Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
It suggests that people have disposable income that they put toward
Apple gear, incessantly, it's ridiculous how little storage you get by
default with their devices, I had a 1 TB NVMe drive as a part, it's
still going 3 1/2 years later, at the time the iMac or Mac mini
would've had a small amount of storage, and still cost a lot. You're
a sucker if you use Apple's crap hardware and software.
I realize this is a bit unfair, because the M4 Mac Mini just came out,
but...
Comparing CPU benchmarks to the i5-10400 in his 1337 Linux machine (and
looking at the M1 which was available in 2020 when his processor choice
came out and the M2 that was available when he built his system:
Single thread:
i5: 2,568 M4: 4,589 M2: 3,903 M1: 3,687
CPU Mark:
i5: 12,118 M4: 24,394 M2: 15,575 M1: 14,154
Even the M1 was faster than Joel's carefully researched choice.
I wanted a middle-of-the-road CPU. I was still using an old 1080p
monitor. The i5-10400 was ideal, at the time, and still serves me
well.
The Mac Mini wasn't upgraded to M2 until after Joel built is "superior"
Linux machine, but...
...the M1 Mac Mini had support for 4K video OOTB
Supposedly, my CPU's video can do it, and it did *try* to do it,
albeit too poorly to be worth using, which is why I got the NVIDIA
card.
and could run a 4K and
a 6K monitor simultaneously.
All for $700USD.
But I guess there wouldn't have been "bragging rights" with his 1337 crew. >>
:-)
And it had how much storage, again? Heh.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
...the M1 Mac Mini had support for 4K video OOTB
and could run a 4K and
a 6K monitor simultaneously.
All for $700USD.
But I guess there wouldn't have been "bragging rights" with his 1337 crew. >>>>
:-)
And it had how much storage, again? Heh.
You imagine that as some great "gotcha", do you?
Yeah, it is, because it's where Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GBBetter question:
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]Better question:
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Why do so many people find that it's worth it to pay that much to have a
Mac?
:-)
Brain-damaged Sprite guzzlers can't handle Linux, and want to be hand-
held by Apple, what else is new.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
...the M1 Mac Mini had support for 4K video OOTB
and could run a 4K and
a 6K monitor simultaneously.
All for $700USD.
But I guess there wouldn't have been "bragging rights" with his 1337 crew. >>>>
:-)
And it had how much storage, again? Heh.
You imagine that as some great "gotcha", do you?
Yeah, it is, because it's where Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]Better question:
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Why do so many people find that it's worth it to pay that much to have a >>>> Mac?
:-)
Brain-damaged Sprite guzzlers can't handle Linux, and want to be hand-
held by Apple, what else is new.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Everyone who values things differently than you must be "brain-damaged".
LOL
So it reflects having an intact brain, to pay $400 extra for somethingIt can, yes.
i got for barely over $100, 3 1/2 years ago? "Riiiiight".
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
It can, yes.Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]Better question:
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Why do so many people find that it's worth it to pay that much to have a >>>>>> Mac?
:-)
Brain-damaged Sprite guzzlers can't handle Linux, and want to be hand- >>>>> held by Apple, what else is new.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Everyone who values things differently than you must be "brain-damaged". >>>>
LOL
So it reflects having an intact brain, to pay $400 extra for something
i got for barely over $100, 3 1/2 years ago? "Riiiiight".
Because you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalizeNo, that's not what I said or meant at all.
that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats. Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is
it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
On 2024-11-27 11:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]Better question:
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Why do so many people find that it's worth it to pay that much to >>>>>>> have a
Mac?
:-)
Brain-damaged Sprite guzzlers can't handle Linux, and want to be
hand-
held by Apple, what else is new.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Everyone who values things differently than you must be "brain-
damaged".
LOL
So it reflects having an intact brain, to pay $400 extra for something >>>> i got for barely over $100, 3 1/2 years ago? "Riiiiight".
It can, yes.
Because you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize
that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats.
Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is
it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
No, that's not what I said or meant at all.
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works as
well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
And having empty space isn't "elite".
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 00:15:06 +0000, Joel said:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
And it had how much storage, again? Heh.
You imagine that as some great "gotcha", do you?
Yeah, it is, because it's where Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Because you obviously don't understand Apple's CPUs and / or stuck in
the same old MHz-myth style nonsense that caused Apple to swap to Intel
CPU years ago. Apple's chips simply don't actually need as much RAM as
Intel CISC CPUs do.
The 256 GB is storage, not RAM, and why would RISC need *less* RAM?
You're talking out of your ass, apparently.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
No, that's not what I said or meant at all.So it reflects having an intact brain, to pay $400 extra for something >>>>> i got for barely over $100, 3 1/2 years ago? "Riiiiight".It can, yes.
Because you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize
that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats.
Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is
it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works as
well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
How is that not proving my point, that you're rationalizing?
And having empty space isn't "elite".
And yet Apple charges such a premium for it, that you would think itNope. Rational people don't think that paying for something they're not
was ...
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-11-27 11:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize >>>> that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats.
Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is >>>> it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
No, that's not what I said or meant at all.
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works as
well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
And having empty space isn't "elite".
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.
Utter nonsense, that's even worse rationalization than Alan's.
Everyone else who's on a desktop can readily buy an external SSD,
including the URL link that Joel posted earlier today...
"WD_BLACK 1TB SN850X NVMe Internal Gaming SSD Solid State Drive - Gen4
PCIe, M.2 2280, Up to 7,300 MB/s - WDS100T2X0E ... $79.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/western-digital-1tb-black-sn850x-nvme/p/N82E16820250243>
and if it doesn't include an enclosure, add one:
"ORICO Aluminum M.2 NVMe SSD Enclosure, Tool-Free 10Gbps USB C Adapter,
USB 3.2 M.2 NVMe Reader, External SSD Case Thunderbolt 3 Compatible,
Supports 4TB 2230/2242/2260/2280 PCIe M-Key SSDs-PWM2-BK ... $11.69"
<https://www.newegg.com/p/0VN-0003-002G7>
Or of course, check to see if another model which comes with one is cheaper: >>
"SAMSUNG T7 Portable SSD 1TB - Up to 1050 MB/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2 External
Solid State Drive, Gray (MU-PC1T0T/AM) ... $89.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/samsung-t7-1tb-usb-3-2-gen-2/p/N82E16820147767>
USB? Come on. You're just lapping up Apple's spoiled milk.What's wrong with USB 3.2 at 1050MB/s for a data storage drive...
On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-11-27 11:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]Better question:
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Why do so many people find that it's worth it to pay that much >>>>>>>> to have a
Mac?
