paying for.
I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to
the point of obsession.
Oh, well past that point.
I do other things with my time than debate computers on Usenet.
Yet you reply to almost every post of mine instantly.
It varies, in this particular case I hadn't even been on the computer
enough in the last couple days to catch up on Usenet, but that is
unusual for me, sure.
It has led me to even exaggerate including personal attacks on
Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real matters
at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.
Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase
and stick with in the face of less expensive alternatives...
...and you have to pretend that must mean they are "stoned" or in
some other way, less than your "brilliant" self...
...rather than admit that they are rational, reasonable people
making rational, reasonable choices.
$200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
$200 to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB.
Yes.
So...
...what?
You wanna know "so what"?!
-a Are you kidding me?-a The wholesale cost of
the SSD doesn't match with this "upgrade" price, not even remotely, it's
why 512 GB should be the base model, but no, Apple is years behind the
times on this.-a When I built my computer that died prematurely last
year, in 2021, I had a 1 TB NVMe WD Blue drive, for a little over $100
as a part.-a Is Apple's gear, relative to it being five years later, so
much better, or has the value of money inflated so much, or what the
HELL gives?-a Why is it $200 when you're already paying for a 256 GB
drive you no longer get?!-a How can you defend these clowns, seriously?
You wanna know "so what"?! Are you kidding me? The wholesale cost ofDon't waste your time with the Alan troll. He is 100% certifiably insane.
the SSD doesn't match with this "upgrade" price, not even remotely, it's
why 512 GB should be the base model, but no, Apple is years behind the
times on this. When I built my computer that died prematurely last
year, in 2021, I had a 1 TB NVMe WD Blue drive, for a little over $100
as a part. Is Apple's gear, relative to it being five years later, so
much better, or has the value of money inflated so much, or what the
HELL gives? Why is it $200 when you're already paying for a 256 GB
drive you no longer get?! How can you defend these clowns, seriously?
I posted a single reply to his thread regarding using Spotminders rather than Apple Airtags and he went bonkers. It was like I insulted his mamma or something.
Then he started the usual focusing on minutia like high horse does. So in one post
I incorrectly called the Spotminders credit card sized tracker a "tag" and currently
Spotminders recently did release tag type devices, which once again are superior
to Apple's Airtag.
Big deal.
It was obvious what I was referring to in the thread, like size, hide in a purse, wallet
passport, etc. A tag isn't a good choice for that.
Alan is the ultimate Apple zealot and like those with TDS he simply cannot, and
will not accept anything the competition or other side has to offer.
Actually I'm surprised he hasn't tried to argue that the Apple Airtag comes in
a better box EfOe
That's the level he argues at.
And the most interesting part is that I am in no way an Apple hater.
I use iPhones, Apple watches and have for years.
They guy is simply a religious wack job.
Place him in the Bozo Bin like I have.
Don't waste your time.
On 2026-02-04 15:50, pothead wrote:
[...]Big deal.
It was obvious what I was referring to in the thread, like size, hide
in a purse, wallet passport, etc. A tag isn't a good choice for that.
Not in your original post it wasn't obvious.
Why must you lie?
Alan is the ultimate Apple zealot and like those with TDS he simply
cannot, and
will not accept anything the competition or other side has to offer.
Actually I'm surprised he hasn't tried to argue that the Apple Airtag
comes in a better box EfOe
That's the level he argues at.
And the most interesting part is that I am in no way an Apple hater.
I use iPhones, Apple watches and have for years.
They guy is simply a religious wack job.
Place him in the Bozo Bin like I have.
Don't waste your time.
You mean like...
...inserting yourself into a thread just to take cheap shots at someone?
On 2026-01-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/29/26 18:23, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-29, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
...Yea, and where are you going to find a battery when your
luggage is in pengo pengo?
Pack a spare battery just in case you forgot to check
pre-trip. BTDT.
An option.
But then there is battery swelling to deal with.
Probably rare but still it happens.
People don't maintain their electronics anymore.
But odds of it going dead while on a trip is pretty low, as Apple
has an automatic "low battery" push notice, and IME the Airtag's
battery life is easily a few weeks longer, enough to get home
from a typical one week long trip. All in all, it is quite low
maintenance.
So does Spotminders, plus they send an email based upon when your
purchased letting you it's time to charge.
As usual you play with minutia while avoiding the obvious.
Nah, the obvious is that the Spotminders' much shorter battery life
pragmatically requires that they be regularly removed from where
they're deployed to be recharged, and since its battery life claim
is the usual marking caveat of "up to", the effective timeline
requires ~4x/year.
Yawn.
Warranty is lifetime.
Stick on a wireless charger and it's good for another 6 months or so.
Easy peasy.
And no danger of leaking, at least not to the level of a CR2032 which
can swell and leak.
YMMV on one's personal cost of convenience tolerance is, but since
the Airtag's annual operation cost is <$1/yr, its probably well
within most American's budget.
Spotminders is cheaper.
Aslo you need to purchase another device if you want to put an Airtag
on a keyring so that will cost you more for the much touted key ring advantage of the Airtag.
Obvious things like:
Super slim. looks like an ordinary credit card...
Sure, but that's only a meaningful differentiator if one needs
a credit card form factor, such as for a gentleman's wallet.
The rest of the use cases don't matter.
Purse.
Ask your wife about hidden pockets in purses.
Passport is another popular spot.
Luggage, can easily be hidden in the lining, unlike an Airtag.
Car, easily hidden, maybe in a headliner, stuck on the center console
lid etc.
Unlike an Airtag.
Easy to hide in plain sight unlike an Apple Airtag.
And what does "hide in plain sight" really mean here? I can't see
hanging a credit card off of the car keys in my pocket as being less
bulky -- or unsightly -- as a "fat coin" form factor.
Actually if you park in a commercial or even an HOA garage card keys
are popular and people hang them on their key ring. However
Spotminders does make a Smarttag which is designed for a key ring
and unlike Apple it has a hole in it so you don't have to buy an
extra piece.
So Spotminders makes different devices.
Apple makes one size fits all.
Many more advantages ...
Such as?
Warranty.
Sound is louder than Apple.
Construction gets higher marks as being superior.
If you buy on sale, price is less.
Here is a special on the SmartTag, 5 for $87:00
I got the credit card version 4 for $88.00
however what I find interesting is how Anal, not you hh, jumped
all over my initial post where all I said was i use Spotminders
rather than Airtag.
I glanced through them - just what was so wrong?
Just because I mentioned a competitor's product he went bonkers.
Going back, I see the following points:
* you were corrected on two factual errors (battery is replaceable,
waterproof ratings are the same);
Yes.
From a website that was incorrect.
Neither was really a consideration for me at the time though.
I don't typically take my purse/wallet into the water when I am at
the beach.
* the claim of "Low-grade plastic" is (% remains) unsubstantiated;
Serial number is engraved on Spotminders rather than a sticker.
That says quality to me, but yea marketing stuff.
* the claim of "no risk of battery swelling" needs an explanation
why;
There is no separate battery like a CR 2032.
It's an internal lithium polymer battery (I think?). Another
advantage is the card is eco friendly, which I'm sure you will like.
No CR 2032 batteries to dispose of.
* he agreed that a credit card sized product has it's place
(but often isn't a differentiator);
* his point that a "lifetime guarantee" is a valid risk for
relatively new companies;
Pure speculation.
Lifetime warranty vs 1 year warranty.
Easy peasy.
* he concluded that you're paying extra for a worse product when form
factor isn't needed.
He is wrong.
I've explained this many times already.
The biggest thing that I saw wrong from the above was that Alan used
an overly high price for the Airtag for ROI comparisons, so instead
of the Spotminder's breakeven point being at ~4.5 years, its out at
~19 years.
There you go into the minutia rabbit hole again.
FWIW, in addition to luggage we've frequently deployed Airtags in
purses & similar small bags ... but the places that I've never even
thought about deploying them are inside my wallet (which is where
a CC form factor would apply) or within a moneybelt/passport carrier.
Everyone is different.
I stated MY needs and initially I never stated an Apple vs Spotminders comparison.
Alan was the one who went bonkers on that one.
We should want to punish Apple any way possible.
Why? What have they done to deserve (and I can absolutely
believe you'd use this word): "punishment"?
Well, let's think about it from a perspective we'd at least
agree is worth considering - Apple through their Mac product
line does serve a real need in computing.
That's an unsupported assertion.
Apple's Mac product line serves the real needs of its users so
well, they almost never EVER want to use anything else ever
again.
Yeah so ask yourself why, you yourself have talked up
repeatedly buying Macs, you probably have the slightest
insight.
Again: not really English.
Again:-a you are admitting not really being able to read English.
No. I'm stating that you wrote a sentence that makes no sense.
Let's remove the somewhat parenthetical clause from the middle of the
sentence, and look at what you wrote:
"Yeah so ask yourself why you probably have the slightest insight.
In what world does that sentence make sense?
Uh dude, that is simple mental retardation.-a I didn't write that.
You're literally gluing two completely separate phrases into one.
Were you serious about that?-a If so, you need to see if you can pass a
cognitive test like Trump.
I removed a separate clause, that was separated by commas from the rest, which shouldn't have affected the grammar and sense of what remained.
Watch:
'I removed a separate clause which shouldn't have affected the grammar
and sense of what remained.'
See?
If they're continuing to make the base unit have 256 GB
storage, but the next step up is $200 extra, at what point
is that not just transparent gouging?
