On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this newsgroup......you'll finally be leaving?
On 5/4/26 3:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
On 2026-05-04, Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/26 3:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
Can't wait for this prick to wander off and die.
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-04, Tom Elam <thomas.e.elam@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/26 3:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-05-04 10:49, Maria Sophia wrote:Second the motion. All in favor reply PLEASE!
In the hopes of improving the quality of the conversations in this...you'll finally be leaving?
newsgroup...
Oh, good!
Can't wait for this prick to wander off and die.
Well, since it is obvious that his brain is already dead, it should not
take long.
He didnrCOt even know about the GD Music app in iOS. What it is called or how it works. And he claims to be an iOS rCLexpertrCY?
Then he rCLhumbly apologizedrCY and immediately continued to post more absolute
shit. That was first and last time I replied to him.
Check out the thread rCLFree adfree MP3 player that plays even when the screen is blankedrCY from March 4, 2026 for a good laugh at this moron.
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, >> com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM. I've done the test: the included NVMe is no
faster than the one you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, >>> com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc, >>>> com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
Cry harder. Your salty tears are delicious!
On 2026-05-13 3:34 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
Cry harder. Your salty tears are delicious!
Notice what kind of computer I use in my signature.
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM.
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one
you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 3:34 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long
Cry harder. Your salty tears are delicious!
Notice what kind of computer I use in my signature.
Notice me not caring.
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the _potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an increasingly small fraction
of their customer base.
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you
have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a known
trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the _potential_ of the
benefit of a future expansion ability by an increasingly small
fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or increase
their RAM alienate customers?
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you
have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to
switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a
known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the _potential_
of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an increasingly small
fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or increase
their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you
have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/ the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford R/
W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for myself).
On 2026-05-13 11:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM. I've done the test: the included NVMe is no
faster than the one you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the
speeds are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
Your biggest issue is that you don't think that companies should be free
to offer products as they see fit, and that people have the intelligence
to choose or not choose those offerings as THEY see fit.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2026-05-13 11:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-13 12:40 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
From: Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.ipad, misc.phone.mobile.iphone,
comp.sys.mac.misc,
com.sys.mac.system
Subject: [NEWS] Apple releases new OS updated for older versions
Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:29:49 +1200
Message-ID: <10tu6rc$1l4f5$1@dont-email.me>
Yet more proof that the local village idiot's claims of Apple not
supporting devices for long is in reality nothing but complete
bollocks, as usual.
Maybe you should cry harder.
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for
long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them
after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to switch
the NVMe or add more RAM. I've done the test: the included NVMe is no
faster than the one you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the >>> speeds are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
Your biggest issue is that you don't think that companies should be free
to offer products as they see fit, and that people have the intelligence
to choose or not choose those offerings as THEY see fit.
I used to be of the same opinion. However, the last decade or so of democratic elections have demonstrated time and again that people do not
make rational decisions even about things that will directly affect them.
Yes, absolutely, Apple are completely free to make decisions in the
interest of their business. People buying into those business decisions
does not mean that that choice was the most appropriate one they (the consumers) could have made.
Take RAM upgrades for example. Removal of that capability has likely made Macs more reliable with fewer moving parts, sleeker, thinner and perhaps faster (with the unified design) nowadays.
However, consumers have been tied into the RAM FOMO which results in many buying than they need "just in case" and the only price available in the Apple dictated one. Since when does an upgrade from 8 -> 16 GB cost the
same as going 48 -> 64 GB?
Or they buy what they need today and then are stuck when their needs change in two years' time.I never claimed it was "wholly beneficial for the consumer"
It isn't obvious whether this is wholly beneficial for the consumer. It is clear that this has been beneficial for Apple.
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices for >>>>> long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve them >>>>> after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us to
switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a
known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one you >>>>> have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you really
needed higher performance, you should've selected a better spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford
R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what appears
to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
I was also aware that the
MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version when I bought it for as cheap
as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new would have cost as much as a PC
laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand Apple not including a decent GPU, but
there is no excuse for the older port for the NVMe.
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices
for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to improve >>>>>> them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not allowing us
to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a
known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one
you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run faster? >>>>
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you really
needed higher performance, you should've selected a better spec'ed
model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford
R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what appears
to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as its
SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in many
reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB config.
I was also aware that the MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version
when I bought it for as cheap as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new
would have cost as much as a PC laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which
would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand
Apple not including a decent GPU, but there is no excuse for the older
port for the NVMe.
The 'excuse' as you call it has already been explained:-a lower end
machines have to compete more on price, so to control costs and thus
retail prices, manufacturers pull cheaper parts from the parts bin.
It isn't obvious whether this is wholly beneficial for the consumer. It is clear that this has been beneficial for Apple.
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to
improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not
allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run
faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it
helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better
spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can afford
R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified for
myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as
its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower
SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll
be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any less
than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance.
I was also aware that the MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version
when I bought it for as cheap as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new
would have cost as much as a PC laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which
would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand
Apple not including a decent GPU, but there is no excuse for the
older port for the NVMe.
The 'excuse' as you call it has already been explained:-a lower end
machines have to compete more on price, so to control costs and thus
retail prices, manufacturers pull cheaper parts from the parts bin.