:-)
Brain-damaged Sprite guzzlers can't handle Linux, and want to be >>>>>>> hand-
held by Apple, what else is new.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Everyone who values things differently than you must be "brain-
damaged".
LOL
So it reflects having an intact brain, to pay $400 extra for something >>>>> i got for barely over $100, 3 1/2 years ago? "Riiiiight".
It can, yes.
Because you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize
that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats.
Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is
it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
No, that's not what I said or meant at all.
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works
as well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
And having empty space isn't "elite".
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 12:12, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-11-27 11:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize >>>>>> that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats. >>>>>> Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is >>>>>> it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
No, that's not what I said or meant at all.
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works as >>>>> well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
And having empty space isn't "elite".
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.
Utter nonsense, that's even worse rationalization than Alan's.
Why? Why is it nonsense?
Because it's comparing fundamentally different things. I could add
another SSD, without even removing my first one. Whereas with Apple,
I have to decide up front exactly what the internal storage will
always be. It's pathetic.
What's wrong with USB 3.2 at 1050MB/s for a data storage drive...Everyone else who's on a desktop can readily buy an external SSD,USB? Come on. You're just lapping up Apple's spoiled milk.
including the URL link that Joel posted earlier today...
"WD_BLACK 1TB SN850X NVMe Internal Gaming SSD Solid State Drive - Gen4 >>>> PCIe, M.2 2280, Up to 7,300 MB/s - WDS100T2X0E ... $79.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/western-digital-1tb-black-sn850x-nvme/p/N82E16820250243>
and if it doesn't include an enclosure, add one:
"ORICO Aluminum M.2 NVMe SSD Enclosure, Tool-Free 10Gbps USB C Adapter, >>>> USB 3.2 M.2 NVMe Reader, External SSD Case Thunderbolt 3 Compatible,
Supports 4TB 2230/2242/2260/2280 PCIe M-Key SSDs-PWM2-BK ... $11.69"
<https://www.newegg.com/p/0VN-0003-002G7>
Or of course, check to see if another model which comes with one is cheaper:
"SAMSUNG T7 Portable SSD 1TB - Up to 1050 MB/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2 External >>>> Solid State Drive, Gray (MU-PC1T0T/AM) ... $89.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/samsung-t7-1tb-usb-3-2-gen-2/p/N82E16820147767> >>>
...I mean apart from "bragging rights" about how your system is "elite"?
You can make excuses, rationalize, but Apple is just crapware, is theMy systems just work.
truth. They take you for a sucker.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-11-27 11:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize >>>> that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats.
Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is >>>> it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
No, that's not what I said or meant at all.
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works as
well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
And having empty space isn't "elite".
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.
Utter nonsense, that's even worse rationalization than Alan's.
Everyone else who's on a desktop can readily buy an external SSD,
including the URL link that Joel posted earlier today...
"WD_BLACK 1TB SN850X NVMe Internal Gaming SSD Solid State Drive - Gen4
PCIe, M.2 2280, Up to 7,300 MB/s - WDS100T2X0E ... $79.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/western-digital-1tb-black-sn850x-nvme/p/N82E16820250243>
and if it doesn't include an enclosure, add one:
"ORICO Aluminum M.2 NVMe SSD Enclosure, Tool-Free 10Gbps USB C Adapter,
USB 3.2 M.2 NVMe Reader, External SSD Case Thunderbolt 3 Compatible,
Supports 4TB 2230/2242/2260/2280 PCIe M-Key SSDs-PWM2-BK ... $11.69"
<https://www.newegg.com/p/0VN-0003-002G7>
Or of course, check to see if another model which comes with one is cheaper: >>
"SAMSUNG T7 Portable SSD 1TB - Up to 1050 MB/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2 External
Solid State Drive, Gray (MU-PC1T0T/AM) ... $89.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/samsung-t7-1tb-usb-3-2-gen-2/p/N82E16820147767>
USB? Come on. You're just lapping up Apple's spoiled milk.
On 2024-11-27 11:45, -hh wrote:
On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-11-27 11:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]Better question:
still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
Why do so many people find that it's worth it to pay that much >>>>>>>>> to have a
Mac?
:-)
Brain-damaged Sprite guzzlers can't handle Linux, and want to be >>>>>>>> hand-
held by Apple, what else is new.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Everyone who values things differently than you must be "brain-
damaged".
LOL
So it reflects having an intact brain, to pay $400 extra for
something
i got for barely over $100, 3 1/2 years ago? "Riiiiight".
It can, yes.
Because you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.
In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize >>>> that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats.
Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is >>>> it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.
No, that's not what I said or meant at all.
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works
as well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
And having empty space isn't "elite".
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.
Exactly so.
I have a MacBook Air (M3) with a 1TB drive precisely because I need to
take it everywhere.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works as >>>> well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
How is that not proving my point, that you're rationalizing?
Because I'm using a complete system that works well for me.
When I bought my current machine, I considered my space requirements and >>got the 1TB option, and that cost me an additional $250.
I didn't do it for "bragging rights" or to declare my system to be "elite". >>
I did it because I USE the space.
And I paid Apple's premium because life experience (more than 30 years >>using, selling, and supporting both Macs and Windows personal computers) >>has shown me the value of a system that works as well as a Mac does.
My entire computer is the tool I purchased, and I looked at the entire >>price of the tool I needed and the value of that tool to me and I paid
it. All in, the price as $2,200
I fully expect this tool to serve me well for the next 5-7 years, so the >>monthly cost is no more than $36.67.
I am certain I could do better buying as parts.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage? Absolutely. >>>>>>
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that works as >>>>>> well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
How is that not proving my point, that you're rationalizing?
Because I'm using a complete system that works well for me.
When I bought my current machine, I considered my space requirements and >>>>got the 1TB option, and that cost me an additional $250.
I didn't do it for "bragging rights" or to declare my system to be "elite". >>>>
I did it because I USE the space.
And I paid Apple's premium because life experience (more than 30 years >>>>using, selling, and supporting both Macs and Windows personal computers) >>>>has shown me the value of a system that works as well as a Mac does.
My entire computer is the tool I purchased, and I looked at the entire >>>>price of the tool I needed and the value of that tool to me and I paid >>>>it. All in, the price as $2,200
I fully expect this tool to serve me well for the next 5-7 years, so the >>>>monthly cost is no more than $36.67.
I am certain I could do better buying as parts.
Some people could.
You?
Doubtful.
You seem to know less about computers than snit does.
Idiot. I've honed my skills, and didn't do bad even when I was rusty, anyway. You're just, as usual, spouting off.