Because offering people products they freely purchase isn't
gouging of any kind.
It is gouging because if they want a non-joke of a computer they
have to pay so much extra that they're doing more than their
fair share to support the product line.-a It's ridiculous.
Circular.
It'll never be circular when half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.-a You have
not addressed that basic fact.
It doesn't need address.
Apple offers products for sale.
People freely buy them.
Then answer me why my $190 mini PC has a 512 GB SSD *along with the
rest of its parts*, how are they so much better able than Apple to get
parts?
Because people don't buy PARTS. They buy a SYSTEM.
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so you're
getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was when I
was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
Why is 256 still an option?
Because it still works fine for many users.
And it's reasonable to cost $200 to double it?
If people are willing to pay it? Yes, absolutely.
Spoken like an Apple employee.
Spoken like someone who understands free market capitalism.
Uh huh except for the little fact that this favors those with more
means, they can pay for the privilege of having pretty Apple hardware
in their house to keep up with the Joneses, how nice for them.-a If
you're OK with supporting such a racket, it's your money I guess.
The PEOPLE who BUY the Apple devices feel like they're getting good
value for their money.
Period.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's
weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware,
but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from a
false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the question
is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew what they were
actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to figure out
this kind of thing.
I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to
the point of obsession.
Oh, well past that point.
I do other things with my time than debate computers on Usenet.
Yet you reply to almost every post of mine instantly.
It varies, in this particular case I hadn't even been on the computer
enough in the last couple days to catch up on Usenet, but that is
unusual for me, sure.
Riiiiiiiight.
My bet: you felt a need to prove you didn't reply instantly all the
time, and so deliberately refrained until some had passed.
It has led me to even exaggerate including personal attacks on
Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real matters
at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.
Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase
and stick with in the face of less expensive alternatives...
...and you have to pretend that must mean they are "stoned" or in
some other way, less than your "brilliant" self...
...rather than admit that they are rational, reasonable people
making rational, reasonable choices.
$200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
$200 to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB.
Yes.
So...
...what?
You wanna know "so what"?!
Yes.
-a Are you kidding me?-a The wholesale cost of the SSD doesn't match
with this "upgrade" price, not even remotely, it's why 512 GB should
be the base model, but no, Apple is years behind the times on this.
When I built my computer that died prematurely last year, in 2021, I
had a 1 TB NVMe WD Blue drive, for a little over $100 as a part.-a Is
Apple's gear, relative to it being five years later, so much better,
or has the value of money inflated so much, or what the HELL gives?
Why is it $200 when you're already paying for a 256 GB drive you no
longer get?!-a How can you defend these clowns, seriously?
PEOPLE buy SYSTEMS. The only thing that matters is the value of the...
...SYSTEM AS A WHOLE...
...as determined by...
...the PEOPLE WHO USE THEM.
The question you should really be asking is:
Why people are willing to spend so much more if all that matters is the initial cost?
On 2/4/26 6:46 PM, Alan wrote:
We should want to punish Apple any way possible.
Why? What have they done to deserve (and I can absolutely
believe you'd use this word): "punishment"?
Well, let's think about it from a perspective we'd at least
agree is worth considering - Apple through their Mac product >>>>>>>>> line does serve a real need in computing.
That's an unsupported assertion.
Apple's Mac product line serves the real needs of its users so >>>>>>>> well, they almost never EVER want to use anything else ever
again.
Yeah so ask yourself why, you yourself have talked up
repeatedly buying Macs, you probably have the slightest
insight.
Again: not really English.
Again:-a you are admitting not really being able to read English.
No. I'm stating that you wrote a sentence that makes no sense.
Let's remove the somewhat parenthetical clause from the middle of
the sentence, and look at what you wrote:
"Yeah so ask yourself why you probably have the slightest insight.
In what world does that sentence make sense?
Uh dude, that is simple mental retardation.-a I didn't write that.
You're literally gluing two completely separate phrases into one.
Were you serious about that?-a If so, you need to see if you can pass
a cognitive test like Trump.
I removed a separate clause, that was separated by commas from the
rest, which shouldn't have affected the grammar and sense of what
remained.
Watch:
'I removed a separate clause which shouldn't have affected the grammar
and sense of what remained.'
See?
Wow, I think the other poster who questioned whether you were on the spectrum might have been right.
If they're continuing to make the base unit have 256 GB
storage, but the next step up is $200 extra, at what point
is that not just transparent gouging?
Because offering people products they freely purchase isn't
gouging of any kind.
It is gouging because if they want a non-joke of a computer they >>>>>>> have to pay so much extra that they're doing more than their
fair share to support the product line.-a It's ridiculous.
Circular.
It'll never be circular when half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.-a You have >>>>> not addressed that basic fact.
It doesn't need address.
Apple offers products for sale.
People freely buy them.
Then answer me why my $190 mini PC has a 512 GB SSD *along with the
rest of its parts*, how are they so much better able than Apple to
get parts?
Because people don't buy PARTS. They buy a SYSTEM.
I didn't buy the mini as parts, myself, for once, and it turned out I
really preferred the concept, disaster turned into something kind of beneficial, but nevertheless, its whole retail price on Amazon was less
than Apple is charging for half of your modestly sized SSD.
You have not addressed that.-a Because no one can.-a Apple charges
whatever they want, you pay it because you're loyal, but damn is it expensive.
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so you're
getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was when
I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be such a
fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without being
compensated.-a When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, I was
promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux skeptic, but
I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I was critical of MS in ways that showed insight and willingness to acknowledge its flaws.
You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
Why is 256 still an option?
Because it still works fine for many users.
And it's reasonable to cost $200 to double it?
If people are willing to pay it? Yes, absolutely.
Spoken like an Apple employee.
Spoken like someone who understands free market capitalism.
Uh huh except for the little fact that this favors those with more
means, they can pay for the privilege of having pretty Apple hardware
in their house to keep up with the Joneses, how nice for them.-a If
you're OK with supporting such a racket, it's your money I guess.
The PEOPLE who BUY the Apple devices feel like they're getting good
value for their money.
Period.
They can do what they want, there are worse luxuries people spend on to
be sure, far worse at that - however, you do have to ask, wouldn't
investing in a Mac be a lot like in a luxury vehicle?-a It seems like a
good comparison, because they are examples of functional products in categories that enough people own to be considered ubiquitous, but at
the same time in the higher end in cost of ownership of the categories.
And your point would essentially be fair, that they chose freely to
spend the money on these products, but what is really better about them?
Obviously, the person buying it believes there is something better about
it, but to me it seems marginal.-a There's nothing a Hyundai is missing
that actually matters in a car.-a But it's half the sticker price of a Lexus.
You see the comparison, therefore, between Apple's hardware offerings
and a luxury car, at worst for my argument you could point out that higher-end PCs are also expensive, but I would simply retort that they
have higher specs.
Apple sucks, dude.-a Face reality.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's
weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware,
but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from a >>>>>> false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the question
is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew what they were
actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to figure
out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
It might come relatively
easily to me, but common sense should tell a potential customer visiting Apple's site that their Mac line is overpriced.-a And comparing it to PCs they will definitely find products that offer betters specs at
comparable quality.-a This is why Mac users are a cult, they stand out as being exceedingly loyal to a company that gouges them.
I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to
the point of obsession.
Oh, well past that point.
I do other things with my time than debate computers on Usenet.
Yet you reply to almost every post of mine instantly.
It varies, in this particular case I hadn't even been on the computer
enough in the last couple days to catch up on Usenet, but that is
unusual for me, sure.
Riiiiiiiight.
My bet: you felt a need to prove you didn't reply instantly all the
time, and so deliberately refrained until some had passed.
You would not win the bet, I was really not feeling great, I was
spending time resting, and when I was on the computer I found it very tiring.-a I simply never even checked for new messages in COLA during the period of time.-a You can not believe me, but that only enables me not to believe your denials about working for Apple.-a So have it your way.
It has led me to even exaggerate including personal attacks on
Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real matters
at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.
Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase
and stick with in the face of less expensive alternatives...
...and you have to pretend that must mean they are "stoned" or in
some other way, less than your "brilliant" self...
...rather than admit that they are rational, reasonable people
making rational, reasonable choices.
$200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
$200 to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB.
Yes.
So...
...what?
You wanna know "so what"?!
Yes.
-a Are you kidding me?-a The wholesale cost of the SSD doesn't match
with this "upgrade" price, not even remotely, it's why 512 GB should
be the base model, but no, Apple is years behind the times on this.
When I built my computer that died prematurely last year, in 2021, I
had a 1 TB NVMe WD Blue drive, for a little over $100 as a part.-a Is
Apple's gear, relative to it being five years later, so much better,
or has the value of money inflated so much, or what the HELL gives?
Why is it $200 when you're already paying for a 256 GB drive you no
longer get?!-a How can you defend these clowns, seriously?
PEOPLE buy SYSTEMS. The only thing that matters is the value of the...
...SYSTEM AS A WHOLE...
...as determined by...
...the PEOPLE WHO USE THEM.
The question you should really be asking is:
Why people are willing to spend so much more if all that matters is
the initial cost?
You don't think I'd see that as simple deflection?-a Come on, we're not talking about "all that matters is the initial cost", we're talkingApple doesn't "coerce" any payments, doofus.
about Apple's way of coercing excessive payment for what should be
standard hardware, the SSD issue being the most ridiculously blatant example, the half of a 512 GB drive for $200, that is so utterly stupid
and greedy it boggles the mind, and you are totally OK with it.
