On 2025-01-03 16:28, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-03 15:40, Joel wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-03 12:19, Joel wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Ball <rudyball@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> macOS-limitations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixed that for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, it's not limitations. I can do anything with a Mac that would be
>>>>> necessary, it's just that I'd rather do it in style, Linux gives me
>>>>> that, and Windows would on an i9 with 64 GB RAM.
>>>> You really say the most idiotic things.
>>>>
>>>> You'd need an i9 and 64GB of RAM to do what you've admitted you do?
>>>
>>> The point is that Win11 is bloated, but what are you saying I've
>>> "admitted" doing that is so odd, pray tell?
>> Nothing.
>>
>> It's just that none of it would require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if
>> you were running Windows 11
>
>
> "Require" is the wrong word, though, "be comfortable to use with" is
> more it. I could boot Win11 24H2, on this machine, I realize, but I
> wouldn't, because it'd be bloated trash.
You are so full of shit.

First of all for a computer if you need to "be comfortable to use with"...

....that's REQUIRE!

Second of all, it's complete an utter bullshit that you need that much
to "be comfortable to use with".

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Windows would [perform as well as Linux] on an i9 with 64 GB RAM.
>>>>> You really say the most idiotic things.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'd need an i9 and 64GB of RAM to do what you've admitted you do?
>>>>
>>>> The point is that Win11 is bloated, but what are you saying I've
>>>> "admitted" doing that is so odd, pray tell?
>>> Nothing.
>>>
>>> It's just that none of it would require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if
>>> you were running Windows 11
>>
>> "Require" is the wrong word, though, "be comfortable to use with" is
>> more it. I could boot Win11 24H2, on this machine, I realize, but I
>> wouldn't, because it'd be bloated trash.
>You are so full of shit.
>
>First of all for a computer if you need to "be comfortable to use with"...
>
>...that's REQUIRE!
>
>Second of all, it's complete an utter bullshit that you need that much
>to "be comfortable to use with".

It's slightly exaggerated - but less than you think. Buy an iMac and
put Win11ARM on it on bare metal, and drive it hard for six months.
See if it survives.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-03 17:24, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Windows would [perform as well as Linux] on an i9 with 64 GB RAM.
>>>>>> You really say the most idiotic things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd need an i9 and 64GB of RAM to do what you've admitted you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that Win11 is bloated, but what are you saying I've
>>>>> "admitted" doing that is so odd, pray tell?
>>>> Nothing.
>>>>
>>>> It's just that none of it would require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if
>>>> you were running Windows 11
>>>
>>> "Require" is the wrong word, though, "be comfortable to use with" is
>>> more it. I could boot Win11 24H2, on this machine, I realize, but I
>>> wouldn't, because it'd be bloated trash.
>> You are so full of shit.
>>
>> First of all for a computer if you need to "be comfortable to use with"...
>>
>> ...that's REQUIRE!
>>
>> Second of all, it's complete an utter bullshit that you need that much
>> to "be comfortable to use with".
>
>
> It's slightly exaggerated - but less than you think. Buy an iMac and
> put Win11ARM on it on bare metal, and drive it hard for six months.
> See if it survives.
You really know NOTHING about how computers operate.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>> [Windows 11 24H2] would [not] require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if
>>>>> you were running Windows 11
>>>>
>>>> "Require" is the wrong word, though, "be comfortable to use with" is
>>>> more it. I could boot Win11 24H2, on this machine, I realize, but I
>>>> wouldn't, because it'd be bloated trash.
>>> You are so full of shit.
>>>
>>> First of all for a computer if you need to "be comfortable to use with"...
>>>
>>> ...that's REQUIRE!
>>>
>>> Second of all, it's complete an utter bullshit that you need that much
>>> to "be comfortable to use with".
>>
>> It's slightly exaggerated - but less than you think. Buy an iMac and
>> put Win11ARM on it on bare metal, and drive it hard for six months.
>> See if it survives.
>You really know NOTHING about how computers operate.