Read some more Fox
News.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
I could add
another [internal] SSD, without even removing my first one. Whereas with Apple,
I have to decide up front exactly what the internal storage will
always be. It's pathetic.
No. It's a business decision Apple has made and it clearly works well
enough for many consumers.
There it is, rationalization of Apple's hand-holding. Pathetic.
My systems just work....I mean apart from "bragging rights" about how your system is "elite"? >>>You can make excuses, rationalize, but Apple is just crapware, is the
truth. They take you for a sucker.
:-)
And that's fine - but mine just works, too.
I expect to have to get
my hands dirty, assembling hardware, and use my brain, setting up the
OS and installing software. It's *my* computer, not Microsoft's, not
Apple's or Dell's. Even when I first installed Win10 on it, in 2021,
it was my setup of such, not an OEM's.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 12:46, Joel wrote:
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
Another moron troll for the killfile. :-\
Another moron Apple dumbshit to killfile me so he doesn't have to
learn the truth.
Seriously: how old are you?
47 going on 21. :)
(I was 20 when the Spice Girls' Pepsi commercial* aired in 1997.)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzwHq4UwmFM
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/27/24 3:12 PM, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:
having empty space isn't "elite".
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.
Utter nonsense, that's even worse rationalization than Alan's.
Not at all: it is recognizing when system packaging is operationally
important and when it is not: when one is being mobile (laptop), you're
typically willing to pay extra to not have external devices that have to
get plugged in. Conversely, for a home desktop, it's not as big a deal.
What planet is this? How can you pretend that a USB-connected
external drive is the same thing as an internal storage drive?
Look at it this way: if you can save $300 by having an external SSD
instead of an internal SSD on your desktop PC are you going to pay the
extra for the aesthetics, or are you going to save a few bucks?
Not using Apple, I don't have that problem.
YMMV, but I'm willing to be frugal on my desktop system, so I have had
both internal (Apple OEM) & external SSDs from the start. Not only did
it make migration easier, but its allowed me to have all of my 'ready'
data also on SSDs, so I have zero HDD latency issues when doing system
searches/data retrievals, etc. Plus no fan noise.
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups.
It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and use
its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS reinstall.
Boom.
Everyone else who's on a desktop can readily buy an external SSD,
including the URL link that Joel posted earlier today...
...
USB? Come on. You're just lapping up Apple's spoiled milk.
Are you really trying to show everyone how dated your "expertise" is?
It's not dated, I don't want to have an external drive continually
plugged in.
USB 3.2 Gen 2 has a max transfer speed of *at least* 1250MB/sec (as Gen
2 2x2 is double that). This means its 2x-4x faster than SATA-3.
I'm not using any SATA device, not even a DVD drive.
Likewise, I did ask you what your i5's SSD benchmarks in at, but you've
conveniently never provided a number, for given what you've described,
its probably around ~3000 MB/s, which is ~half of what Macs' SSDs do.
Gosh, at twice as fast, maybe that's why Apple's SSDs cost more!
Ultimately, what's the right performance to select comes down to what
your capability needs use case is for how much performance you need to
pay for.
For example, since you're trying to make fun of 2000+ MB/sec USB 3.2 G2
rates, how much would it cost you to upgrade your system to the ~7000
MB/s performance of the cheaper Mac Mini that you've complained about?
I'm reasonably sure that my SSD's speeds are comparable to Macs of its
time.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 13:23, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 12:46, Joel wrote:
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
Another moron troll for the killfile. :-\
Another moron Apple dumbshit to killfile me so he doesn't have to
learn the truth.
Seriously: how old are you?
47 going on 21. :)
(I was 20 when the Spice Girls' Pepsi commercial* aired in 1997.)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzwHq4UwmFM
I'd believe the 47...
...but you're clearly going on 16.
I'm accustomed to haughty attitudes from Apple lusers.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Look at it this way: if you can save $300 by having an external SSD
instead of an internal SSD on your desktop PC are you going to pay the >>>> extra for the aesthetics, or are you going to save a few bucks?
Not using Apple, I don't have that problem.
Bullshit you don't, for above you just rejected external solutions even
for a desktop. And for your current system, just how many NVMe's can you
install on your motherboard? If you want/need more than 1TB, if you
buy a 2TB are you going to throw the 1TB away? Or are you going to be
keep it available by putting it into a USB 3.2 external case for ~$12?
That's why I bought a high-end motherboard, I *can* add another NVMe,
without discarding the one I already have.
Will I do this? No, but I have the option, always there.
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups.
It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and use
its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS reinstall.
Boom.
So you're admitting that you don't have any automated backup system
running? And probably no more than a single instance either? Let alone
any remote site backup. You clearly don't value your data.
I update my external's backups periodically, it's OK.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Look at it this way: if you can save $300 by having an external SSD >>>>>> instead of an internal SSD on your desktop PC are you going to pay the >>>>>> extra for the aesthetics, or are you going to save a few bucks?
Not using Apple, I don't have that problem.
Bullshit you don't, for above you just rejected external solutions even >>>> for a desktop. And for your current system, just how many NVMe's can you >>>> install on your motherboard? If you want/need more than 1TB, if you
buy a 2TB are you going to throw the 1TB away? Or are you going to be >>>> keep it available by putting it into a USB 3.2 external case for ~$12?
That's why I bought a high-end motherboard, I *can* add another NVMe,
without discarding the one I already have.
Which brand/model Motherboard was this again? And its just one extra
slot, so what's your plan for lifecycle maintenance after its filled?
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z590-AORUS-ELITE-AX-rev-10#kf
But can they be RAID0'ed for performance potentially equivalent to the
'overpriced' systems that you've been complaining about?
Who needs that? That's a red herring.
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive...
So you're admitting that you don't have any automated backup system
running? And probably no more than a single instance either? Let alone >>>> any remote site backup. You clearly don't value your data.
I update my external's backups periodically, it's OK.
How (in)frequent a system gets backed up comes down to the question of
how much you value your personally created data content. For example,
Feeb's claim of (maybe) monthly shows that he places very little value
on his own works.
I do it as needed, simple as that.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
I bought a high-end motherboard, I *can* add another NVMe,
without discarding the one I already have.
Which brand/model Motherboard was this again? And its just one extra
slot, so what's your plan for lifecycle maintenance after its filled?
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z590-AORUS-ELITE-AX-rev-10#kf
Not PCIe 5, as I expected.
It did not exist in 2021, yeah, not for Macs either AFAIK.
Plus your internal slots are finite, so once you fill them,
what's your system maintenance plan for what then to do? Or do
you not actually have a lifecycle plan & you're just winging it?