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so you're >>>> getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was
when I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be such
a fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without being
compensated.-a When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, I was
promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux skeptic,
but I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I was critical of
MS in ways that showed insight and willingness to acknowledge its flaws.
You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's
weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware, >>>>>>>> but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from a >>>>>>> false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the
question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew what
they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to figure
out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
It might come relatively easily to me, but common sense should tell a
potential customer visiting Apple's site that their Mac line is
overpriced.-a And comparing it to PCs they will definitely find
products that offer betters specs at comparable quality.-a This is why
Mac users are a cult, they stand out as being exceedingly loyal to a
company that gouges them.
But you ASSUME that the only things that matter are the hardware specs.
They are NOT the only things that matter.
I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to
the point of obsession.
Oh, well past that point.
I do other things with my time than debate computers on Usenet.
Yet you reply to almost every post of mine instantly.
It varies, in this particular case I hadn't even been on the
computer enough in the last couple days to catch up on Usenet, but
that is unusual for me, sure.
Riiiiiiiight.
My bet: you felt a need to prove you didn't reply instantly all the
time, and so deliberately refrained until some had passed.
You would not win the bet, I was really not feeling great, I was
spending time resting, and when I was on the computer I found it very
tiring.-a I simply never even checked for new messages in COLA during
the period of time.-a You can not believe me, but that only enables me
not to believe your denials about working for Apple.-a So have it your
way.
Sure. I will.
It has led me to even exaggerate including personal attacks on >>>>>>>> Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real matters >>>>>>>> at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.
Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase >>>>>>> and stick with in the face of less expensive alternatives...
...and you have to pretend that must mean they are "stoned" or in >>>>>>> some other way, less than your "brilliant" self...
...rather than admit that they are rational, reasonable people
making rational, reasonable choices.
$200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
$200 to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB.
Yes.
So...
...what?
You wanna know "so what"?!
Yes.
-a Are you kidding me?-a The wholesale cost of the SSD doesn't match
with this "upgrade" price, not even remotely, it's why 512 GB should
be the base model, but no, Apple is years behind the times on this.
When I built my computer that died prematurely last year, in 2021, I
had a 1 TB NVMe WD Blue drive, for a little over $100 as a part.-a Is >>>> Apple's gear, relative to it being five years later, so much better,
or has the value of money inflated so much, or what the HELL gives?
Why is it $200 when you're already paying for a 256 GB drive you no
longer get?!-a How can you defend these clowns, seriously?
PEOPLE buy SYSTEMS. The only thing that matters is the value of the...
...SYSTEM AS A WHOLE...
...as determined by...
...the PEOPLE WHO USE THEM.
The question you should really be asking is:
Why people are willing to spend so much more if all that matters is
the initial cost?
You don't think I'd see that as simple deflection?-a Come on, we're not
talking about "all that matters is the initial cost", we're talking
about Apple's way of coercing excessive payment for what should be
standard hardware, the SSD issue being the most ridiculously blatant
example, the half of a 512 GB drive for $200, that is so utterly
stupid and greedy it boggles the mind, and you are totally OK with it.
Apple doesn't "coerce" any payments, doofus.
The offer products that are more than merely their hardware.
On 1/31/26 18:10, pothead wrote:And will you look at that, H: it's been an entire week and PH hasn't had
On 2026-01-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/29/26 18:23, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-29, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Yea, and where are you going to find a battery when your luggage is...
in pengo pengo?
Pack a spare battery just in case you forgot to check pre-trip.-a BTDT.
An option.
But then there is battery swelling to deal with.
Risks are never zero, but you're misapplying the swelling risks of rechargeable lithium batteries to a non-rechargeable lithium battery chemistry, since the former has many cycles and the latter only ever has
one (1) cycle.-a Main factor increasing the chemical off-gassing risk is
an environment where temperatures exceed 45C (115F), but this applies
for both battery types.
On 2/4/26 9:44 PM, Alan wrote:
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so you're >>>>> getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was
when I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be
such a fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without being
compensated.-a When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, I was
promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux skeptic,
but I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I was critical
of MS in ways that showed insight and willingness to acknowledge its
flaws.
You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue,
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how much it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you literally are an Apple employee, paid to post here.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's >>>>>>>>> weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware, >>>>>>>>> but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from >>>>>>>> a false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the
question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew what
they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to figure
out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this?-a 'Cause
I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar reasons to mine.
It might come relatively easily to me, but common sense should tell a
potential customer visiting Apple's site that their Mac line is
overpriced.-a And comparing it to PCs they will definitely find
products that offer betters specs at comparable quality.-a This is why
Mac users are a cult, they stand out as being exceedingly loyal to a
company that gouges them.
But you ASSUME that the only things that matter are the hardware specs.
They are NOT the only things that matter.
They matter in price.-a What is Apple giving you otherwise, their crap software?
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that
they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a total cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
I hate Apple with a severe passion, almost to
the point of obsession.
Oh, well past that point.
I do other things with my time than debate computers on Usenet.
Yet you reply to almost every post of mine instantly.
It varies, in this particular case I hadn't even been on the
computer enough in the last couple days to catch up on Usenet, but
that is unusual for me, sure.
Riiiiiiiight.
My bet: you felt a need to prove you didn't reply instantly all the
time, and so deliberately refrained until some had passed.
You would not win the bet, I was really not feeling great, I was
spending time resting, and when I was on the computer I found it very
tiring.-a I simply never even checked for new messages in COLA during
the period of time.-a You can not believe me, but that only enables me
not to believe your denials about working for Apple.-a So have it your
way.
Sure. I will.
So you're delusional, OK.
It has led me to even exaggerate including personal attacks on >>>>>>>>> Mac users, but I try to also actually address the real matters >>>>>>>>> at work, and Apple is guilty of a lot.
Apple is "guilty" of making products that people want to purchase >>>>>>>> and stick with in the face of less expensive alternatives...
...and you have to pretend that must mean they are "stoned" or in >>>>>>>> some other way, less than your "brilliant" self...
...rather than admit that they are rational, reasonable people >>>>>>>> making rational, reasonable choices.
$200 for half of a 512 GB SSD.
$200 to upgrade from 256GB to 512GB.
Yes.
So...
...what?
You wanna know "so what"?!
Yes.
-a Are you kidding me?-a The wholesale cost of the SSD doesn't match >>>>> with this "upgrade" price, not even remotely, it's why 512 GB
should be the base model, but no, Apple is years behind the times
on this. When I built my computer that died prematurely last year,
in 2021, I had a 1 TB NVMe WD Blue drive, for a little over $100 as >>>>> a part.-a Is Apple's gear, relative to it being five years later, so >>>>> much better, or has the value of money inflated so much, or what
the HELL gives? Why is it $200 when you're already paying for a 256 >>>>> GB drive you no longer get?!-a How can you defend these clowns,
seriously?
PEOPLE buy SYSTEMS. The only thing that matters is the value of the... >>>>
...SYSTEM AS A WHOLE...
...as determined by...
...the PEOPLE WHO USE THEM.
The question you should really be asking is:
Why people are willing to spend so much more if all that matters is
the initial cost?
You don't think I'd see that as simple deflection?-a Come on, we're
not talking about "all that matters is the initial cost", we're
talking about Apple's way of coercing excessive payment for what
should be standard hardware, the SSD issue being the most
ridiculously blatant example, the half of a 512 GB drive for $200,
that is so utterly stupid and greedy it boggles the mind, and you are
totally OK with it.
Apple doesn't "coerce" any payments, doofus.
The offer products that are more than merely their hardware.
Yeah and the funny part is that it gets *worse* when you start talking
about macOS and the vast majority of its native software, it's sad.
-a TheYou've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS software in particular has.
best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that shit when it's
on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw it in 2010.-a But most
of the small apps I downloaded/registered/whatever for then-OS X were
just pathetic crapware, made by brain-damaged nerds.-a Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are necessary, since GNU/Linux gives me the same
sleekness of macOS while improving on Windows' robustness overall, a win-win.
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so
you're getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was
when I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be
such a fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without being
compensated.-a When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, I was
promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux skeptic,
but I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I was critical
of MS in ways that showed insight and willingness to acknowledge its
flaws.
You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue,
WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"...
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed?
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how much it's
talked about you stick to your guns, because you literally are an
Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's >>>>>>>>>> weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware, >>>>>>>>>> but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed from >>>>>>>>> a false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the
question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew what >>>>>> they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to figure >>>>> out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this?
'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar reasons
to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their products at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
It might come relatively easily to me, but common sense should tell
a potential customer visiting Apple's site that their Mac line is
overpriced.-a And comparing it to PCs they will definitely find
products that offer betters specs at comparable quality.-a This is
why Mac users are a cult, they stand out as being exceedingly loyal
to a company that gouges them.
But you ASSUME that the only things that matter are the hardware specs.
They are NOT the only things that matter.
They matter in price.-a What is Apple giving you otherwise, their crap
software?
You saying it's "crap" doesn't make it so?
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that they
claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a total
cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple Desktop Bus)?
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that shit
when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw it in
2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/registered/whatever for
then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, made by brain-damaged nerds.
Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are necessary, since GNU/Linux
gives me the same sleekness of macOS while improving on Windows'
robustness overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS software in particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is better than
the macOS equivalent?