And it competes well. My commentary is mostly wishful thinking. After
all, being able to replace the NVMe and add RAM in a MacBook Air would
turn a relatively modest machine into a dream fairly easily. At the same time, allowing users to do such a thing would cut into potential profits
the company makes, so I don't blame them for going the route they did, especially if lots of customers are still getting in line to buy the hardware.
On 5/14/26 20:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to
improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not
allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an
increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run
faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it >>>>> helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop
model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better
spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can
afford R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified
for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as
its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower
SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll
be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any
less than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance.
FYI, going from 256 to 1TB helps some (see above reddit link; figure ballpark 3K GB/s), but if you really want high performance, you'll need
to step up from a base CPU (M1/2/3/4) to a Pro/Max/Ultra configuration,
as per the above, this is where the big I/O jump is.
Thus said, the "just how much?" question does come down to use case; I
have three M-based Macs now - - a base M1, an M1 Max, and a base M4.
I've found that for their respective use cases, the M1 Max is the one
which still does the heaviest lifting; I figure it will probably be fine
for another ~3 years, maybe longer.
I was also aware that the MacBook Air M4 was the entry level version
when I bought it for as cheap as I did. Nevertheless, buying it new
would have cost as much as a PC laptop with a PCIe 4.0 port which
would also have come with a somewhat capable GPU. I can understand
Apple not including a decent GPU, but there is no excuse for the
older port for the NVMe.
The 'excuse' as you call it has already been explained:-a lower end
machines have to compete more on price, so to control costs and thus
retail prices, manufacturers pull cheaper parts from the parts bin.
And it competes well. My commentary is mostly wishful thinking. After
all, being able to replace the NVMe and add RAM in a MacBook Air would
turn a relatively modest machine into a dream fairly easily. At the
same time, allowing users to do such a thing would cut into potential
profits the company makes, so I don't blame them for going the route
they did, especially if lots of customers are still getting in line to
buy the hardware.
Precisely.-a I gnash my teeth just a little at not being able to do DIY incremental hardware upgrades, but by the same token, I'm secretly happy that they're no longer a thing because it means that I can avoid a lot
of extra "free IT" work for one relative in particular who chronically under-spec their machines...their most recent example was a MacBook Air
with only 1TB SSD, for which they're trying to push 2TB of home photos
onto it and somehow can't figure out that that's never going to work.
On 2026-05-15 12:45 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 20:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to
improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not >>>>>>>>> allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an >>>>>>>> increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..."
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds
are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run >>>>>>>> faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it >>>>>> helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop >>>>>> model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better >>>>>> spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can
afford R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified >>>>>> for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as
its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower >>>> SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll
be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any
less than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance.
FYI, going from 256 to 1TB helps some (see above reddit link; figure
ballpark 3K GB/s), but if you really want high performance, you'll need
to step up from a base CPU (M1/2/3/4) to a Pro/Max/Ultra configuration,
as per the above, this is where the big I/O jump is.
Thus said, the "just how much?" question does come down to use case; I
have three M-based Macs now - - a base M1, an M1 Max, and a base M4.
I've found that for their respective use cases, the M1 Max is the one
which still does the heaviest lifting; I figure it will probably be fine
for another ~3 years, maybe longer.
The problem with the M1 is not so much that it can't perform; it's that Apple won't support it with updates for much longer.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-15 12:45 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 20:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 4:06 p.m., -hh wrote:FYI, going from 256 to 1TB helps some (see above reddit link; figure
On 5/14/26 15:39, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 3:02 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/14/26 08:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-14 7:12 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/13/26 14:57, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
Apple's biggest issue isn't that it doesn't support its devices >>>>>>>>>> for long; it's that it doesn't allow you to do anything to >>>>>>>>>> improve them after they're yours. There is no excuse for not >>>>>>>>>> allowing us to switch the NVMe or add more RAM.
No, the 'excuse' is the business case & analysis thereof:-a its a >>>>>>>>> known trade-off of cube which has regular benefits vs the
_potential_ of the benefit of a future expansion ability by an >>>>>>>>> increasingly small fraction of their customer base.
How would allowing people to expand their original storage or
increase their RAM alienate customers?
Already explained in the above:-a "...known trade-off of cube..." >>>>>>>
I've done the test: the included NVMe is no faster than the one >>>>>>>>>> you have in your PC. In fact, in my 256GB model, the speeds >>>>>>>>>> are 2/3 of what I get in my PCIe 3.0 device from 2021.
How does an PCIe-4 spec SSD into a PCIe-3 based PC make it run >>>>>>>>> faster?
Why would a 2025 machine still be using a PCIe 3.0 port?
Cost.
Older generation hardware is always cheaper in the parts bin, so it >>>>>>> helps with the manufacturing costs of low end models.
And your Macbook M4 /256GB is close to being the lowest end laptop >>>>>>> model which Apple was selling prior to the new NEO.-a So if you
really needed higher performance, you should've selected a better >>>>>>> spec'ed model:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/1gvovdt/
the_ultimate_guide_to_mac_ssd_speeds/>
...as it illustrates that a 2022 vintage M1 Max on PCIe-3 can
afford R/ W's in the 5K range (which I've personally also verified >>>>>>> for myself).
The reason the 256GB in the MacBook M4 runs as slow as it does is
because it is a single chip. Anything larger is set up in what
appears to be a RAID0 configuration, hence the speed.