Are you kidding? How would I ever need more than one more?
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
I am certain I could do better buying as parts [than paying Apple's prices].
Some people could.
You?
Doubtful.
You seem to know less about computers than snit does.
Idiot. I've honed my skills, and didn't do bad even when I was rusty,
anyway. You're just, as usual, spouting off.
I'm presenting my opinion based upon what you have posted and from what I
see, you know nothing about computers other than enough to make you dangerous.
??? I'm doing beautifully, with my build.
Next time by an off the shelf computer.
it will cost you less in the long term.
No, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't be durable like mine.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/27/24 3:12 PM, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:
having empty space isn't "elite".
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.
Utter nonsense, that's even worse rationalization than Alan's.
Not at all: it is recognizing when system packaging is operationally
important and when it is not: when one is being mobile (laptop), you're
typically willing to pay extra to not have external devices that have to
get plugged in. Conversely, for a home desktop, it's not as big a deal.
What planet is this? How can you pretend that a USB-connected
external drive is the same thing as an internal storage drive?
Look at it this way: if you can save $300 by having an external SSD
instead of an internal SSD on your desktop PC are you going to pay the
extra for the aesthetics, or are you going to save a few bucks?
Not using Apple, I don't have that problem.
YMMV, but I'm willing to be frugal on my desktop system, so I have had
both internal (Apple OEM) & external SSDs from the start. Not only did
it make migration easier, but its allowed me to have all of my 'ready'
data also on SSDs, so I have zero HDD latency issues when doing system
searches/data retrievals, etc. Plus no fan noise.
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups.
It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and use
its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS reinstall.
Boom.
Everyone else who's on a desktop can readily buy an external SSD,USB? Come on. You're just lapping up Apple's spoiled milk.
including the URL link that Joel posted earlier today...
"WD_BLACK 1TB SN850X NVMe Internal Gaming SSD Solid State Drive - Gen4 >>>> PCIe, M.2 2280, Up to 7,300 MB/s - WDS100T2X0E ... $79.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/western-digital-1tb-black-sn850x-nvme/p/N82E16820250243>
and if it doesn't include an enclosure, add one:
"ORICO Aluminum M.2 NVMe SSD Enclosure, Tool-Free 10Gbps USB C Adapter, >>>> USB 3.2 M.2 NVMe Reader, External SSD Case Thunderbolt 3 Compatible,
Supports 4TB 2230/2242/2260/2280 PCIe M-Key SSDs-PWM2-BK ... $11.69"
<https://www.newegg.com/p/0VN-0003-002G7>
Or of course, check to see if another model which comes with one is cheaper:
"SAMSUNG T7 Portable SSD 1TB - Up to 1050 MB/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2 External >>>> Solid State Drive, Gray (MU-PC1T0T/AM) ... $89.99"
<https://www.newegg.com/samsung-t7-1tb-usb-3-2-gen-2/p/N82E16820147767> >>>
Are you really trying to show everyone how dated your "expertise" is?
It's not dated, I don't want to have an external drive continually
plugged in.
USB 3.2 Gen 2 has a max transfer speed of *at least* 1250MB/sec (as Gen
2 2x2 is double that). This means its 2x-4x faster than SATA-3.
I'm not using any SATA device, not even a DVD drive.
Likewise, I did ask you what your i5's SSD benchmarks in at, but you've
conveniently never provided a number, for given what you've described,
its probably around ~3000 MB/s, which is ~half of what Macs' SSDs do.
Gosh, at twice as fast, maybe that's why Apple's SSDs cost more!
Ultimately, what's the right performance to select comes down to what
your capability needs use case is for how much performance you need to
pay for.
For example, since you're trying to make fun of 1000+ MB/sec USB 3.2 G2
rates, how much would it cost you to upgrade your system to the ~7000
MB/s performance of the cheaper Mac Mini that you've complained about?
I'm reasonably sure that my SSD's speeds are comparable to Macs of itsAre you, though?
time.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
You buy a computer SYSTEM.
It's value to the end user is what the whole SYSTEM can do.
Does Apple charge a premium for expanding the storage?
Absolutely.
Is it worth it in order to get a personal computer system that
works as well as a Mac does? Absolutely.
How is that not proving my point, that you're rationalizing?
Because I'm using a complete system that works well for me.
When I bought my current machine, I considered my space
requirements and got the 1TB option, and that cost me an
additional $250.
I didn't do it for "bragging rights" or to declare my system to be
"elite".
I did it because I USE the space.
And I paid Apple's premium because life experience (more than 30
years using, selling, and supporting both Macs and Windows
personal computers) has shown me the value of a system that works
as well as a Mac does.
My entire computer is the tool I purchased, and I looked at the
entire price of the tool I needed and the value of that tool to me
and I paid it. All in, the price as $2,200
I fully expect this tool to serve me well for the next 5-7 years,
so the monthly cost is no more than $36.67.
I am certain I could do better buying as parts.
Nope. Rational people don't think that paying for somethingAnd having empty space isn't "elite".
And yet Apple charges such a premium for it, that you would
think it was ...
they're not using is in any way, shape or form "elite"?
There's a saying that you should learn:
'There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who
consider price only are this man's lawful prey.'
And yet my parts are all good stuff. Apple expects you to trustYou'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it.
that they'd only provide something as good, but you don't really
know.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
I could add
another [internal] SSD, without even removing my first one. Whereas with Apple,
I have to decide up front exactly what the internal storage will
always be. It's pathetic.
No. It's a business decision Apple has made and it clearly works well
enough for many consumers.
There it is, rationalization of Apple's hand-holding. Pathetic.
Nope.
Simply noting that when a company offers a product at a premium price
and many, many, MANY people not only buy it, but continue to buy it over
and over...
...Occam's Razor suggests that they're doing so because it works well
for them.
It suggests that Apple doesn't mind collecting their hard-earned
money, over and over, given their willingness to lazily hand it to
them.
My systems just work....I mean apart from "bragging rights" about how your system is "elite"? >>>>>You can make excuses, rationalize, but Apple is just crapware, is the >>>>> truth. They take you for a sucker.
:-)
And that's fine - but mine just works, too.
Aside from the integrated GPU that didn't.
You act as if I was planning all along to upgrade my monitor to 4K -
that is false. I happened to see a hot price, $200, on a 4K monitor,
when I needed a new monitor, as the 1080p was barely visible anymore.
So I took the plunge. I wish I had not. A more modest upgrade
would've been better, but then again, there have been some niceties to
the 4K, and the video card offering a second port has been useful.