On 2/9/26 2:38 PM, Alan wrote:
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so
you're getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was >>>>>> when I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be
such a fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without
being compensated.-a When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, I >>>>> was promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux
skeptic, but I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I was >>>>> critical of MS in ways that showed insight and willingness to
acknowledge its flaws.
You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue,
WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"...
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed?
Cost, not electricity, as the rest of my sentence you split said.
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how much
it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you literally are
an Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
OK.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's >>>>>>>>>>> weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware, >>>>>>>>>>> but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed >>>>>>>>>> from a false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the
question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew
what they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to
figure out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this?
'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar reasons
to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their products
at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
No.-a Because I see right through what Apple is doing.-a You are a nice
guy, more or less, but you are a privileged, (presumably) white person
with the means to afford Apple's stuff.-a As such, you are a cash cow to them.-a A willing victim of their price gouging.-a Your money to spend, sure, you may think it's worth it, I don't dispute that, but it's still completely ridiculous that half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.
It might come relatively easily to me, but common sense should tell >>>>> a potential customer visiting Apple's site that their Mac line is
overpriced.-a And comparing it to PCs they will definitely find
products that offer betters specs at comparable quality.-a This is
why Mac users are a cult, they stand out as being exceedingly loyal >>>>> to a company that gouges them.
But you ASSUME that the only things that matter are the hardware specs. >>>>
They are NOT the only things that matter.
They matter in price.-a What is Apple giving you otherwise, their crap
software?
You saying it's "crap" doesn't make it so?
It is crap, by any objective standard.-a Right-brained people like it, though, and I don't begrudge that.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that they
claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a total
cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple
Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU forced them
to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to make them
compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was superior, albeit for the function of charging
the device, not using it.
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that shit
when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw it in
2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/registered/whatever
for then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, made by brain-damaged
nerds. Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are necessary, since GNU/
Linux gives me the same sleekness of macOS while improving on
Windows' robustness overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS software in
particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is better
than the macOS equivalent?
Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I preferSo asked to name an application you actually use that's better than the
the average app developed for the Unix platform to the average macOS app.
On 2026-02-02 10:28, -hh wrote:
On 1/31/26 18:10, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/29/26 18:23, pothead wrote:An option.
On 2026-01-29, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Yea, and where are you going to find a battery when your luggage is >>>>> in pengo pengo?...
Pack a spare battery just in case you forgot to check pre-trip.-a BTDT. >>>
But then there is battery swelling to deal with.
Risks are never zero, but you're misapplying the swelling risks of
rechargeable lithium batteries to a non-rechargeable lithium battery
chemistry, since the former has many cycles and the latter only ever
has one (1) cycle.-a Main factor increasing the chemical off-gassing
risk is an environment where temperatures exceed 45C (115F), but this
applies for both battery types.
And will you look at that, H: it's been an entire week and PH hasn't had
a thing to say.
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so >>>>>>>> you're getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" was >>>>>>> when I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be >>>>>> such a fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without
being compensated.-a When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, >>>>>> I was promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux >>>>>> skeptic, but I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I
was critical of MS in ways that showed insight and willingness to >>>>>> acknowledge its flaws.
You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue,
WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"...
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed?
Cost, not electricity, as the rest of my sentence you split said.
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how much
it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you literally are
an Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
OK.
Charging what people are willing to pay is NOT "overcharging"...
...UNLESS THEY HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PAY.
Since Apple isn't the only maker of personal computers, people are
willingly choosing to buy what Apple offers...
...precisely because it isn't about the components.
It is about buying a whole system that they find works well for them.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's >>>>>>>>>>>> weird how they don't focus more on having competitive hardware, >>>>>>>>>>>> but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed >>>>>>>>>>> from a false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the
question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew >>>>>>>> what they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to
figure out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this?
'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar reasons >>>> to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their products
at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
No.-a Because I see right through what Apple is doing.-a You are a nice
guy, more or less, but you are a privileged, (presumably) white person
with the means to afford Apple's stuff.-a As such, you are a cash cow
to them.-a A willing victim of their price gouging.-a Your money to
spend, sure, you may think it's worth it, I don't dispute that, but
it's still completely ridiculous that half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.
And out come the personal insults...
It might come relatively easily to me, but common sense should
tell a potential customer visiting Apple's site that their Mac
line is overpriced.-a And comparing it to PCs they will definitely >>>>>> find products that offer betters specs at comparable quality.
This is why Mac users are a cult, they stand out as being
exceedingly loyal to a company that gouges them.
But you ASSUME that the only things that matter are the hardware
specs.
They are NOT the only things that matter.
They matter in price.-a What is Apple giving you otherwise, their
crap software?
You saying it's "crap" doesn't make it so?
It is crap, by any objective standard.-a Right-brained people like it,
though, and I don't begrudge that.
If that were true, you could explain how.
You never have.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that they
claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a total
cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple
Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU forced
them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to make them
compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in that respect, I
actually think Apple was superior, albeit for the function of charging
the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced Macs with
SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs that
used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its introduction.
Etc.
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that shit >>>> when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw it in
2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/registered/whatever
for then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, made by brain-damaged
nerds. Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are necessary, since GNU/
Linux gives me the same sleekness of macOS while improving on
Windows' robustness overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS software
in particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is better
than the macOS equivalent?
Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I prefer
the average app developed for the Unix platform to the average macOS app.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
On 2/9/26 3:53 PM, Alan wrote:
-a-aWhat a load of bullshit, dude, you just work for Apple, so >>>>>>>>> you're getting your slice of the pie.-a It's obvious.
Nope. Sorry. The closest I ever came to "work[ing] for Apple" >>>>>>>> was when I was selling Macs at an Apple dealer...
nearly 30 YEARS ago.
I want to believe you, but it would really almost be worse, to be >>>>>>> such a fan that you do this backbreaking work for them without
being compensated.-a When I first came to the advocacy newsgroups, >>>>>>> I was promoting Windows 7, for example, I have my past as a Linux >>>>>>> skeptic, but I also promoted what was then called OpenOffice, I >>>>>>> was critical of MS in ways that showed insight and willingness to >>>>>>> acknowledge its flaws.
You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue,
WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"...
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed?
Cost, not electricity, as the rest of my sentence you split said.
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how much
it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you literally are >>>>> an Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
OK.
Charging what people are willing to pay is NOT "overcharging"...
...UNLESS THEY HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PAY.
Since Apple isn't the only maker of personal computers, people are
willingly choosing to buy what Apple offers...
...precisely because it isn't about the components.
It is about buying a whole system that they find works well for them.
That's provably false.-a The cost of upgrading the SSD/etc. makes the
"whole system's" price outrageous.-a 256 GB even being offered is part of the scheme - it's fair to say it's enough for some people, sure, but a
lot of people are gonna say "well, I can't get by with that, but I must
have a Mac, so I'll just bite the bullet and pay $200 extra".-a That's
the *definition* of price gouging.
If all their revenue for the Mac line is hardware sales, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> weird how they don't focus more on having competitive >>>>>>>>>>>>> hardware,
but that's Apple,
Their hardware sells well.
Mac sales figures continue to trend upward, so you proceed >>>>>>>>>>>> from a false premise.
Shitty OEM PCs sell well, too.
OK? So?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the >>>>>>>>> question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew >>>>>>>>> what they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to
figure out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this?
'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar
reasons to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their products
at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
No.-a Because I see right through what Apple is doing.-a You are a nice >>> guy, more or less, but you are a privileged, (presumably) white
person with the means to afford Apple's stuff.-a As such, you are a
cash cow to them.-a A willing victim of their price gouging.-a Your
money to spend, sure, you may think it's worth it, I don't dispute
that, but it's still completely ridiculous that half of a 512 GB SSD
is $200.
And out come the personal insults...
Maybe, but you didn't refute the point.
It might come relatively easily to me, but common sense should
tell a potential customer visiting Apple's site that their Mac
line is overpriced.-a And comparing it to PCs they will definitely >>>>>>> find products that offer betters specs at comparable quality.
This is why Mac users are a cult, they stand out as being
exceedingly loyal to a company that gouges them.
But you ASSUME that the only things that matter are the hardware
specs.
They are NOT the only things that matter.
They matter in price.-a What is Apple giving you otherwise, their
crap software?
You saying it's "crap" doesn't make it so?
It is crap, by any objective standard.-a Right-brained people like it,
though, and I don't begrudge that.
If that were true, you could explain how.
You never have.
The way the interface functions is quirky, like right-brained people's minds.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that they >>>>> claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a total
cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple
Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU forced
them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to make them
compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in that respect,
I actually think Apple was superior, albeit for the function of
charging the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal computer
standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced Macs with
SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs that
used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out that the proprietary nature of some of these features supports the idea that
Apple trends nonstandard, though.
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that shit >>>>> when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw it in
2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/registered/whatever >>>>> for then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, made by brain-damaged
nerds. Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are necessary, since GNU/ >>>>> Linux gives me the same sleekness of macOS while improving on
Windows' robustness overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS software
in particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is better
than the macOS equivalent?
Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the average
macOS app.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better than
the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point.-a It'sThen name an app.
not a surrender.
WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"...You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue, >>>>>
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed?
Cost, not electricity, as the rest of my sentence you split said.
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how much >>>>>> it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you literally
are an Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
OK.
Charging what people are willing to pay is NOT "overcharging"...