Nope, I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-03 17:59, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> [Windows 11 24H2] would [not] require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if
>>>>>> you were running Windows 11
>>>>>
>>>>> "Require" is the wrong word, though, "be comfortable to use with" is
>>>>> more it. I could boot Win11 24H2, on this machine, I realize, but I
>>>>> wouldn't, because it'd be bloated trash.
>>>> You are so full of shit.
>>>>
>>>> First of all for a computer if you need to "be comfortable to use with"...
>>>>
>>>> ...that's REQUIRE!
>>>>
>>>> Second of all, it's complete an utter bullshit that you need that much
>>>> to "be comfortable to use with".
>>>
>>> It's slightly exaggerated - but less than you think. Buy an iMac and
>>> put Win11ARM on it on bare metal, and drive it hard for six months.
>>> See if it survives.
>> You really know NOTHING about how computers operate.
>
>
> Nope, I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.
Bullshit.

Your implication is that it would CHANGE after "six months".

But computers don't change, doofus.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
>> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
>> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
>> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.
>Bullshit.
>
>Your implication is that it would CHANGE after "six months".
>
>But computers don't change, doofus.

They perish from heat.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 11:29, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
>>> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
>>> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
>>> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Your implication is that it would CHANGE after "six months".
>>
>> But computers don't change, doofus.
>
>
> They perish from heat.
No. They don't.

Not if they're properly maintained.

And most certainly not in "six months".

Interesting that you suddenly decided to snip that part of what you
claimed, huh?

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
>>>> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
>>>> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
>>>> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Your implication is that it would CHANGE after "six months".
>>>
>>> But computers don't change, doofus.
>>
>> They perish from heat.
>No. They don't.
>
>Not if they're properly maintained.
>
>And most certainly not in "six months".
>
>Interesting that you suddenly decided to snip that part of what you
>claimed, huh?

I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
computing.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 17:53, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
>>>>> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
>>>>> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
>>>>> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Your implication is that it would CHANGE after "six months".
>>>>
>>>> But computers don't change, doofus.
>>>
>>> They perish from heat.
>> No. They don't.
>>
>> Not if they're properly maintained.
>>
>> And most certainly not in "six months".
>>
>> Interesting that you suddenly decided to snip that part of what you
>> claimed, huh?
>
>
> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
> computing.
You stand by something you cannot explain in rational terms.

Got it.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
>> computing.
>You stand by something you cannot explain in rational terms.
>
>Got it.

I put Win7 on a MacBook and it killed it, physically.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 18:29, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
>>> computing.
>> You stand by something you cannot explain in rational terms.
>>
>> Got it.
>
>
> I put Win7 on a MacBook and it killed it, physically.
>

Explain how.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
>>>> computing.
>>> You stand by something you cannot explain in rational terms.
>>>
>>> Got it.
>>
>> I put Win7 on a MacBook and it killed it, physically.
>
>Explain how.

The design was unlike contemporary PC laptops.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

In article <vlfejs$1abm7$1@dont-email.me>
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

This thread needs to die, as it's very repetitive and super boring.

On 2025-01-05 18:47, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
>>>>> computing.
>>>> You stand by something you cannot explain in rational terms.
>>>>
>>>> Got it.
>>>
>>> I put Win7 on a MacBook and it killed it, physically.
>>
>> Explain how.
>
>
> The design was unlike contemporary PC laptops.
>

That is you dodging an actual explanation.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>>>>> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
>>>>>> computing.
>>>>> You stand by something you cannot explain in rational terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it.
>>>>
>>>> I put Win7 on a MacBook and it killed it, physically.
>>>
>>> Explain how.
>>
>> The design was unlike contemporary PC laptops.
>
>That is you dodging an actual explanation.

It heats it via the CPU and/or video, disk access, overloads circuits,
you might say.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 19:14, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
>>>>>>> computing.
>>>>>> You stand by something you cannot explain in rational terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I put Win7 on a MacBook and it killed it, physically.
>>>>
>>>> Explain how.
>>>
>>> The design was unlike contemporary PC laptops.
>>
>> That is you dodging an actual explanation.
>
>
> It heats it via the CPU and/or video, disk access, overloads circuits,
> you might say.
You might say it...

....but that's because you don't have a clue how computers operate.

"Overloads circuits"? That's not a thing.

And CPUs have temperature sensors to automatically shut themselves down
if any of them report to high a temperature.

I know this because I kept my last MacBook for 7 years and at one point
had to open it up to renew the thermal paste that transferred heat from
the CPU to the heat sink.

It wasn't killed by anything ANY OS did.

It was temporarily disabled by the fact that something AGED.