Yup, and I pointed this out ~4 years ago when I bought my Studio, as >>>>> its SSD benchmarks at 5-6 GB/sec, as well as has been mentioned in
many reviews, and as illustrated in the above URL, some of the slower >>>>> SSD performance is resolved by just buying 512GB instead of a 256GB
config.
All fair points. For what it's worth, the current Mac was little more
than a purchase I made because it was an exceptionally good deal. I'll >>>> be paying exactly the kind of Mac I want once my aging gaming laptop
either dies or becomes unbearably slow. I have no plans to get any
less than 1TB which should relieve the pain of slower NVMe performance. >>>
ballpark 3K GB/s), but if you really want high performance, you'll need
to step up from a base CPU (M1/2/3/4) to a Pro/Max/Ultra configuration,
as per the above, this is where the big I/O jump is.
Thus said, the "just how much?" question does come down to use case; I
have three M-based Macs now - - a base M1, an M1 Max, and a base M4.
I've found that for their respective use cases, the M1 Max is the one
which still does the heaviest lifting; I figure it will probably be fine >>> for another ~3 years, maybe longer.
The problem with the M1 is not so much that it can't perform; it's that
Apple won't support it with updates for much longer.
Based on no facts whatsoever.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's three years of security updates.
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay off
the camera for a bit.
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a bunch
of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home movies too.
Based on no facts whatsoever.
Based on the fact that we have already established that Apple supports
the hardware they release for about seven years. I can't believe that we have to argue this yet again.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's
three years of security updates.
What you suspect and what Apple actually does are not necessarily the
same thing. If that's what happens, then I'm happy for you. What we've
seen is that seven years is the average.
On 2026-05-15 2:15 p.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
The problem with the M1 is not so much that it can't perform; it's that
Apple won't support it with updates for much longer.
Based on no facts whatsoever.
Based on the fact that we have already established that Apple supports
the hardware they release for about seven years. I can't believe that we have to argue this yet again.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's
three years of security updates.
What you suspect and what Apple actually does are not necessarily the
same thing. If that's what happens, then I'm happy for you. What we've
seen is that seven years is the average.
CrudeSausage wrote:
Based on no facts whatsoever.
Based on the fact that we have already established that Apple supports
the hardware they release for about seven years. I can't believe that we
have to argue this yet again.
I suspect there will be at least two more full releases and then there's >>> three years of security updates.
What you suspect and what Apple actually does are not necessarily the
same thing. If that's what happens, then I'm happy for you. What we've
seen is that seven years is the average.
The iPhone hardware average is NOT 7 years, but Chris showed it was more
than five and likely almost if not almost exactly 6 years on average.
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home movies
too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their DVD
and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on both
Windows and Mac computers.
The iPhone hardware average is NOT 7 years, but Chris showed it was more
than five and likely almost if not almost exactly 6 years on average.
As is your wont, you're misrepresenting the data. Over the last decade the average is 6.5 years, plus all recently unsupported models have had 7 years of support.
The iPhone hardware average is NOT 7 years, but Chris showed it was more
than five and likely almost if not almost exactly 6 years on average.
As is your wont, you're misrepresenting the data. Over the last decade the average is 6.5 years, plus all recently unsupported models have had 7 years of support.
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.mobile.ipad Subject: Re: Log of incessant insults thrown in this newsgroup that add no on-topic value
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 23:52:25 -0600
Message-ID: <10ubl2p$2lie$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Chris wrote:
The iPhone hardware average is NOT 7 years, but Chris showed it was more >>> than five and likely almost if not almost exactly 6 years on average.
As is your wont, you're misrepresenting the data. Over the last decade the >> average is 6.5 years, plus all recently unsupported models have had 7 years >> of support.
Hi Chris,
Why are you constantly throwing incessant untoward insults, Chris?
We have a thread on that topic and my math is shown in that thread.
You are running a different set of iPhones through your averages.
You are cherry picking the eras, whereas I was not.
You are including iPhones still fully supported,
whereas I was not.
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam
for example.
Why are you constantly throwing incessant untoward insults, Chris?
Easy. I'm not.
I invite you to identify an insult in the two sentences above.
We have a thread on that topic and my math is shown in that thread.
Which I needed to correct several times. Plus your preposterous argument
that a phone is out of support the day after a software update.
You are running a different set of iPhones through your averages.
You are cherry picking the eras, whereas I was not.
Lol. You started the whole topic by focusing on the iphone X: the shortest supported iphone in over 10 years and tried to extrapolate from there.
Still about 2 years longer than an equivalent Android. If anyone is cherry picking, it's you.
You are including iPhones still fully supported,
Correct. Which is the accurate and most informative way of doing things.
whereas I was not.
Correct. Which skews the data.
Including all iphones since day one, is not useful nor informative for judging today's iphones
It's like comparing a model T Ford with a BMW 7 series.
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to
get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam
for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos
but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself
and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is
there a better solution?
On 5/17/26 12:24, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to >>>>>>>> lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try
to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam >>> for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of
photos but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external
disk myself and would easily be able to view the photos using
Microsoft Photos. Is there a better solution?
The better solution is simply to buy a big enough boot drive to begin
with, so that you don't waste your time trying to jump through various
hoops to find something that can be made to work...its the classical
"use the right tool for the job" paradigm.