...UNLESS THEY HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PAY.
Since Apple isn't the only maker of personal computers, people are
willingly choosing to buy what Apple offers...
...precisely because it isn't about the components.
It is about buying a whole system that they find works well for them.
That's provably false.-a The cost of upgrading the SSD/etc. makes the
"whole system's" price outrageous.-a 256 GB even being offered is part
of the scheme - it's fair to say it's enough for some people, sure,
but a lot of people are gonna say "well, I can't get by with that, but
I must have a Mac, so I'll just bite the bullet and pay $200 extra".
That's the *definition* of price gouging.
If it's "provably false"...you really should have said something that
proves it.
"Outrageous" is an adjective and proves nothing.
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the >>>>>>>>>> question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew >>>>>>>>>> what they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to >>>>>>>>> figure out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this?
'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar
reasons to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their
products at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
No.-a Because I see right through what Apple is doing.-a You are a
nice guy, more or less, but you are a privileged, (presumably) white
person with the means to afford Apple's stuff.-a As such, you are a
cash cow to them.-a A willing victim of their price gouging.-a Your
money to spend, sure, you may think it's worth it, I don't dispute
that, but it's still completely ridiculous that half of a 512 GB SSD
is $200.
And out come the personal insults...
Maybe, but you didn't refute the point.
Because there were no points of substance to refute.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that they >>>>>> claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a total >>>>>> cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple
Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU forced
them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to make them
compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in that respect, >>>> I actually think Apple was superior, albeit for the function of
charging the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal
computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced Macs
with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs that
used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out that the
proprietary nature of some of these features supports the idea that
Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that >>>>>> shit when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw
it in 2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/registered/ >>>>>> whatever for then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, made by brain- >>>>>> damaged nerds. Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are necessary,
since GNU/ Linux gives me the same sleekness of macOS while
improving on Windows' robustness overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS software >>>>> in particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is better
than the macOS equivalent?
Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better than
the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point.-a It's
not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
On 2/9/26 7:04 PM, Alan wrote:
WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"... >>>>>>You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple.
I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue, >>>>>>
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed?
Cost, not electricity, as the rest of my sentence you split said.
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how much >>>>>>> it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you literally >>>>>>> are an Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
OK.
Charging what people are willing to pay is NOT "overcharging"...
...UNLESS THEY HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PAY.
Since Apple isn't the only maker of personal computers, people are
willingly choosing to buy what Apple offers...
...precisely because it isn't about the components.
It is about buying a whole system that they find works well for them.
That's provably false.-a The cost of upgrading the SSD/etc. makes the
"whole system's" price outrageous.-a 256 GB even being offered is part
of the scheme - it's fair to say it's enough for some people, sure,
but a lot of people are gonna say "well, I can't get by with that,
but I must have a Mac, so I'll just bite the bullet and pay $200
extra". That's the *definition* of price gouging.
If it's "provably false"...you really should have said something that
proves it.
"Outrageous" is an adjective and proves nothing.
OK, then, tell me straight out, answer the question for once, why is the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that cost?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the >>>>>>>>>>> question is whether this really makes sense if consumers knew >>>>>>>>>>> what they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to >>>>>>>>>> figure out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this? >>>>>>> 'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar
reasons to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their
products at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
No.-a Because I see right through what Apple is doing.-a You are a
nice guy, more or less, but you are a privileged, (presumably)
white person with the means to afford Apple's stuff.-a As such, you >>>>> are a cash cow to them.-a A willing victim of their price gouging. >>>>> Your money to spend, sure, you may think it's worth it, I don't
dispute that, but it's still completely ridiculous that half of a
512 GB SSD is $200.
And out come the personal insults...
Maybe, but you didn't refute the point.
Because there were no points of substance to refute.
Again, explain why the SSD upgrade is so expensive.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that
they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a >>>>>>> total cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple
Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU forced >>>>> them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to make them >>>>> compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in that
respect, I actually think Apple was superior, albeit for the
function of charging the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal
computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced Macs
with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs
that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its introduction. >>>>
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out that
the proprietary nature of some of these features supports the idea
that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In practice,
they were Apple proprietary.
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that >>>>>>> shit when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw >>>>>>> it in 2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/registered/ >>>>>>> whatever for then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, made by
brain- damaged nerds. Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are
necessary, since GNU/ Linux gives me the same sleekness of macOS >>>>>>> while improving on Windows' robustness overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS
software in particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is better >>>>>> than the macOS equivalent?
Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better than
the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point.-a It's
not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
That's provably false.-a The cost of upgrading the SSD/etc. makes the >>>> "whole system's" price outrageous.-a 256 GB even being offered isCost, not electricity, as the rest of my sentence you split said.WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"... >>>>>>>You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple. >>>>>>>>>I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging issue, >>>>>>>
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed? >>>>>>
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how
much it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you
literally are an Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
OK.
Charging what people are willing to pay is NOT "overcharging"...
...UNLESS THEY HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PAY.
Since Apple isn't the only maker of personal computers, people are
willingly choosing to buy what Apple offers...
...precisely because it isn't about the components.
It is about buying a whole system that they find works well for them. >>>>
part of the scheme - it's fair to say it's enough for some people,
sure, but a lot of people are gonna say "well, I can't get by with
that, but I must have a Mac, so I'll just bite the bullet and pay
$200 extra". That's the *definition* of price gouging.
If it's "provably false"...you really should have said something that
proves it.
"Outrageous" is an adjective and proves nothing.
OK, then, tell me straight out, answer the question for once, why is
the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that cost?
Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am being offered?"
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, the >>>>>>>>>>>> question is whether this really makes sense if consumers >>>>>>>>>>>> knew what they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to >>>>>>>>>>> figure out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through this? >>>>>>>> 'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very similar >>>>>>>> reasons to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their
products at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
No.-a Because I see right through what Apple is doing.-a You are a >>>>>> nice guy, more or less, but you are a privileged, (presumably)
white person with the means to afford Apple's stuff.-a As such, you >>>>>> are a cash cow to them.-a A willing victim of their price gouging. >>>>>> Your money to spend, sure, you may think it's worth it, I don't
dispute that, but it's still completely ridiculous that half of a >>>>>> 512 GB SSD is $200.
And out come the personal insults...
Maybe, but you didn't refute the point.
Because there were no points of substance to refute.
Again, explain why the SSD upgrade is so expensive.
Because they can.
But people are willing to pay for it.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that >>>>>>>> they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a >>>>>>>> total cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple >>>>>>> Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU
forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to
make them compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in >>>>>> that respect, I actually think Apple was superior, albeit for the >>>>>> function of charging the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal
computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced Macs
with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs
that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its introduction. >>>>>
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out that
the proprietary nature of some of these features supports the idea
that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In practice,
they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, objectively
better than the standards that happened to chosen for IBM-style PCs.
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that >>>>>>>> shit when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I saw >>>>>>>> it in 2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/registered/ >>>>>>>> whatever for then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, made by
brain- damaged nerds. Luckily, neither Windows nor macOS are
necessary, since GNU/ Linux gives me the same sleekness of macOS >>>>>>>> while improving on Windows' robustness overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS
software in particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is
better than the macOS equivalent?
Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better than >>>>> the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point.
It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
On 2/9/26 7:36 PM, Alan wrote:
That's provably false.-a The cost of upgrading the SSD/etc. makesCost, not electricity, as the rest of my sentence you split said. >>>>>>>You don't seem to have anything negative to say about Apple. >>>>>>>>>>I have lots of negative things to say.
You're just not paying attention.
That's obviously a lie, you won't admit the SSD overcharging >>>>>>>>> issue,
WHAT "overcharging issue" would that be: the alleged 13V "spike"... >>>>>>>>
...which applies whether or not your SSD is soldered or socketed? >>>>>>>
something that is transparently price gouging, no matter how >>>>>>>>> much it's talked about you stick to your guns, because you
literally are an Apple employee, paid to post here.
No. I am not.
OK.
Charging what people are willing to pay is NOT "overcharging"...
...UNLESS THEY HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PAY.
Since Apple isn't the only maker of personal computers, people are >>>>>> willingly choosing to buy what Apple offers...
...precisely because it isn't about the components.
It is about buying a whole system that they find works well for them. >>>>>
the "whole system's" price outrageous.-a 256 GB even being offered
is part of the scheme - it's fair to say it's enough for some
people, sure, but a lot of people are gonna say "well, I can't get
by with that, but I must have a Mac, so I'll just bite the bullet
and pay $200 extra". That's the *definition* of price gouging.
If it's "provably false"...you really should have said something
that proves it.
"Outrageous" is an adjective and proves nothing.
OK, then, tell me straight out, answer the question for once, why is
the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that cost?
Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am being
offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
How do you not see the point, we know Apple sells a lot, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is whether this really makes sense if
consumers knew what they were actually paying for.
And once again, you assume that only you are smart enough to >>>>>>>>>>>> figure out this kind of thing.
I don't assume any such thing, actually.
That is LITERALLY what you assumed.
"If consumers knew" assumes that they do NOT.
So that means I think *I* am the only one who sees through
this? 'Cause I am not.-a Lots of people hate Apple for very >>>>>>>>> similar reasons to mine.
"Hate"? Dude... ...HATING a company because they sell their
products at prices people are willing to pay is messed up.
You should seek out a mental health professional.