It took 8 years for it to age that far, by the way.

Suggesting that an OS could cause something like that is like suggesting
that the ECU of a car plays a role in the brake pads needing to be replaced.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>> [Windows 11 in a new iMac] heats it via the CPU and/or video, disk access, overloads circuits,
>> you might say.
>You might say it...
>
>...but that's because you don't have a clue how computers operate.
>
>"Overloads circuits"? That's not a thing.
>
>And CPUs have temperature sensors to automatically shut themselves down
>if any of them report to high a temperature.
>
>I know this because I kept my last MacBook for 7 years and at one point
>had to open it up to renew the thermal paste that transferred heat from
>the CPU to the heat sink.
>
>It wasn't killed by anything ANY OS did.
>
>It was temporarily disabled by the fact that something AGED.
>
>It took 8 years for it to age that far, by the way.
>
>Suggesting that an OS could cause something like that is like suggesting
>that the ECU of a car plays a role in the brake pads needing to be replaced.

It'd be the same with a MacBook Air, they don't have the tolerance.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-05 19:50, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> [Windows 11 in a new iMac] heats it via the CPU and/or video, disk access, overloads circuits,
>>> you might say.
>> You might say it...
>>
>> ...but that's because you don't have a clue how computers operate.
>>
>> "Overloads circuits"? That's not a thing.
>>
>> And CPUs have temperature sensors to automatically shut themselves down
>> if any of them report to high a temperature.
>>
>> I know this because I kept my last MacBook for 7 years and at one point
>> had to open it up to renew the thermal paste that transferred heat from
>> the CPU to the heat sink.
>>
>> It wasn't killed by anything ANY OS did.
>>
>> It was temporarily disabled by the fact that something AGED.
>>
>> It took 8 years for it to age that far, by the way.
>>
>> Suggesting that an OS could cause something like that is like suggesting
>> that the ECU of a car plays a role in the brake pads needing to be replaced.
>
>
> It'd be the same with a MacBook Air, they don't have the tolerance.
>

You are utterly clueless.

"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vl9ps1$3440$3@dont-email.me...
> On 2025-01-03 12:19, Joel wrote:
>> Rudy Ball <rudyball@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> On 01 Jan 2025, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> posted some
>>> news:2qvbnj9pt42qal6ae9ii72gloeorlkigo8@4ax.com:
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-01 18:02, Byrd wrote:
>>>>>> On 31 Dec 2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> posted some
>>>>>> news:q788nj57oare1scvi4j3udr21dk0ig9qpk@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> people's minds work differently, if people prefer Apple's motifs for
>>>>>>> phones and computers, I don't begrudge them their right to use them,
>>>>>>> but it's something I can't relate to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple is proof positive that a market for stupid people exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever makes you feel superior!
>>>>
>>>> For what it could be worth, Alan, I do think you are an exception,
>>>> among Apple fans. You actually see it as Unix/BSD/Mach along with
>>>
>>> macOS-limitations.
>>>
>>> Fixed that for you.
>>
>>
>> Nah, it's not limitations. I can do anything with a Mac that would be
>> necessary, it's just that I'd rather do it in style, Linux gives me
>> that, and Windows would on an i9 with 64 GB RAM.
> You really say the most idiotic things.
>
> You'd need an i9 and 64GB of RAM to do what you've admitted you do?

Of course, that's why he uses an i7 with less memory in his "state of the
art" machine.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2atgnj9b75vunnr6sjugeupuhtqh3vtpcg@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>On 2025-01-03 12:19, Joel wrote:
>>> Rudy Ball <rudyball@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> macOS-limitations.
>>>>
>>>> Fixed that for you.
>>>
>>> Nah, it's not limitations. I can do anything with a Mac that would be
>>> necessary, it's just that I'd rather do it in style, Linux gives me
>>> that, and Windows would on an i9 with 64 GB RAM.
>>You really say the most idiotic things.
>>
>>You'd need an i9 and 64GB of RAM to do what you've admitted you do?
>
>
> The point is that Win11 is bloated, but what are you saying I've
> "admitted" doing that is so odd, pray tell?

So to be clear.. you built a "top of the line" machine inadequate for your
needs.. and then blame the software for your failure?

Some "elite" you are.....