Chris wrote:
Why are you constantly throwing incessant untoward insults, Chris?
Easy. I'm not.
I invite you to identify an insult in the two sentences above.
It's obvious Chris. You claim I purposefully "misrepresented" the data.
What really happened is I represented the data accurately.
You just wanted to cherry pick the data.
And that's fine.
Your assessment is based on a different set of data than mine is.
But that's no misrepresentation.
For you to call it that is clearly and obviously intended as an insult.
Note: It's impossible for you to insult me,
nor me to insult you.
But your intent is as clear as day to say I 'misrepresented' data.
We have a thread on that topic and my math is shown in that thread.
Which I needed to correct several times. Plus your preposterous argument
that a phone is out of support the day after a software update.
Jesus Christ Chris. I never said that.
In fact, I even said Windows was "supported" for over 17 years as an
example that almost nothing "goes out of support".
The fact you don't understand that is worrisome to me, Chris.
It means you don't understand the difference between these two things:
a. Full support
b. Support
You really need to look closely at why your opinions don't match facts.
If the only way you can "respond" to facts you simply don't like is to distort them into something nobody ever said, then that simply means that
the facts hit home so hard that you're desperate to make them go away.
You are running a different set of iPhones through your averages.
You are cherry picking the eras, whereas I was not.
Lol. You started the whole topic by focusing on the iphone X: the shortest >> supported iphone in over 10 years and tried to extrapolate from there.
Still about 2 years longer than an equivalent Android. If anyone is cherry >> picking, it's you.
Again, if the only way you can "respond" to facts you simply don't like is
to distort them into something nobody ever did, then that simply means that the facts hit home so hard that you're desperate to make them go away.
I didn't "focus" on the iPhone X. That's obvious. Everyone can see that.
I worked BACKWARDS from the last phone out of support.
Which was the iPhone X.
You really need to look closely at why your opinions don't match facts.
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam
for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos
but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself
and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is
there a better solution?
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>>>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>>>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam >>> for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos
but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself
and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is
there a better solution?
Digikam can do the same. I use it over a network share where the database sits locally and the photos are on the network.
I wouldn't call MS Photos a "good" photo manager by any stretch of the imagination.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example, >>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to
get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
On 2026-05-17 4:00 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/17/26 12:24, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs >>>>>>>>> to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try >>>>>> to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database.
Digikam for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of
photos but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external
disk myself and would easily be able to view the photos using
Microsoft Photos. Is there a better solution?
The better solution is simply to buy a big enough boot drive to begin
with, so that you don't waste your time trying to jump through various
hoops to find something that can be made to work...its the classical
"use the right tool for the job" paradigm.
I'm of the belief that tools that are good enough for the job right now
can also be made to be good enough for tomorrow's jobs. It's too bad
that Mac users have allowed themselves to be conditioned into thinking
that a new problem requires a new computer.
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to >>>>>>>> lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try
to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
I would think that it is to
store the photos on an external disk and have an application load them
in the same sort of way as how Microsoft Photos does. If there is a
better approach, let's stop beating around the bush and propose one.
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to
lay off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount
of iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped
from their DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can
work on both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to
get by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile
of 1TBs with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>> bunch of old family photos. Probably some videos from 8mm home
movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on
both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches. For example, >>>> they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
It's obvious Chris. You claim I purposefully "misrepresented" the data.
No reasonable person would accept that is an insult.
Which I needed to correct several times. Plus your preposterous argument >>> that a phone is out of support the day after a software update.
Jesus Christ Chris. I never said that.
You absolutely did. Then went very quiet when I highlighted it.
You claim that an iphone, like the X, is out of support the day after it received the last update to ios 16. Not the day ios 17, which dropped support, was released.
In fact, I even said Windows was "supported" for over 17 years as an
example that almost nothing "goes out of support".
The fact you don't understand that is worrisome to me, Chris.
It means you don't understand the difference between these two things:
a. Full support
b. Support
Given you've had to roll back your adulation of Samsung's seven years of "full support", I suggest neither do you.
You really need to look closely at why your opinions don't match facts.
If the only way you can "respond" to facts you simply don't like is to
distort them into something nobody ever said, then that simply means that
the facts hit home so hard that you're desperate to make them go away.
This is from the person who started a thread called something like "iphone support is not as long people think". Yet when we did all the correct maths we found that it was longer than most of us would thought over 20 years. Almost six years on average.
You keep trying to downplay that result at every opportunity. Despite the fact that the same attempt with Samsung galaxy and Google pixel showed them to be woeful in comparison.
I worked BACKWARDS from the last phone out of support.
Which was the iPhone X.
You really need to look closely at why your opinions don't match facts.
This is simply too easy. Like stealing a kid's candy, as you left-pondians like to say.
The facts are: The most recent phones to lose support where the XR, XS and
XS Max. All three were dropped by ios 26. The X was dropped by ios 17 which was released near three years ago. ios 18 didn't drop any models.
So you are incorrect. There must have some other reason you chose to focus
on the X...?
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs >>>>>>>>> to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large
external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try >>>>>> to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For
example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you already
have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy only 1TB?
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their DVD
and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on both >>>>>>> Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to >>>>>> get by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For >>>>>> example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile >>>>>> of 1TBs with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>>>
regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other
apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you already
have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy only 1TB?