I expect to have to get
my hands dirty, assembling hardware, and use my brain, setting up the
OS and installing software. It's *my* computer, not Microsoft's, not
Apple's or Dell's. Even when I first installed Win10 on it, in 2021,
it was my setup of such, not an OEM's.
Do you apply the same philosophy to buying a toaster?
How are you going to insinuate that a toaster is like a PC?In that each is something a person buys to accomplish some task (or
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Look at it this way: if you can save $300 by having an external SSD
instead of an internal SSD on your desktop PC are you going to pay the >>>> extra for the aesthetics, or are you going to save a few bucks?
Not using Apple, I don't have that problem.
Bullshit you don't, for above you just rejected external solutions even
for a desktop. And for your current system, just how many NVMe's can you
install on your motherboard? If you want/need more than 1TB, if you
buy a 2TB are you going to throw the 1TB away? Or are you going to be
keep it available by putting it into a USB 3.2 external case for ~$12?
That's why I bought a high-end motherboard, I *can* add another NVMe,
without discarding the one I already have. Will I do this? No, but I
have the option, always there.
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups.
It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and use
its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS reinstall.
Boom.
So you're admitting that you don't have any automated backup system
running? And probably no more than a single instance either? Let alone
any remote site backup. You clearly don't value your data.
I update my external's backups periodically, it's OK.On a Mac, I've got this very useful and foolproof backup system that
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 17:16, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 13:23, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 12:46, Joel wrote:
Your Name <[email protected]> wrote:
Another moron troll for the killfile. :-\
Another moron Apple dumbshit to killfile me so he doesn't have to >>>>>>> learn the truth.
Seriously: how old are you?
47 going on 21. :)
(I was 20 when the Spice Girls' Pepsi commercial* aired in 1997.)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzwHq4UwmFM
I'd believe the 47...
...but you're clearly going on 16.
I'm accustomed to haughty attitudes from Apple lusers.
Did I say "16"?
Make it 14.
Age is just a number. Trump's pushing 80, but he acts like me,
because we're all ageless.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Look at it this way: if you can save $300 by having an external SSD >>>>>> instead of an internal SSD on your desktop PC are you going to pay the >>>>>> extra for the aesthetics, or are you going to save a few bucks?
Not using Apple, I don't have that problem.
Bullshit you don't, for above you just rejected external solutions even >>>> for a desktop. And for your current system, just how many NVMe's can you >>>> install on your motherboard? If you want/need more than 1TB, if you >>>> buy a 2TB are you going to throw the 1TB away? Or are you going to be >>>> keep it available by putting it into a USB 3.2 external case for ~$12?
That's why I bought a high-end motherboard, I *can* add another NVMe,
without discarding the one I already have.
Which brand/model Motherboard was this again? And its just one extra
slot, so what's your plan for lifecycle maintenance after its filled?
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/Z590-AORUS-ELITE-AX-rev-10#kf
I can do all kinds of things, probably won't need to, but think of the possibilities, I could dual-boot Winblows and Linux, without having
them on the same NVMe, each having their own.
Will I do this? No, but I have the option, always there.
But can they be RAID0'ed for performance potentially equivalent to the
'overpriced' systems that you've been complaining about?
Who needs that? That's a red herring.
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups.
It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and use >>>>> its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS reinstall. >>>>> Boom.
So you're admitting that you don't have any automated backup system
running? And probably no more than a single instance either? Let alone >>>> any remote site backup. You clearly don't value your data.
I update my external's backups periodically, it's OK.
How (in)frequent a system gets backed up comes down to the question of
how much you value your personally created data content. For example,
Feeb's claim of (maybe) monthly shows that he places very little value
on his own works.
I do it as needed, simple as that.Copying files manually isn't really a backup strategy.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-27 15:19, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
Next time by an off the shelf computer.
it will cost you less in the long term.
No, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't be durable like mine.
What do you imagine makes your system more "durable"?
High-end motherboard and power supply, relatively high-end SSD, solidShow any actual data that Apple's devices aren't as durable.
brand of RAM, the kind of things OEMs tend to cut corners with.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-28 16:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:Show any actual data that Apple's devices aren't as durable.
On 2024-11-27 15:19, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
Next time by an off the shelf computer.
it will cost you less in the long term.
No, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't be durable like mine.
What do you imagine makes your system more "durable"?
High-end motherboard and power supply, relatively high-end SSD, solid
brand of RAM, the kind of things OEMs tend to cut corners with.
Apple's might be, actually, I don't really have a reason to so much
doubt that, kind of like high-end OEMs of Windows gear, you pay a
premium to get such hardware preassembled. I got mine dirt cheap.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
How can you pretend that a USB-connected
external drive is the same thing as an internal storage drive?
By considering the actual performance of a USB 3.2 storage device?
You read exactly like the superficially "expert" 1337 Linux dweeb you are: >>>>
"USB???? Uggh... ...USB sux, man!".
It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external drive sucks
as a continuous solution.
Why?
If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I
have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups.
It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and use >>>>> its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS reinstall. >>>>> Boom.
So you have no actual backup solution at all beyond, "I'll copy the
files over manually"?
Is there supposed to be a more straightforward way?
Yes. Use proper backup software that keeps track of everything that
needs to be backed up, and does so on an automated schedule.
Kind of like Time Machine does on a Mac.
I meant, EXACTLY like Time Machine does on a Mac.
:-)
I would wager I could install something equivalent under Linux, but
it's not a vital need.
I'm not using any SATA device, not even a DVD drive.
Because it's against your religion, or... ...what?
Well, optical drives are basically unneeded, and SATA storage drives
are outdated. The NVMe is the only internal media, I install Win/Lin
from USB media, and my external hard drive is for backups.
That doesn't make SATA devices worse.
NVMe is state-of-the-art.
And yet you won't use a SATA drive even if you wouldn't notice theI'm reasonably sure that my SSD's speeds are comparable to Macs of its >>>>> time.Are you, though?
:-)
It might not be precisely the same, but is it really something I'd
notice? When I initially installed Win10, it was effortless. Doing
cumulative updates is where it gets slow (a drawback of Winblows,
unless that's gotten better in the last year).
difference...
Using SATA when NVMe is an option isn't elite enough, right.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-28 16:53, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-11-28 16:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:Show any actual data that Apple's devices aren't as durable.
On 2024-11-27 15:19, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
Next time by an off the shelf computer.
it will cost you less in the long term.
No, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't be durable like mine.
What do you imagine makes your system more "durable"?
High-end motherboard and power supply, relatively high-end SSD, solid >>>>> brand of RAM, the kind of things OEMs tend to cut corners with.