"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vl9uoe$4rkr$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2025-01-03 15:40, Joel wrote:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-03 12:19, Joel wrote:
>>>> Rudy Ball <rudyball@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> macOS-limitations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixed that for you.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, it's not limitations. I can do anything with a Mac that would be
>>>> necessary, it's just that I'd rather do it in style, Linux gives me
>>>> that, and Windows would on an i9 with 64 GB RAM.
>>> You really say the most idiotic things.
>>>
>>> You'd need an i9 and 64GB of RAM to do what you've admitted you do?
>>
>>
>> The point is that Win11 is bloated, but what are you saying I've
>> "admitted" doing that is so odd, pray tell?
> Nothing.
>
> It's just that none of it would require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if you
> were running Windows 11

Well, he has to blame the software. He certainly can't blame himself, and he
can't blame the computer he put together was inadequate.. so it HAD to be
the software's fault that made him build an inadequate "high end computer"
that he now claims was inadequate "because of the software".

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ia3hnj988g6tmep4790olb5o433480divc@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Windows would [perform as well as Linux] on an i9 with 64 GB RAM.
>>>>>> You really say the most idiotic things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd need an i9 and 64GB of RAM to do what you've admitted you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that Win11 is bloated, but what are you saying I've
>>>>> "admitted" doing that is so odd, pray tell?
>>>> Nothing.
>>>>
>>>> It's just that none of it would require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if
>>>> you were running Windows 11
>>>
>>> "Require" is the wrong word, though, "be comfortable to use with" is
>>> more it. I could boot Win11 24H2, on this machine, I realize, but I
>>> wouldn't, because it'd be bloated trash.
>>You are so full of shit.
>>
>>First of all for a computer if you need to "be comfortable to use with"...
>>
>>...that's REQUIRE!
>>
>>Second of all, it's complete an utter bullshit that you need that much
>>to "be comfortable to use with".
>
>
> It's slightly exaggerated - but less than you think. Buy an iMac and
> put Win11ARM on it on bare metal, and drive it hard for six months.
> See if it survives.

No problem. I'm quite certain an iMac would have no issues doing that....

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m85hnjtdsm7bbib8es84es3h5ou9jtqvnl@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> [Windows 11 24H2] would [not] require an i9 and 64GB of RAM even if
>>>>>> you were running Windows 11
>>>>>
>>>>> "Require" is the wrong word, though, "be comfortable to use with" is
>>>>> more it. I could boot Win11 24H2, on this machine, I realize, but I
>>>>> wouldn't, because it'd be bloated trash.
>>>> You are so full of shit.
>>>>
>>>> First of all for a computer if you need to "be comfortable to use
>>>> with"...
>>>>
>>>> ...that's REQUIRE!
>>>>
>>>> Second of all, it's complete an utter bullshit that you need that much
>>>> to "be comfortable to use with".
>>>
>>> It's slightly exaggerated - but less than you think. Buy an iMac and
>>> put Win11ARM on it on bare metal, and drive it hard for six months.
>>> See if it survives.
>>You really know NOTHING about how computers operate.
>
>
> Nope, I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.

Joel admits he knows nothing about how computers operate.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bnlnjd1kkc7qav6nsu568nmj7onlvv3n6@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
>>> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
>>> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
>>> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.
>>Bullshit.
>>
>>Your implication is that it would CHANGE after "six months".
>>
>>But computers don't change, doofus.
>
>
> They perish from heat.

Are you claiming the iMac has inadequate cooling, and on what is that based
on?

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nrdmnj9gi3r79on6mhd71n0bv3nrjcuheu@4ax.com...
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I'm telling you, I could bake one of those flimsy iMac devices,
>>>>> even with Silicon, it's a different animal than IntelAMD to be sure,
>>>>> but there would come a point when it just wasn't designed to handle
>>>>> what Win11, and emulating all those x86 apps, would do.
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Your implication is that it would CHANGE after "six months".
>>>>
>>>> But computers don't change, doofus.
>>>
>>> They perish from heat.
>>No. They don't.
>>
>>Not if they're properly maintained.
>>
>>And most certainly not in "six months".
>>
>>Interesting that you suddenly decided to snip that part of what you
>>claimed, huh?
>
>
> I stand by the claim. iMac's design would be crushed by heavy Win11
> computing.

Joel you can stand on your pile of shit all day.. it's not going to change
that your position is based purely on shit.