I would think that it is to store the photos on an external disk and
have an application load them in the same sort of way as how Microsoft
Photos does. If there is a better approach, let's stop beating around
the bush and propose one.
An external (2TB+) drive could be a suitable solution...but splitting a
2TB database across two generic 1TB drives (not configured as a RAID or JBOD) is more trouble than its worth.
Sometimes, "throwing money at the problem" is the correct solution.
On 2026-05-17 4:24 p.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get >>>>>> by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam >>>> for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos >>> but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself >>> and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is
there a better solution?
Digikam can do the same. I use it over a network share where the database
sits locally and the photos are on the network.
I wouldn't call MS Photos a "good" photo manager by any stretch of the
imagination.
It views photos and has some limited editing features. It doesn't manage photos because it simply reads what's in the Pictures folder. If there
is 130MB of photos in there or 13,000MB, it will behave the same.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 4:24 p.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay >>>>>>>>>> off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of >>>>>>>> iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external >>>>>>>> hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!". >>>>>> I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a >>>>>> regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam >>>>> for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos >>>> but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself >>>> and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is >>>> there a better solution?
Digikam can do the same. I use it over a network share where the database >>> sits locally and the photos are on the network.
I wouldn't call MS Photos a "good" photo manager by any stretch of the
imagination.
It views photos and has some limited editing features. It doesn't manage
photos because it simply reads what's in the Pictures folder. If there
is 130MB of photos in there or 13,000MB, it will behave the same.
Correct. Slow as treacle.
On 2026-05-18 15:11:42 +0000, -hh said:
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs >>>>>>>>>> to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting >>>>>>>> a large external hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies >>>>>>>> I ripped from their DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as >>>>>>>> exFAT, it can work on both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try >>>>>>> to get by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra
headaches.-a For example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard
drive because their pile of 1TBs with randomly scattered files
aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I >>>>>>> dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a >>>>>> regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are
other apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for
an individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you
already have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy
only 1TB?
I would think that it is to store the photos on an external disk and
have an application load them in the same sort of way as how
Microsoft Photos does. If there is a better approach, let's stop
beating around the bush and propose one.
An external (2TB+) drive could be a suitable solution...but splitting
a 2TB database across two generic 1TB drives (not configured as a RAID
or JBOD) is more trouble than its worth.
Sometimes, "throwing money at the problem" is the correct solution.
If someone already has 2TB of photos, then they're better off buying a
4TB or bigger hard drive to give them room for even more. In fact, they would be better off getting two such drives (at least) so they can make backups.-a :-)
On 2026-05-18 11:11 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs >>>>>>>>>> to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge
amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large >>>>>>>> external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having
fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try >>>>>>> to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For >>>>>>> example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I >>>>>>> dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb
drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a >>>>>> regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database.
YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are
other apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for
an individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you
already have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy
only 1TB?
What if it was 500GB of data and then organically grew to 1.2TB?
On 2026-05-19 1:22 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 4:24 p.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam >>>>>> for example.
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a >>>>>>> regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database. >>>>>>
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having >>>>>>>> fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos >>>>> but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself >>>>> and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is >>>>> there a better solution?
Digikam can do the same. I use it over a network share where the database >>>> sits locally and the photos are on the network.
I wouldn't call MS Photos a "good" photo manager by any stretch of the >>>> imagination.
It views photos and has some limited editing features. It doesn't manage >>> photos because it simply reads what's in the Pictures folder. If there
is 130MB of photos in there or 13,000MB, it will behave the same.
Correct. Slow as treacle.
Microsoft Photos isn't slow. Why are you lying?
On 5/18/26 18:28, Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-18 15:11:42 +0000, -hh said:
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home movies
too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their DVD
and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on both >>>>>>>>> Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having >>>>>>>> fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to >>>>>>>> get by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For >>>>>>>> example, they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile >>>>>>>> of 1TBs with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a >>>>>>> regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database. >>>>>>
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are other >>>>> apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for an
individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you already >>> have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy only 1TB?
I would think that it is to store the photos on an external disk and
have an application load them in the same sort of way as how Microsoft >>>> Photos does. If there is a better approach, let's stop beating around >>>> the bush and propose one.
An external (2TB+) drive could be a suitable solution...but splitting a >>> 2TB database across two generic 1TB drives (not configured as a RAID or >>> JBOD) is more trouble than its worth.
Sometimes, "throwing money at the problem" is the correct solution.
If someone already has 2TB of photos, then they're better off buying a
4TB or bigger hard drive to give them room for even more. In fact, they
would be better off getting two such drives (at least) so they can make
backups.-a :-)
Agreed. Point here is that their need is already 2TB and they didn't
even buy 2TB .. they bought 1TB. A phone call asking me to fix it is forthcoming in 3..2..1.. /s
On 5/18/26 17:38, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-18 11:11 a.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/17/26 19:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-17 6:48 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2026-05-17 13:16:54 +0000, Brock McNuggets said:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:YourCOve never seen how macOS stores photos.
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs >>>>>>>>>>> to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans >>>>>>>>>> of a
bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge >>>>>>>>> amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large >>>>>>>>> external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from >>>>>>>>> their
DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having >>>>>>>> fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and >>>>>>>> try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For >>>>>>>> example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of >>>>>>>> 1TBs
with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I >>>>>>>> dare
ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb >>>>>>>> drives!".