No.-a Because I see right through what Apple is doing.-a You are a >>>>>>> nice guy, more or less, but you are a privileged, (presumably)
white person with the means to afford Apple's stuff.-a As such, >>>>>>> you are a cash cow to them.-a A willing victim of their price
gouging. Your money to spend, sure, you may think it's worth it, >>>>>>> I don't dispute that, but it's still completely ridiculous that >>>>>>> half of a 512 GB SSD is $200.
And out come the personal insults...
Maybe, but you didn't refute the point.
Because there were no points of substance to refute.
Again, explain why the SSD upgrade is so expensive.
Because they can.
Right.
But people are willing to pay for it.
Bourgeois and/or desperate people.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that >>>>>>>>> they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What a >>>>>>>>> total cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple >>>>>>>> Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU
forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to >>>>>>> make them compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in >>>>>>> that respect, I actually think Apple was superior, albeit for the >>>>>>> function of charging the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal
computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced Macs >>>>>> with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to one port. >>>>>>
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs
that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac. >>>>>>
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its
introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out that >>>>> the proprietary nature of some of these features supports the idea
that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In practice,
they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, objectively
better than the standards that happened to chosen for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting Thunderbolt?
-a The best Mac app is Microsoft Office!-a Imagine!-a I hate that >>>>>>>>> shit when it's on Winblows, but I dug the Mac version when I >>>>>>>>> saw it in 2010.-a But most of the small apps I downloaded/
registered/ whatever for then-OS X were just pathetic crapware, >>>>>>>>> made by brain- damaged nerds. Luckily, neither Windows nor
macOS are necessary, since GNU/ Linux gives me the same
sleekness of macOS while improving on Windows' robustness
overall, a win-win.
You've yet to actually articulate a problem that ANY macOS
software in particular has.
What's some piece of software that YOU ACTUALLY USE that is
better than the macOS equivalent?
Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I >>>>>>> prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better
than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point.
It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd using aSo what?
Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who actually knows
shit, are?-a Heh.
why is
the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that cost?
Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am being
offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the alternative.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that >>>>>>>>>> they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What >>>>>>>>>> a total cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB (Apple >>>>>>>>> Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU >>>>>>>> forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade to >>>>>>>> make them compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.-a So, in >>>>>>>> that respect, I actually think Apple was superior, albeit for >>>>>>>> the function of charging the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal
computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced Macs >>>>>>> with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to one port. >>>>>>>
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs >>>>>>> that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac. >>>>>>>
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its
introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out that >>>>>> the proprietary nature of some of these features supports the idea >>>>>> that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In
practice, they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, objectively
better than the standards that happened to chosen for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards
(caveat ADB).
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better
than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point.
It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd using a
Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who actually knows
shit, are?-a Heh.
So what?
The issue was how the software WORKS.
On 2/9/26 8:33 PM, Alan wrote:
why is the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that cost? >>>>Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am being
offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the
alternative.
But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to change
from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the point, that it's
more than any conceivable estimate, profit included, would warrant.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal >>>>>>>> computer standard.AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports that >>>>>>>>>>> they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a joke.-a What >>>>>>>>>>> a total cult.-a And you're the ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB
(Apple Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU >>>>>>>>> forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade >>>>>>>>> to make them compatible with other manufacturers' chargers. >>>>>>>>> So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was superior,
albeit for the function of charging the device, not using it. >>>>>>>>
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced
Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to >>>>>>>> one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs >>>>>>>> that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac. >>>>>>>>
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its
introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out
that the proprietary nature of some of these features supports
the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In
practice, they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,
objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen for
IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards
(caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets super obscure.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better >>>>>>>> than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point. >>>>>>> It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd using a
Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who actually knows
shit, are?-a Heh.
So what?
The issue was how the software WORKS.
I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with macOS as aYou were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than any
Unix flavor.-a But it would be cumbersome, to me, when I could just use Linux to begin with.
why is the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that cost? >>>>>Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am
being offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the
alternative.
But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to change
from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the point, that it's
more than any conceivable estimate, profit included, would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal >>>>>>>>> computer standard.AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports >>>>>>>>>>>> that they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a >>>>>>>>>>>> joke.-a What a total cult.-a And you're the ringleader. >>>>>>>>>>>What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB >>>>>>>>>>> (Apple Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU >>>>>>>>>> forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade >>>>>>>>>> to make them compatible with other manufacturers' chargers. >>>>>>>>>> So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was superior, >>>>>>>>>> albeit for the function of charging the device, not using it. >>>>>>>>>
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>> Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to >>>>>>>>> one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>> Macs that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac. >>>>>>>>>
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its
introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out >>>>>>>> that the proprietary nature of some of these features supports >>>>>>>> the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In
practice, they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,
objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen for
IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting
Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards
(caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets super
obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and Sony
made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better >>>>>>>>> than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point. >>>>>>>> It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd using
a Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who actually
knows shit, are?-a Heh.
So what?
The issue was how the software WORKS.
I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with macOS as
a Unix flavor.-a But it would be cumbersome, to me, when I could just
use Linux to begin with.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than any
macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
On 2/9/26 8:54 PM, Alan wrote:
why is the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that >>>>>>> cost?
Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am
being offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the
alternative.
But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to
change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the point,
that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit included, would
warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal >>>>>>>>>> computer standard.AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports >>>>>>>>>>>>> that they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a >>>>>>>>>>>>> joke.-a What a total cult.-a And you're the ringleader. >>>>>>>>>>>>What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB >>>>>>>>>>>> (Apple Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU >>>>>>>>>>> forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade >>>>>>>>>>> to make them compatible with other manufacturers' chargers. >>>>>>>>>>> So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was superior, >>>>>>>>>>> albeit for the function of charging the device, not using it. >>>>>>>>>>
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>>> Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to >>>>>>>>>> one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>>> Macs that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original >>>>>>>>>> iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time. >>>>>>>>>>
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its
introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out >>>>>>>>> that the proprietary nature of some of these features supports >>>>>>>>> the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In
practice, they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,
objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen for >>>>>> IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting
Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards
(caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets
super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and
Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those brands'
junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, I will take your word and concede.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's better >>>>>>>>>> than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point. >>>>>>>>> It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd using >>>>> a Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who actually
knows shit, are?-a Heh.
So what?
The issue was how the software WORKS.
I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with macOS as
a Unix flavor.-a But it would be cumbersome, to me, when I could just
use Linux to begin with.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than any
macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't makeYour basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
why is the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that >>>>>>>> cost?
Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am
being offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the
alternative.
But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to
change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the point,
that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit included, would
warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree with you.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> joke.-a What a total cult.-a And you're the ringleader. >>>>>>>>>>>>>What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Apple Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The EU >>>>>>>>>>>> forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a
downgrade to make them compatible with other manufacturers' >>>>>>>>>>>> chargers. So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was >>>>>>>>>>>> superior, albeit for the function of charging the device, >>>>>>>>>>>> not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal >>>>>>>>>>> computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>>>> Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to >>>>>>>>>>> one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>>>> Macs that used a far superior open standard called NuBus. >>>>>>>>>>>
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original >>>>>>>>>>> iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time. >>>>>>>>>>>
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its >>>>>>>>>>> introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out >>>>>>>>>> that the proprietary nature of some of these features supports >>>>>>>>>> the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In
practice, they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,
objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen for >>>>>>> IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting
Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards
(caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets
super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s.
Must I really go on?
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and
Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those brands'
junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, I will take
your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now
concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
So asked to name an application you actually use that's >>>>>>>>>>> better than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the
point. It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd
using a Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who
actually knows shit, are?-a Heh.
So what?
The issue was how the software WORKS.
I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with macOS
as a Unix flavor.-a But it would be cumbersome, to me, when I could
just use Linux to begin with.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than
any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't make
it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I prefer
the average app developed for the Unix platform to the average macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app YOU
chose to highlight.
On 2/9/26 10:23 PM, Alan wrote:
why is the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that >>>>>>>>> cost?
Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am >>>>>>>> being offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the >>>>>> alternative.
But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to
change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the point,
that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit included,
would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree with you.
Not so.-a They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it because
they want a Mac that much.-a They have no choice.-a Price gouging.
AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface ports >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a What a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joke.-a What a total cult.-a And you're the ringleader. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Apple Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a The >>>>>>>>>>>>> EU forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a >>>>>>>>>>>>> downgrade to make them compatible with other manufacturers' >>>>>>>>>>>>> chargers. So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was >>>>>>>>>>>>> superior, albeit for the function of charging the device, >>>>>>>>>>>>> not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the
personal computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>>>>> Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached >>>>>>>>>>>> to one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced >>>>>>>>>>>> Macs that used a far superior open standard called NuBus. >>>>>>>>>>>>
USB: an open standard first widely available on the original >>>>>>>>>>>> iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its >>>>>>>>>>>> introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point out >>>>>>>>>>> that the proprietary nature of some of these features
supports the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In >>>>>>>>> practice, they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,
objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen >>>>>>>> for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting
Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards >>>>>> (caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets
super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s.
Must I really go on?
You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and
Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those brands'
junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, I will take
your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now
concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using it
were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary in their designs, particularly of laptops.
And available for macOS:So asked to name an application you actually use that's >>>>>>>>>>>> better than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the >>>>>>>>>>> point. It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO. >>>>>>>>
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd
using a Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who
actually knows shit, are?-a Heh.
So what?
The issue was how the software WORKS.