Apple's might be, actually, I don't really have a reason to so much
doubt that, kind of like high-end OEMs of Windows gear, you pay a
premium to get such hardware preassembled. I got mine dirt cheap.
So you claim.. ...but won't substantiate.
What I paid for my hardware is as little as possible for the quality
and performance, relative to when the respective parts were purchased.
I mean, Apple's GPU in their SoC gear is superior to my basic NVIDIAI want a useful tool that I can depend on and that has a wide variety of software available to it.
card, I think, but to what end, when gaming is all for Winblows? Are
you a movie producer, or something, that takes advantage of the
performance?
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
How can you pretend that a USB-connected
external drive is the same thing as an internal storage drive?
By considering the actual performance of a USB 3.2 storage device? >>>>>>
You read exactly like the superficially "expert" 1337 Linux dweeb you are:
"USB???? Uggh... ...USB sux, man!".
It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external drive sucks >>>>> as a continuous solution.
Why?
If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I
have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different words.
It's an answer to Apple's arbitrary hand-holding of what you can do
with your expensive device from them.
2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are
dual-booting. I would have thought an "expert" would have understood that.
You *can* dual-boot with a single drive, sure, but it sucks balls. I wouldn't do it.
And yet you won't use a SATA drive even if you wouldn't notice the
difference [from the speed of an NVMe drive]...
Using SATA when NVMe is an option isn't elite enough, right.
It's seems you're looking for "bragging rights", not utility.
I mean, it is that in a sense, but even just to "feel good" about my
build, I did what I did. I had a 1 TB SATA SSD, that I'd briefly used
in my old computer, but I bought it for that computer, I wanted to get
the latest and greatest for this one, even if it seems redundant to a "practical" person like you (who pays for Apple ...)
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
It's an answer to Apple's arbitrary hand-holding of what you can doHow can you pretend that a USB-connectedBy considering the actual performance of a USB 3.2 storage device? >>>>>>>>
external drive is the same thing as an internal storage drive? >>>>>>>>
You read exactly like the superficially "expert" 1337 Linux dweeb you are:
"USB???? Uggh... ...USB sux, man!".
It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external drive sucks >>>>>>> as a continuous solution.
Why?
If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I
have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different words. >>>
with your expensive device from them.
I asked you why using an external drive on a computer that isn't going
anywhere "sucks"...
...and you can't come up with a single actual reason.
It's just not as elite, the computer should have capacity for all the internal hardware you might want, Apple's only option for that is
their starting-at-7-grand Mac Pro.
2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you areYou *can* dual-boot with a single drive, sure, but it sucks balls. I
dual-booting. I would have thought an "expert" would have understood that. >>>
wouldn't do it.
You really aren't very bright about computers if you think that having
more than one drive boils down to whether or not you want to dual boot.
It would be for me, because I have tons of blank space on my first
SSD, because ya know I didn't get it from Apple.
And yet you won't use a SATA drive even if you wouldn't notice the >>>>>> difference [from the speed of an NVMe drive]...
Using SATA when NVMe is an option isn't elite enough, right.
It's seems you're looking for "bragging rights", not utility.
I mean, it is that in a sense, but even just to "feel good" about my
build, I did what I did. I had a 1 TB SATA SSD, that I'd briefly used
in my old computer, but I bought it for that computer, I wanted to get
the latest and greatest for this one, even if it seems redundant to a
"practical" person like you (who pays for Apple ...)
An Apple purchase is VERY practical.
It works, and keeps right on working.
I mean, I've never had a problem getting any monitor that's supposed to
work with my gear to work.
Intel and/or M$ failed me, with regard to Win11 and the CPU video withExcuses.
the new monitor, I admit that. But the NVIDIA card largely solved
that problem. It was the right tactic under the circumstances, a
useful upgrade to the system, giving me more options, as well as
support for the monitor in and of itself.
On 2024-11-28 16:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
...
I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups. >>>>>> It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and >>>>>> use its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS
reinstall.
Boom.
So you have no actual backup solution at all beyond, "I'll copy the
files over manually"?
Is there supposed to be a more straightforward way?
Yes. Use proper backup software that keeps track of everything that
needs to be backed up, and does so on an automated schedule.
Kind of like Time Machine does on a Mac.
I meant, EXACTLY like Time Machine does on a Mac.
:-)
I would wager I could install something equivalent under Linux, but
it's not a vital need.
It IS a vital need to anyone who is serious about his or her data.
I'm not using any SATA device, not even a DVD drive.
Because it's against your religion, or... ...what?
Well, optical drives are basically unneeded, and SATA storage drives
are outdated. The NVMe is the only internal media, I install Win/Lin >>>> from USB media, and my external hard drive is for backups.
That doesn't make SATA devices worse.
NVMe is state-of-the-art.
Still not an answer.
Using SATA when NVMe is an option isn't elite enough, right.
It's seems you're looking for "bragging rights", not utility.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Joel is 'faster = better' until it comes to even faster systems
than what he owns ... at which point he flips his story to "overpriced".
If you compare Apple hardware from the same time I bought my parts,
it'd be about the same speeds.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
...
So lets see if Joel will be able to cite any meaningful contemporary
reliability lifespan problems with Apple..or any other mainstream OEM.
For the record, my assumption is that Apple's parts are fine. It's
harder to know as it is with my hand-selected parts, but they
certainly should be OK with how much they cost.
On 11/29/24 5:26 PM, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
...
So lets see if Joel will be able to cite any meaningful
contemporary
reliability lifespan problems with Apple..or any other
mainstream OEM.
For the record, my assumption is that Apple's parts are fine. It's
harder to know as it is with my hand-selected parts, but they
certainly should be OK with how much they cost.
Which means that when a consumer doesn't want the risk of a
component failure & its higher downtime, and is unwilling to
invest additional time for the detailed research time to mitigate
those risks ... that you can then understand why these consumers
are willing to pay a bit more.
-hh
On 11/29/24 5:26 PM, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
...
So lets see if Joel will be able to cite any meaningful contemporary
reliability lifespan problems with Apple..or any other mainstream OEM.
For the record, my assumption is that Apple's parts are fine. It's
harder to know as it is with my hand-selected parts, but they
certainly should be OK with how much they cost.
Which means that when a consumer doesn't want the risk of a component
failure & its higher downtime, and is unwilling to invest additional
time for the detailed research time to mitigate those risks ... that you
can then understand why these consumers are willing to pay a bit more.
-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:Apple _does_ warrant their stuff, which is the point: consumers are
On 11/29/24 5:26 PM, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
...
So lets see if Joel will be able to cite any meaningful contemporary
reliability lifespan problems with Apple..or any other mainstream OEM.