I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't
matter
where you put the photos because the application reads them from a >>>>>>> regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database. >>>>>>
Plus, if you don't like how Apple's Photos app works, there are
other apps available to catalogue photos which may work better for
an individual's needs.
So the question remains: if you have a 1TB NVMe on your Mac but 2TB
worth of photos, what is the best solution.
Nah.
The question is when you're looking to buy a new laptop and you
already have 2TB of data, why in the world would you choose to buy
only 1TB?
What if it was 500GB of data and then organically grew to 1.2TB?
A good question for future proofing, but it doesn't apply here:-a their
need is already 2TB & they didn't even buy 2TB: they bought 1TB.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-19 1:22 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 4:24 p.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-17 10:59 a.m., Chris wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2026-05-16 10:34 a.m., -hh wrote:Not true. Any good photo manager will use some kind of database. Digikam
On 5/15/26 15:18, CrudeSausage wrote:I guess that is one advantage of Windows and Linux: it doesn't matter >>>>>>>> where you put the photos because the application reads them from a >>>>>>>> regular folder on the computer rather than some sort of database. >>>>>>>
On 2026-05-15 3:08 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 5/15/26 13:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
Who the heck has 2TB of home photos? Seriously, someone needs to lay
off the camera for a bit.
Home genealogy project .. they're doing high resolution scans of a >>>>>>>>>>> bunch of old family photos.-a Probably some videos from 8mm home >>>>>>>>>>> movies too.
That makes sense. If they're not willing to invest in a huge amount of
iCloud storage, they can always consider just getting a large external
hard disk. That's what I use for all the movies I ripped from their >>>>>>>>>> DVD and Blu-Rays discs. If they format it as exFAT, it can work on >>>>>>>>>> both Windows and Mac computers.
Sure, there's ways to kludge it, but MacOS doesn't like having >>>>>>>>> fragmented "Photos" libraries.
Ultimately, the real problem is that they're a cheapskate and try to get
by on a shoestring even as it causes them extra headaches.-a For example,
they won't even buy a mere 4TB hard drive because their pile of 1TBs >>>>>>>>> with randomly scattered files aren't full yet.
Having a good data backup strategy is similarly unlikely .. if I dare >>>>>>>>> ask, I'll probably be told "sure - its this pile of USB thumb drives!".
for example.
So what would be the software solution is you have a 2TB worth of photos >>>>>> but only a 1TB NVMe? I would put those photos on an external disk myself >>>>>> and would easily be able to view the photos using Microsoft Photos. Is >>>>>> there a better solution?
Digikam can do the same. I use it over a network share where the database >>>>> sits locally and the photos are on the network.
I wouldn't call MS Photos a "good" photo manager by any stretch of the >>>>> imagination.
It views photos and has some limited editing features. It doesn't manage >>>> photos because it simply reads what's in the Pictures folder. If there >>>> is 130MB of photos in there or 13,000MB, it will behave the same.
Correct. Slow as treacle.
Microsoft Photos isn't slow. Why are you lying?
Dragging this to be slightly more on-topic, MS Photos is crushingly slow
when trying to browse photos from my iphone.
Chris wrote:
It's obvious Chris. You claim I purposefully "misrepresented" the data.
No reasonable person would accept that is an insult.
Let's agree to disagree.
a. You think saying someone purposefully misrepresented data
is not an insult
b. I am the one you accused of misrepresenting the data, and
since I "represented" the data EXACTLY as it was, I think
your accusation is an (attempt at an) insult.
Which I needed to correct several times. Plus your preposterous argument >>>> that a phone is out of support the day after a software update.
Jesus Christ Chris. I never said that.
You absolutely did. Then went very quiet when I highlighted it.
You claim that an iphone, like the X, is out of support the day after it
received the last update to ios 16. Not the day ios 17, which dropped
support, was released.
Look Chris, stop acting like Alan Baker and Snit.
You're welcome to correct me, such as when you found I missed one of the many iPhone 6 models, even after asking everyone if I had missed any.
But it's absurd for you to claim I woulde ever say any device is fully out of support when I'm on record many times saying that every OEM fixes bugs in older devices.
By Apple's own latest-OS-only fully patched definition, the iPhone X had about 5.85 years of full hotfix support, ending with iOS 16.6.1 on 7 September 2023 when we begin and end by the two dates listed below:
1. The iPhone X first shipped for retail sale on November 3, 2017.
2. The last pre-iOS-17 release was iOS 16.6.1 on September 7, 2023.
3. 2,134 days / 365 days in a year = 5.85 years
In fact, I even said Windows was "supported" for over 17 years as an
example that almost nothing "goes out of support".
The fact you don't understand that is worrisome to me, Chris.
It means you don't understand the difference between these two things:
a. Full support
b. Support
Given you've had to roll back your adulation of Samsung's seven years of
"full support", I suggest neither do you.
Again and again, Chris, you claim I said things that I didn't say.
What do you mean by "roll back"?
Samsung's promise is FULL SUPPORT (for S-series devices) for 7 years.
That's a fact.
You don't like the timeline (it slows down as the 7 years approaches).
But hell, Apple's full support promise is dead and gone after 5 years.
And, worse, Apple makes no promise of the time between patches.