I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with macOS
as a Unix flavor.-a But it would be cumbersome, to me, when I could >>>>> just use Linux to begin with.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than
any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't
make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the average
macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app YOU
chose to highlight.
And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps are asAnd yet when challenged to provide your best example...
easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using a Mac as a
Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want Apple-centric
software much and do want Unix software, Linux is a far better, easier,
and flexible/affordable platform.'
On 2026-02-09 19:40, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 2/9/26 10:23 PM, Alan wrote:
why is the upgrade $200?-a What about a 512 GB SSD obviates >>>>>>>>>> that cost?
Nothing has to.
PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!
The question they ask (the rational people) is:
"Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am >>>>>>>>> being offered?"
What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?
That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than
the alternative.
But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to
change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the
point, that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit
included, would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree with
you.
Not so.-a They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it
because they want a Mac that much.-a They have no choice.-a Price
gouging.
The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you can do
on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.
Ergo, they have a choice.
Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.AppleCare if you pay extra?-a Nonstandard interface >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ports that they claim are better 'cause they say so?-a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a joke.-a What a total cult.-a And you're the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ringleader.
What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Apple Desktop Bus)?
You know, I actually have to concede something here.-a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The EU forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a downgrade to make them compatible with other
manufacturers' chargers. So, in that respect, I actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Apple was superior, albeit for the function of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> charging the device, not using it.
Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the >>>>>>>>>>>>> personal computer standard.
When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple
introduced Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be attached to one port.
When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple
introduced Macs that used a far superior open standard >>>>>>>>>>>>> called NuBus.
USB: an open standard first widely available on the
original iMac.
Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the >>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction.
Etc.
I would mostly not challenge those points.-a I would point >>>>>>>>>>>> out that the proprietary nature of some of these features >>>>>>>>>>>> supports the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though. >>>>>>>>>>>
Everything else was an open standard.
So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.
Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.-a In >>>>>>>>>> practice, they were Apple proprietary.
No...dude:
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,
objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen >>>>>>>>> for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting
Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open
standards (caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets
super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s.
Must I really go on?
You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.
How would that change that:
1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and
2. That it was superior to ISA?
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and
Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those
brands' junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, I
will take your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now
concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using it
were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary in
their designs, particularly of laptops.
You literally just conceded your ignorance.
And yet when challenged to provide your best example...
So asked to name an application you actually use that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> better than the macOS equivalent...
...you surrendered.
Got it.
I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the >>>>>>>>>>>> point. It's not a surrender.
Then name an app.
Just ONE app that you actually use.
Audacious.-a It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows,
IMO.
And available for macOS:
Terminal: brew install audacious.
So your argument is that this app is better than itself?
Next!
Ah, but you had to use the terminal.-a So now every goofy nerd >>>>>>>> using a Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who
actually knows shit, are?-a Heh.
So what?
The issue was how the software WORKS.
I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with
macOS as a Unix flavor.-a But it would be cumbersome, to me, when
I could just use Linux to begin with.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than
any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't
make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app
YOU chose to highlight.
And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps are
as easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using a Mac as
a Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want Apple-centric
software much and do want Unix software, Linux is a far better,
easier, and flexible/affordable platform.'
...you utterly failed.
On 2/9/26 14:22, Alan wrote:
On 2026-02-02 10:28, -hh wrote:
On 1/31/26 18:10, pothead wrote:
On 2026-01-30, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 1/29/26 18:23, pothead wrote:An option.
On 2026-01-29, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Yea, and where are you going to find a battery when your luggage...
is in pengo pengo?
Pack a spare battery just in case you forgot to check pre-trip.-a BTDT. >>>>
But then there is battery swelling to deal with.
Risks are never zero, but you're misapplying the swelling risks of
rechargeable lithium batteries to a non-rechargeable lithium battery
chemistry, since the former has many cycles and the latter only ever
has one (1) cycle.-a Main factor increasing the chemical off-gassing
risk is an environment where temperatures exceed 45C (115F), but this
applies for both battery types.
And will you look at that, H: it's been an entire week and PH hasn't
had a thing to say.
Gosh, how about that!
Maybe Pothole is still busy trying to locate the skanky smell in their
car, which on another thread they were trying to blame on NYC's mayor
for the trash collection delays after their recent big snowstorm...
...while forgetting checking weather records is easy.-a For there's not
been a day since the storm where the temperature has gotten above 40F to start to de-thaw.-a And Manhattan yesterday was once again well below average, at a Lo/High of +3F/+17F (-16C/-8C).
On 2/9/26 10:51 PM, Alan wrote:
The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you can doBut the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to >>>>>>> change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the point, >>>>>>> that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit included,
would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree with
you.
Not so.-a They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it
because they want a Mac that much.-a They have no choice.-a Price gouging. >>
on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.
Ergo, they have a choice.
That's a good try, but we're talking about people who loathe Microsoft Windows.-a They prefer Apple, for some reason.-a They need more than 256 GB.-a Let's get that money!
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, >>>>>>>>>> objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen >>>>>>>>>> for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting >>>>>>>>> Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open
standards (caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets >>>>>>> super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s.
Must I really go on?
You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.
How would that change that:
1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and
2. That it was superior to ISA?
If a standard is only adopted by one company, how is it different from proprietary, practically speaking?
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and >>>>>> Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those
brands' junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, I
will take your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now
concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using it
were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary in
their designs, particularly of laptops.
You literally just conceded your ignorance.
I was ignorant, yes, but still on the right track.-a These were features
not unique to Apple's products, but nevertheless proprietary relative to
the larger industry.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than >>>>>> any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't
make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app
YOU chose to highlight.
And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps are
as easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using a Mac as
a Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want Apple-centric
software much and do want Unix software, Linux is a far better,
easier, and flexible/affordable platform.'
And yet when challenged to provide your best example...
...you utterly failed.
But the point is that I don't need macOS to run Unix apps.-a Linux givesThe point was that you claimed that the software for macOS was inferior...
me that freely not only in the OS being free, but being free to install
on any hardware.-a Fuck Apple's "walled garden".
But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to >>>>>>>> change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the
point, that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit
included, would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree
with you.
Not so.-a They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it
because they want a Mac that much.-a They have no choice.-a Price
gouging.
The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you can
do on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.
Ergo, they have a choice.
That's a good try, but we're talking about people who loathe Microsoft
Windows.-a They prefer Apple, for some reason.-a They need more than 256
GB.-a Let's get that money!
Stop just making shit up. Unlike you (apparently), most people don't
"loath" or "hate" operating systems.
As my brother said once: "they're just beige toasters".
Meaning, these are tools that people use and they (for the vast
majority) make rational choices about what tools work for THEM.
And when they decide to buy a Mac (which will, in all likelihood, be
more expensive than the Windows PC or Linux PC they could have
purchased), they do so understanding that the extra money is worth it...
...to THEM.
They know they have a choice to buy less expensive personal computing equipment and they freely CHOOSE.
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, >>>>>>>>>>> objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen >>>>>>>>>>> for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting >>>>>>>>>> Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open
standards (caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets >>>>>>>> super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s.
Must I really go on?
You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.
How would that change that:
1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and
2. That it was superior to ISA?
If a standard is only adopted by one company, how is it different from
proprietary, practically speaking?
Answer my question.
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration,
and Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those
brands' junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, I >>>>>> will take your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now
concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using
it were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary in
their designs, particularly of laptops.
You literally just conceded your ignorance.
I was ignorant, yes, but still on the right track.-a These were
features not unique to Apple's products, but nevertheless proprietary
relative to the larger industry.
There is no such thing as "proprietary relative to the larger industry."
That's a thing you just made up.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better
than any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't >>>>>> make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app
YOU chose to highlight.
And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps are
as easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using a Mac
as a Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want Apple-
centric software much and do want Unix software, Linux is a far
better, easier, and flexible/affordable platform.'
And yet when challenged to provide your best example...
...you utterly failed.
But the point is that I don't need macOS to run Unix apps.-a Linux
gives me that freely not only in the OS being free, but being free to
install on any hardware.-a Fuck Apple's "walled garden".
The point was that you claimed that the software for macOS was inferior...
...and you've completely failed to show that.
On 2/10/26 1:33 PM, Alan wrote:
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically to >>>>>>>>> change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the >>>>>>>>> point, that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit >>>>>>>>> included, would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?" >>>>>>>
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree
with you.
Not so.-a They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it
because they want a Mac that much.-a They have no choice.-a Price
gouging.
The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you can
do on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.
Ergo, they have a choice.
That's a good try, but we're talking about people who loathe
Microsoft Windows.-a They prefer Apple, for some reason.-a They need
more than 256 GB.-a Let's get that money!
Stop just making shit up. Unlike you (apparently), most people don't
"loath" or "hate" operating systems.
As my brother said once: "they're just beige toasters".
Meaning, these are tools that people use and they (for the vast
majority) make rational choices about what tools work for THEM.
And when they decide to buy a Mac (which will, in all likelihood, be
more expensive than the Windows PC or Linux PC they could have
purchased), they do so understanding that the extra money is worth it...
...to THEM.
They know they have a choice to buy less expensive personal computing
equipment and they freely CHOOSE.
Nope.-a Apple is price gouging.
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, >>>>>>>>>>>> objectively better than the standards that happened to >>>>>>>>>>>> chosen for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting >>>>>>>>>>> Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open
standards (caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it >>>>>>>>> gets super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure". >>>>>>>>
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s. >>>>>>
Must I really go on?