For the record, my assumption is that Apple's parts are fine. It's
harder to know as it is with my hand-selected parts, but they
certainly should be OK with how much they cost.
Which means that when a consumer doesn't want the risk of a component
failure & its higher downtime, and is unwilling to invest additional
time for the detailed research time to mitigate those risks ... that you
can then understand why these consumers are willing to pay a bit more.
"Consumers" [1] care about component failure? Doesn't Apple warrant its equipment?
[1] Also known as "cattle"
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
...
TL;DR: your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time
means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put
your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like
it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about
as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert'
chose for you.
In other words, the Mac would be half a second faster on a typical
operation, at most, who the hell cares, ...
... my computer also didn't cost
as much as you are adding up, it's a little under $1000. The Winblows license is not really part of it, I'm not even using it anymore.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
TL;DR: your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time >>>> means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put >>>> your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like >>>> it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about >>>> as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert'
chose for you.
In other words, the Mac would be half a second faster on a typical
operation, at most, who the hell cares, ...
If you really didn't care about responsiveness, then you'd still be
using your 2010 PC. Strike one.
You'd also not have bragged about how Linux was faster than Windows on
your 2021 PC. Strike two.
Nor have claimed its a "high end" system, trying (but failing) to claim
performance parity with the 'overpriced' Mac Studio. Strike three.
Strike three on you for three lies.
It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external
drive sucks as a continuous solution.
If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I
have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different
words.
2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are dual-booting.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I >>>>>>> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different words.
It's an answer to Apple's arbitrary hand-holding of what you can do
with your expensive device from them.
I asked you why using an external drive on a computer that isn't going >>>> anywhere "sucks"...
...and you can't come up with a single actual reason.
It's just not as elite, the computer should have capacity for all the
internal hardware you might want, Apple's only option for that is
their starting-at-7-grand Mac Pro.
So the best reason you can muster is a child's brag about "eliteness"?
Do you want to be the "child" with the second-rate toy, or the king of
the hill?
Intel and/or M$ failed me, with regard to Win11 and the CPU video withExcuses.
the new monitor, I admit that. But the NVIDIA card largely solved
that problem. It was the right tactic under the circumstances, a
useful upgrade to the system, giving me more options, as well as
support for the monitor in and of itself.
Those you are expert at.
It's not an excuse, it's an explanation of what happened. I couldn't anticipate the CPU video so poorly handling 4K, but when it did, IYou could have researched it.
knew the solution. Big F'ing deal.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Joel>>>>
It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external
drive sucks as a continuous solution.
Alan>>> Why?
Joel>>
If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I
have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
Alan>
1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different
words.
2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are
dual-booting.
My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs
are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these
are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs
internal/external, etc.
For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of
having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums,
and having at least one be remote site located. FYI, 'remote site' is
to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying
everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in.
So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup
copy to a remote site? The main simple options today are either to:
a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage,
or
b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote.
A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP: bandwidth speed
limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere.
For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an
external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut
down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally
installed drive for each transfer to remote. How frequently will
depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly.
In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to
a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. My machine
isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts.
It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to
install it comfortably, or if I wanted to have a second modern drive
for some other reason.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
I couldn't
anticipate the CPU video so poorly handling 4K, but when it did, I
knew the solution. Big F'ing deal.
You could have researched it.
I wouldn't have anticipated using 4K when I got the main parts.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
I wouldn't have anticipated using 4K when I got the main parts.
Especially when one is harping about 'future proofing', why wouldn't one
be so unprepared in 2021 for supporting 4K monitors?
Because 4K wasn't a new standard: it first came out 2001, and was in the
consumer market by 2013. So by 2021, 4K displays were pretty
commonplace (even Apple had had them in iMacs for 7 years) and 'gamer'
ones had already dropped to just $500 ('regular' ones were even less):
I paid $200 for mine. It's two years old. It was an impulse buy when
my old monitor was dying.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed
complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box.
They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard feature it's a fairly nice one.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed
complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box.
They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard feature it's a fairly nice one.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box.
'M4
Simultaneously supports up to three displays:
Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over
Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over
Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI
Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over
Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K
resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI'
<https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/>
Kind of blows your "elite" system away.
Don't need big video by today's standards, so my card seems "elite".
Alan wrote:
On 2024-12-03 18:05, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
For example, that "overpriced" 2022 Studio that you've enjoyed
complaining about can run up to four 6K's out of the box.
They're making every buyer include that support. Though as a standard
feature it's a fairly nice one.
The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box.
'M4
Simultaneously supports up to three displays:
Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz
over Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over
Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI
Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over
Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K
resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI'
<https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/>
Kind of blows your "elite" system away.
it would if it did what you say , but it don't
On 2024-12-03 19:43, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
The $600 Mac Mini supports 3 displays out of the box.
'M4
Simultaneously supports up to three displays:
Up to three displays: Two displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz over >>> Thunderbolt and one display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over
Thunderbolt or 4K resolution at 60Hz over HDMI
Up to two displays: One display with up to 5K resolution at 60Hz over
Thunderbolt and one display with up to 8K resolution at 60Hz or 4K
resolution at 240Hz over Thunderbolt or HDMI'
<https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/>
Kind of blows your "elite" system away.
Don't need big video by today's standards, so my card seems "elite".
So it was "a fairly nice [feature] to have support for four 4K monitors,
but too expensive...
...and now suddenly your card is "elite" for being able to do one?
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Joel>>>>
It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external
drive sucks as a continuous solution.
Alan>>> Why?
Joel>>
If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I
have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
Alan>
1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different
words.
2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are
dual-booting.
My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs
are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these
are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs
internal/external, etc.
For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of
having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums,
and having at least one be remote site located. FYI, 'remote site' is
to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying
everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in.
So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup
copy to a remote site? The main simple options today are either to:
a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage,
or
b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote.
A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP: bandwidth speed
limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere.
For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an
external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut
down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally
installed drive for each transfer to remote. How frequently will
depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly.
In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to
a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible.
My machine
isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts.
It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to
install it comfortably, ...
... or if I wanted to have a second modern drive
for some other reason.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to
a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible.
Where "isn't totally terrible" is stuff that's 30%-300% faster than your
supposedly 'high end' system.
Was the iMac or Mac mini of 2021 so much faster than mine?
My machine
isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts.
It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to
install it comfortably, ...
If one wants to run Windows, just do it in a VM. BTDT.
I could use Wine under Linux or an Intel Mac, but the Parallels
solution is great for Apple Silicon, why not, you've paid so much for
a MacBook Pro or pimped out other hardware from them, you can
certainly boot a VM of Winblows.