For God's sake, Chris. I have entire threads on the Android newsgroup similar to the threads here on the Apple newsgroup about how long is full support and what does full supprot mean.
On every other OS-related newsgroup, nobody flinches when I talk about how bad the OEM support is.
I worked BACKWARDS from the last phone out of support.
Which was the iPhone X.
You really need to look closely at why your opinions don't match facts.
This is simply too easy. Like stealing a kid's candy, as you left-pondians >> like to say.
The facts are: The most recent phones to lose support where the XR, XS and >> XS Max. All three were dropped by ios 26. The X was dropped by ios 17 which >> was released near three years ago. ios 18 didn't drop any models.
So you are incorrect. There must have some other reason you chose to focus >> on the X...?
From my logs...
Subject: How long did the iPhone X actually get full iOS support?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 01:09:25 -0400
Message-ID: <10pdc25$2uhs$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Subject: Apple's iOS full support is a *lot* shorter than most people "think" it is
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 11:30:02 -0400
Message-ID: <10q0v1q$2chh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Subject: What is the history of Galaxy S-series & Pixel full support?Note the date.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:09:32 -0600
Message-ID: <10ru0hc$2rl5$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
...and yet you continue to diagree. lol.
Now who's trying to be insulting, eh?! Let's not forget you refused to accept that calling them stupid is objectively an insult. Hypocrite.
Given you spout so much rubbish it is easy to find examples of where you
say things you claim you've never said. i.e.
Again and again, Chris, you claim I said things that I didn't say.
Go on then. Define *objectively* what full support means.
Samsung's promise is FULL SUPPORT (for S-series devices) for 7 years.
That's a fact.
Is it? Please refer back to your definition of what full support is.
You don't like the timeline (it slows down as the 7 years approaches).
But hell, Apple's full support promise is dead and gone after 5 years.
No it isn't. They state *at least* five years, which we all know
actually means seven years.
And, worse, Apple makes no promise of the time between patches.
And allowing upto three months between patches - which is what Samsung
are planning - is better? How?!
For God's sake, Chris. I have entire threads on the Android newsgroup
similar to the threads here on the Apple newsgroup about how long is full
support and what does full supprot mean.
Only because I challenged you to on 25th March.
On every other OS-related newsgroup, nobody flinches when I talk about how >> bad the OEM support is.
Not true. You often get responses correcting you or highlighting the
flaws in your posts. Like your claim that you'd written thousands of tutorials.
Also, often your "entire threads" are 80-100% you talking to yourself. lol.
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
<nothing of substance>
Your post can simply summed up as: https://media1.tenor.com/m/jYZmxGqvQKsAAAAC/old-man-yells-at-cloud-yelling.gif
Chris wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
<nothing of substance>
Your post can simply summed up as:
https://media1.tenor.com/m/jYZmxGqvQKsAAAAC/old-man-yells-at-cloud-yelling.gif
Hi Chris,
Whenever you're faced with facts you can't respond to like an adult,
you throw incessant insults,
which is your way to avoid the facts.
BTW, while you're digging up incessant insults, I just wrote and
published yet another of my thousands of tutorials online.
Whenever you're faced with facts you can't respond to like an adult,
My reaction to your post was explicitly because you refused to respond to *any* of my points directly. You simply went on one of your vague and pointless rants.
you throw incessant insults,
I admit the above was intended as an insult. The message is accurate, however. You are an old man chasing things you have no control over.
which is your way to avoid the facts.
Lol. I've not avoided a single "fact" of yours. Your consistent problem is you think yours and others' opinions are facts.
BTW, while you're digging up incessant insults, I just wrote and
published yet another of my thousands of tutorials online.
Lol. Your personal notes that are of no relevance nor interest to anyone
else are not tutorials.
Chris wrote:
Whenever you're faced with facts you can't respond to like an adult,
My reaction to your post was explicitly because you refused to respond to
*any* of my points directly. You simply went on one of your vague and
pointless rants.
Hi Chris,
Of all the Apple zealots who defend Apple to the death no matter what
You also say "wrong" to every fact you dislike, but you sometimes provide a counter factual which sometimes has value so there's merit in your posts.
By Apple's own latest-OS-only fully patched
definition, the iPhone X had about 5.85 years of full
hotfix support, ending with iOS 16.6.1 on 7
September 2023 when we begin and end by the two
dates listed below:
1. The iPhone X first shipped for retail sale on November 3, 2017.
2. The last pre-iOS-17 release was iOS 16.6.1 on September 7, 2023.
3. 2,134 days / 365 days in a year = 5.85 years
The fact is what Apple's full-support model is.
I know that fact well. You have not shown *any* understanding of it.
I know more about Apple than you zealots will ever know, combined.
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Whenever you're faced with facts you can't respond to like an adult,
My reaction to your post was explicitly because you refused to respond to >>> *any* of my points directly. You simply went on one of your vague and
pointless rants.
Hi Chris,
Of all the Apple zealots who defend Apple to the death no matter what
I don't defend Apple. I defend factual truth. You conflate the two because you pathologically lie about Apple due to some deep seated hatred you have.
You also say "wrong" to every fact you dislike, but you sometimes provide a >> counter factual which sometimes has value so there's merit in your posts.