You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.
How would that change that:
1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and
2. That it was superior to ISA?
If a standard is only adopted by one company, how is it different
from proprietary, practically speaking?
Answer my question.
It might be a standard, but it's apparently one that only Apple really utilized.-a It's obviously superior tech, to answer the second question.
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, >>>>>>>> and Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those
brands' junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, I >>>>>>> will take your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now >>>>>> concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using
it were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary in >>>>> their designs, particularly of laptops.
You literally just conceded your ignorance.
I was ignorant, yes, but still on the right track.-a These were
features not unique to Apple's products, but nevertheless proprietary
relative to the larger industry.
There is no such thing as "proprietary relative to the larger industry."
That's a thing you just made up.
It meant that in each instance of the Thunderbolt being put to use, it
was a proprietary use, for that product.-a It wasn't something that
everyone had, like USB.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better >>>>>>>> than any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't >>>>>>> make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I
prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app >>>>>> YOU chose to highlight.
And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps are >>>>> as easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using a Mac
as a Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want Apple-
centric software much and do want Unix software, Linux is a far
better, easier, and flexible/affordable platform.'
And yet when challenged to provide your best example...
...you utterly failed.
But the point is that I don't need macOS to run Unix apps.-a Linux
gives me that freely not only in the OS being free, but being free to
install on any hardware.-a Fuck Apple's "walled garden".
The point was that you claimed that the software for macOS was
inferior...
...and you've completely failed to show that.
Audacious running under macOS isn't an example of a Mac app, but anAn app running on macOS is precisely a "Mac app".
example of using a Unix app under macOS.-a The actual Mac apps are
inferior to it, though.
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically >>>>>>>>>> to change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the >>>>>>>>>> point, that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit >>>>>>>>>> included, would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?" >>>>>>>>
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree >>>>>>> with you.
Not so.-a They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it
because they want a Mac that much.-a They have no choice.-a Price >>>>>> gouging.
The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you can >>>>> do on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.
Ergo, they have a choice.
That's a good try, but we're talking about people who loathe
Microsoft Windows.-a They prefer Apple, for some reason.-a They need
more than 256 GB.-a Let's get that money!
Stop just making shit up. Unlike you (apparently), most people don't
"loath" or "hate" operating systems.
As my brother said once: "they're just beige toasters".
Meaning, these are tools that people use and they (for the vast
majority) make rational choices about what tools work for THEM.
And when they decide to buy a Mac (which will, in all likelihood, be
more expensive than the Windows PC or Linux PC they could have
purchased), they do so understanding that the extra money is worth it... >>>
...to THEM.
They know they have a choice to buy less expensive personal computing
equipment and they freely CHOOSE.
Nope.-a Apple is price gouging.
Your premise for that is that the people who buy Apple products have no choice...
...and they clearly do.
They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, >>>>>>>>>>>>> objectively better than the standards that happened to >>>>>>>>>>>>> chosen for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting >>>>>>>>>>>> Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open >>>>>>>>>>> standards (caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it >>>>>>>>>> gets super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure". >>>>>>>>>
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s. >>>>>>>
Must I really go on?
You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.
How would that change that:
1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and
2. That it was superior to ISA?
If a standard is only adopted by one company, how is it different
from proprietary, practically speaking?
Answer my question.
It might be a standard, but it's apparently one that only Apple really
utilized.-a It's obviously superior tech, to answer the second question.
So it is not proprietary and you for some reason feel Apple should have chosen an inferior standard?
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, >>>>>>>>> and Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those
brands' junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, >>>>>>>> I will take your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now >>>>>>> concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using >>>>>> it were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary
in their designs, particularly of laptops.
You literally just conceded your ignorance.
I was ignorant, yes, but still on the right track.-a These were
features not unique to Apple's products, but nevertheless
proprietary relative to the larger industry.
There is no such thing as "proprietary relative to the larger industry." >>>
That's a thing you just made up.
It meant that in each instance of the Thunderbolt being put to use, it
was a proprietary use, for that product.-a It wasn't something that
everyone had, like USB.
By that definition, EVERY use of EVERY interface on EVERY product is "proprietary"...
...including USB.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better >>>>>>>>> than any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac
doesn't make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I >>>>>>> prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the
average macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app >>>>>>> YOU chose to highlight.
And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps
are as easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using a >>>>>> Mac as a Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want
Apple- centric software much and do want Unix software, Linux is a >>>>>> far better, easier, and flexible/affordable platform.'
And yet when challenged to provide your best example...
...you utterly failed.
But the point is that I don't need macOS to run Unix apps.-a Linux
gives me that freely not only in the OS being free, but being free
to install on any hardware.-a Fuck Apple's "walled garden".
The point was that you claimed that the software for macOS was
inferior...
...and you've completely failed to show that.
Audacious running under macOS isn't an example of a Mac app, but an
example of using a Unix app under macOS.-a The actual Mac apps are
inferior to it, though.
An app running on macOS is precisely a "Mac app".
On 2/10/26 3:03 PM, Alan wrote:
The answer a rational person has is "no", though.But the $200 isn't for the entire system.-a It's specifically >>>>>>>>>>> to change from 256 GB to 512 GB.-a Your answer is avoiding the >>>>>>>>>>> point, that it's more than any conceivable estimate, profit >>>>>>>>>>> included, would warrant.
That's exactly the POINT.
The question a rational person asks is:
"Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?" >>>>>>>>>
And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree >>>>>>>> with you.
Not so.-a They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it >>>>>>> because they want a Mac that much.-a They have no choice.-a Price >>>>>>> gouging.
The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you
can do on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.
Ergo, they have a choice.
That's a good try, but we're talking about people who loathe
Microsoft Windows.-a They prefer Apple, for some reason.-a They need >>>>> more than 256 GB.-a Let's get that money!
Stop just making shit up. Unlike you (apparently), most people don't
"loath" or "hate" operating systems.
As my brother said once: "they're just beige toasters".
Meaning, these are tools that people use and they (for the vast
majority) make rational choices about what tools work for THEM.
And when they decide to buy a Mac (which will, in all likelihood, be
more expensive than the Windows PC or Linux PC they could have
purchased), they do so understanding that the extra money is worth
it...
...to THEM.
They know they have a choice to buy less expensive personal
computing equipment and they freely CHOOSE.
Nope.-a Apple is price gouging.
Your premise for that is that the people who buy Apple products have
no choice...
...and they clearly do.
Avoid the $200 question, again, OK.
How would that change that:They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> objectively better than the standards that happened to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chosen for IBM-style PCs.
Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thunderbolt?
How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open >>>>>>>>>>>> standards (caveat ADB).
USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it >>>>>>>>>>> gets super obscure.
Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure". >>>>>>>>>>
NuBus was a huge step over ISA.
For Apple.
For anyone who chose to use it.
ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring. >>>>>>>>
IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s. >>>>>>>>
Must I really go on?
You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it. >>>>>>
1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and
2. That it was superior to ISA?
If a standard is only adopted by one company, how is it different
from proprietary, practically speaking?
Answer my question.
It might be a standard, but it's apparently one that only Apple
really utilized.-a It's obviously superior tech, to answer the second
question.
So it is not proprietary and you for some reason feel Apple should
have chosen an inferior standard?
They should do whatever they want.
Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, >>>>>>>>>> and Sony made use of it as well as Apple...
...and Acer...
...and HP...
...Lenovo...
...Asus...
...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.
And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.
Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those >>>>>>>>> brands' junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.-a So, >>>>>>>>> I will take your word and concede.
It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you >>>>>>>> now concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.
I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers
using it were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very
proprietary in their designs, particularly of laptops.
You literally just conceded your ignorance.
I was ignorant, yes, but still on the right track.-a These were
features not unique to Apple's products, but nevertheless
proprietary relative to the larger industry.
There is no such thing as "proprietary relative to the larger
industry."
That's a thing you just made up.
It meant that in each instance of the Thunderbolt being put to use,
it was a proprietary use, for that product.-a It wasn't something that
everyone had, like USB.
By that definition, EVERY use of EVERY interface on EVERY product is
"proprietary"...
...including USB.
Nope.-a USB has ubiquity.
You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better >>>>>>>>>> than any macOS equivalent.
So far, you've utterly failed.
But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?
:-)
I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac
doesn't make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.
Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):
"Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I >>>>>>>> prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the >>>>>>>> average macOS app."
I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the >>>>>>>> app YOU chose to highlight.
And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps >>>>>>> are as easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using >>>>>>> a Mac as a Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want >>>>>>> Apple- centric software much and do want Unix software, Linux is >>>>>>> a far better, easier, and flexible/affordable platform.'
And yet when challenged to provide your best example...
...you utterly failed.
But the point is that I don't need macOS to run Unix apps.-a Linux
gives me that freely not only in the OS being free, but being free
to install on any hardware.-a Fuck Apple's "walled garden".
The point was that you claimed that the software for macOS was
inferior...
...and you've completely failed to show that.
Audacious running under macOS isn't an example of a Mac app, but an
example of using a Unix app under macOS.-a The actual Mac apps are
inferior to it, though.
An app running on macOS is precisely a "Mac app".
False.-a If it's a Unix app, it isn't what *typical* Mac users would have any idea about.It's an app you can run on macOS.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:06:26 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 200,610 |