... or if I wanted to have a second modern drive
for some other reason.
Which will just need to be on an 'external PCIe' instead of internal.
Or use network attached storage. If you don't want to buy a NAS, see if
your OS allows for sharing directories and use an old PC as a host. And
if you think its visually unappealing, put it in another room.
I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not
really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason.
On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to
a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible.
Where "isn't totally terrible" is stuff that's 30%-300% faster than your >>> supposedly 'high end' system.
Was the iMac or Mac mini of 2021 so much faster than mine?
I already posted the benchmarks. Couldn't you understand them?
My machine
isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts.
It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to
install it comfortably, ...
If one wants to run Windows, just do it in a VM. BTDT.
I could use Wine under Linux or an Intel Mac, but the Parallels
solution is great for Apple Silicon, why not, you've paid so much for
a MacBook Pro or pimped out other hardware from them, you can
certainly boot a VM of Winblows.
When you've already trivialized the $200 cost of an Windows license and
a $100 video card, the cost of buying some software is in the same lane.
What???... or if I wanted to have a second modern drive
for some other reason.
Which will just need to be on an 'external PCIe' instead of internal.
Or use network attached storage. If you don't want to buy a NAS, see if >>> your OS allows for sharing directories and use an old PC as a host. And >>> if you think its visually unappealing, put it in another room.
I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not
really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real
motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason.
But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached,
and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc.
Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna".
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not
really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real
motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason.
But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached,
and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an
external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc.
Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna".
I dispute that external drives are equivalent.Because?
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-05 08:11, -hh wrote:
On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote:
I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real
motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason.
But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached,
and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an
external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >>> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". >> What???
You're not designing your computer for "bragging rights"???
?
Typical nerd reaction, oh you're so clever with money, meanwhile I've
done just fine, all the arguments are bogus. I've made out very well
with my computer.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not
really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real
motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason.
But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached,
and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an
external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc.
Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna".
I dispute that external drives are equivalent.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-05 15:56, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-05 08:11, -hh wrote:
On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote:What???
I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>>>>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >>>>>> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason.
But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >>>>> and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >>>>> external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >>>>> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna".
You're not designing your computer for "bragging rights"???
?
Typical nerd reaction, oh you're so clever with money, meanwhile I've
done just fine, all the arguments are bogus. I've made out very well
with my computer.
You're the one who's been claiming you are "elite" and your computer is
"elite"...
...and that you bought certain components for "bragging rights".
Those are your words.
If you could see what Linux is like on my machine, not just macOS's sleekness, not just Windows' tolerability on newish hardware, you'd
brag about it too.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the
slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'.
You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
a computer is a TOOL.
Building a useful tool is not that much of an accomplishment.
That's an insult to the makers of microchips and hardware, minimizes
their network of support.
On 2024-12-05 19:32, Joel wrote:
-hh wrote:
Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the >>> slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'.
You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)>
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-05 19:32, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the >>>> slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'.
You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)>
Apple says it's as good so you accept it.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-06 06:28, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-05 19:32, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the >>>>>> slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'. >>>>>You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)>
Apple says it's as good so you accept it.
It's hardly only Apple who says it, doofus.
It's been extensively reviewed.
Oh really, and I should care? It's not complex, Apple sells theirBut you've forgotten why this conversation arose.
spin on OEM hardware, complete with their own software, but it's not
as great a bargain as buying computer parts to run Linux.
-hh wrote:
On 12/5/24 11:35 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-12-05 19:32, Joel wrote:
-hh wrote:
Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the >>>>> slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'. >>>>You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)>
Joel's acting as though Thunderbolt 3 wasn't great already:
* bandwidth of a PCIe 3.0 x4 is 4 gigabytes per second = 4 GB/.
* Thunderbolt 3's bandwidth is 4000 MB/s = 5 GB/s.
And 2024 Macs have TB5, which means 10 GB/sec bandwidth, enabling
an external SSD to perform like a 2TB internal Apple OEM SSD from
a 2020 vintage Mac Studio.
OK, none of that makes what I have any slower.
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/6/24 9:28 AM, Joel wrote:
-hh wrote:
On 12/5/24 11:35 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-12-05 19:32, Joel wrote:
-hh wrote:
Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on theYou act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already.
slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'. >>>>>>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)>
Joel's acting as though Thunderbolt 3 wasn't great already:
* bandwidth of a PCIe 3.0 x4 is 4 gigabytes per second = 4 GB/.
* Thunderbolt 3's bandwidth is 4000 MB/s = 5 GB/s.
And 2024 Macs have TB5, which means 10 GB/sec bandwidth, enabling
an external SSD to perform like a 2TB internal Apple OEM SSD from
a 2020 vintage Mac Studio.
OK, none of that makes what I have any slower.
Nah, it shows where your claim that USB is slow is factually incorrect.
So much for your standards for "high end" which just aren't really...
Plus it shows that stuff just gets labelled by you as 'overpriced' is
also higher performance gear than your self-proclaimed "high end" stuff.
Per the old adage of "Speed cost money. How fast can you afford to go?",
its evident that you're deriding that which you want, but won't afford.
...and still waiting on you to post benchmarks, too... /s
I haven't addressed the external storage's speed, but immediate access
of internal drives is a higher grade or level.
That being said, Win11 and 10 did install pretty painlessly, on my
system. Just one becomes aware that Linux will trump anything
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-06 16:28, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
...and still waiting on you to post benchmarks, too... /s
I haven't addressed the external storage's speed, but immediate access
of internal drives is a higher grade or level.
That is a question of speed and you're just making yourself look stupid
by trying to create clever sounding phrases.
And you appear to be a genius, to have out-reasoned me at every turn,
along with -hh, it's amusing.
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-06 19:00, Joel wrote:
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-12-06 16:28, Joel wrote:
-hh <[email protected]> wrote:
...and still waiting on you to post benchmarks, too... /s
I haven't addressed the external storage's speed, but immediate access >>>>> of internal drives is a higher grade or level.
That is a question of speed and you're just making yourself look stupid >>>> by trying to create clever sounding phrases.
And you appear to be a genius, to have out-reasoned me at every turn,
along with -hh, it's amusing.
You haven't even understood the basic facts of what Thunderbolt is, doofus. >>
How is that my problem?
I understand the claim that Thunderbolt's speed is comparable toBut your objection was that somehow the "access" of an external drive
internal's. I accept it, even. It doesn't magically make an external
drive internal.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 141:50:50 |
| Calls: | 12,088 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,998 |
| Messages: | 6,517,448 |