Do you still refuse to accept you said this?:
By Apple's own latest-OS-only fully patched
definition, the iPhone X had about 5.85 years of full
hotfix support, ending with iOS 16.6.1 on 7
September 2023 when we begin and end by the two
dates listed below:
1. The iPhone X first shipped for retail sale on November 3, 2017.
2. The last pre-iOS-17 release was iOS 16.6.1 on September 7, 2023.
3. 2,134 days / 365 days in a year = 5.85 years
Thereby claiming that support ends the *day after* a patch is released. That's dumb and wrong.
The fact is what Apple's full-support model is.
I know that fact well. You have not shown *any* understanding of it.
You can't even define it. Despite repeated requests to get you to describe what *YOU* believe it to mean.
I know more about Apple than you zealots will ever know, combined.
That's the most ludicrous thing any sensible-thinking person can say.
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Whenever you're faced with facts you can't respond to like an adult,
My reaction to your post was explicitly because you refused to respond to >>> *any* of my points directly. You simply went on one of your vague and
pointless rants.
Hi Chris,
Of all the Apple zealots who defend Apple to the death no matter what
I don't defend Apple. I defend factual truth. You conflate the two because you pathologically lie about Apple due to some deep seated hatred you have.
You also say "wrong" to every fact you dislike, but you sometimes provide a >> counter factual which sometimes has value so there's merit in your posts.
Do you still refuse to accept you said this?:
By Apple's own latest-OS-only fully patched
definition, the iPhone X had about 5.85 years of full
hotfix support, ending with iOS 16.6.1 on 7
September 2023 when we begin and end by the two
dates listed below:
1. The iPhone X first shipped for retail sale on November 3, 2017.
2. The last pre-iOS-17 release was iOS 16.6.1 on September 7, 2023.
3. 2,134 days / 365 days in a year = 5.85 years
Thereby claiming that support ends the *day after* a patch is released. That's dumb and wrong.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Whenever you're faced with facts you can't respond to like an adult,
My reaction to your post was explicitly because you refused to respond to >>>> *any* of my points directly. You simply went on one of your vague and
pointless rants.
Hi Chris,
Of all the Apple zealots who defend Apple to the death no matter what
I don't defend Apple. I defend factual truth. You conflate the two because >> you pathologically lie about Apple due to some deep seated hatred you have. >>
Do you still refuse to accept you said this?:
You also say "wrong" to every fact you dislike, but you sometimes provide a >>> counter factual which sometimes has value so there's merit in your posts. >>
By Apple's own latest-OS-only fully patched
definition, the iPhone X had about 5.85 years of full
hotfix support, ending with iOS 16.6.1 on 7
September 2023 when we begin and end by the two
dates listed below:
1. The iPhone X first shipped for retail sale on November 3, 2017.
2. The last pre-iOS-17 release was iOS 16.6.1 on September 7, 2023.
3. 2,134 days / 365 days in a year = 5.85 years
Thereby claiming that support ends the *day after* a patch is released.
That's dumb and wrong.
This post has generated crickets from the OP which is further proof - if
any were needed - that he will never respond to a direct challenge or question. Like someone we all know very well he's TACO'd
He's too busy misinforming other people. lol.
On May 30, 2026 at 4:45:42rC>AM EDT, "Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
Chris wrote:
Whenever you're faced with facts you can't respond to like an adult, >>>>>My reaction to your post was explicitly because you refused to respond to >>>>> *any* of my points directly. You simply went on one of your vague and >>>>> pointless rants.
Hi Chris,
Of all the Apple zealots who defend Apple to the death no matter what
I don't defend Apple. I defend factual truth. You conflate the two because >>> you pathologically lie about Apple due to some deep seated hatred you have. >>>
Do you still refuse to accept you said this?:
You also say "wrong" to every fact you dislike, but you sometimes provide a
counter factual which sometimes has value so there's merit in your posts. >>>
By Apple's own latest-OS-only fully patched
definition, the iPhone X had about 5.85 years of full
hotfix support, ending with iOS 16.6.1 on 7
September 2023 when we begin and end by the two
dates listed below:
1. The iPhone X first shipped for retail sale on November 3, 2017.
2. The last pre-iOS-17 release was iOS 16.6.1 on September 7, 2023.
3. 2,134 days / 365 days in a year = 5.85 years
Thereby claiming that support ends the *day after* a patch is released.
That's dumb and wrong.
This post has generated crickets from the OP which is further proof - if
any were needed - that he will never respond to a direct challenge or
question. Like someone we all know very well he's TACO'd
Of course. And no more proof is needed. I learned after one reply. He/she/it is a troll. He/she/it is not interested in "discussing" or "teaching
people" his/her/it's alleged "vast knowledge" of iOS.
He/she/it is just seeking attention. HE/SHE/IT DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT IOS/IPADOS HAS A BUILT-IN MUSIC PLAYER! That is all we need to know about his/her/it's "vast knowledge".
So why do you continue to reply to him/her/it?
He's too busy misinforming other people. lol.
That is just a side effect of desperately seeking attention. Once someone foolishly engages with him/her/it, he/she/it will endlessly blabber all kinds of nonsense. All designed to get SOMEONE to reply. Because he/she/it KNOWS that by "pushing buttons" (Apple is junk/insecure/all marketing no substance etc. etc.), SOMEONE will reply.
Just ignore he/she/it and he/she/it will seek attention elsewhere.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:10:08 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,561 |
