On 2024-11-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> pothead wrote:
>
>> Scout wrote:
>>>
>>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> After all, you didn't even go 2 years with your 2022 box, as you've
>>>> admitted that you made a video upgrade because its original 'high-end'
>>>> configuration couldn't even adequately handle one (1) 4K display.
>>>
>>> -hh swoops in and nukes the target from orbit...
>>
>>Indeed!
>>+1
>>
>>Just like one of those Russian hypersonic missiles.
>
> You're not being consistent with your earlier (and correct) comment
> regarding the Intel graphics. Unless he's doing something graphically
> intensive, Joel's 10th-gen i5 should have no trouble driving a 4k
> monitor.
>
> At this point of this debate, neither side is being completely
> reasonable. Typical usenet, in other workds.

I was referring to hh pressing Joel on his decision making and
lack of facts vs goal posts moving.

I stand by my 4k comments.

--
pothead

"Ding Dong The Witch Is Gone"
"Which Old Witch?"
"The Kamala Harris Witch. Of Course!"

On 2024-11-26, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lsg7kj1k9091m56hlh2nqqoc2ffk1jd58r@4ax.com...
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I [JWC] value my computer. Linux is the best thing to put on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I said: it's a cult where you don't like "corporate" and "commercial".
>>>>
>>>> Not when such abuse me, right.
>>
>>I may be mistaken but I seem to remember Joel complaining that Microsoft
>>somehow disabled his Windows machine and he was unable to repair it.
>>
>>Joel appears to be a switch hitter in more ways than one. He uses Windows for
>>a while, screws it up somehow then switches to Linux and claims Linux solved
>>all of his self inflicted issues.
>
>
> Utter BS. I made an error with regard to *the specific ways* M$ was
> committing fraud on Win10 users, although they still were doing such.
> I admitted my error, I regretted it, I went back to using Windows 10
> and then 11, too. I gave them every chance in the world. But that's
> over. I will never disgrace my precious hardware with Winblows,
> again.
>
So did Microsoft disable your Windows computer or not?

--
pothead

"Ding Dong The Witch Is Gone"
"Which Old Witch?"
"The Kamala Harris Witch. Of Course!"

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ksjbkjpjuhe7u78gegku1lk8spvs252iau@4ax.com...
> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lsg7kj1k9091m56hlh2nqqoc2ffk1jd58r@4ax.com...
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I [JWC] value my computer. Linux is the best thing to put on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I said: it's a cult where you don't like "corporate" and
>>>>>"commercial".
>>>>
>>>> Not when such abuse me, right.
>>
>>I may be mistaken but I seem to remember Joel complaining that Microsoft
>>somehow disabled his Windows machine and he was unable to repair it.
>>
>>Joel appears to be a switch hitter in more ways than one. He uses Windows
>>for
>>a while, screws it up somehow then switches to Linux and claims Linux
>>solved
>>all of his self inflicted issues.
>
>
> Utter BS. I made an error with regard to *the specific ways* M$ was
> committing fraud on Win10 users,

And exactly what fraud are you asserting was being committed?

>although they still were doing such.

Proof?

> I admitted my error, I regretted it, I went back to using Windows 10
> and then 11, too.

And yet I seem to recall you claimed to have immediately switched to Linux.

I can only wonder if you couldn't handled MS.. how could you possibly handle
Linux.. but I suppose overnight you got gifted with amazing computer skills.

> I gave them every chance in the world. But that's
> over. I will never disgrace my precious hardware with Winblows,
> again.

I'm sure they aren't missing you.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:rfebkjtnck76tq62b6t3ur3qgreogattpb@4ax.com...
> pothead wrote:
>
>> Scout wrote:
>>>
>>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>>
>>>> After all, you didn't even go 2 years with your 2022 box, as you've
>>>> admitted that you made a video upgrade because its original 'high-end'
>>>> configuration couldn't even adequately handle one (1) 4K display.
>>>
>>> -hh swoops in and nukes the target from orbit...
>>
>>Indeed!
>>+1
>>
>>Just like one of those Russian hypersonic missiles.
>
> You're not being consistent with your earlier (and correct) comment
> regarding the Intel graphics. Unless he's doing something graphically
> intensive, Joel's 10th-gen i5 should have no trouble driving a 4k
> monitor.

Yea, but you assume the Joel knows what he's talking about.

> At this point of this debate, neither side is being completely
> reasonable. Typical usenet, in other workds.

Well any reasonably left the building when Joel walked in with his 'holier
than thou' attitude.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53kbkjpfbv51lempdpq6iserjfbi8vju86@4ax.com...
> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>>On 2024-11-25, Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vi0rrt$2k5ft$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 11/24/24 7:54 PM, Joel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows 11 grew in demands on hardware in a mere two years. 21H2 vs.
>>>>> 23H2. What the hell is that? Why can't a machine assembled the same
>>>>> year, as its initial release, run it, for the full 10 years, without
>>>>> being a piece of junk? Fuck M$. Linux FTW.
>>>>
>>>> When have you ever kept the same hardware configuration for 10 years?
>>>>
>>>> For that matter, what's the longest that you've gone to date?
>>>>
>>>> After all, you didn't even go 2 years with your 2022 box, as you've
>>>> admitted that you made a video upgrade because its original 'high-end'
>>>> configuration couldn't even adequately handle one (1) 4K display.
>>>
>>> -hh swoops in and nukes the target from orbit...
>>
>>Indeed!
>>+1
>>
>>Just like one of those Russian hypersonic missiles.
>
>
> Liars. Fuck off and die. Kill yourselves.

And Joel lashes out in anger when the inconsistencies in his claims are
pointed out. Indeed, from where I'm sitting I would put Joel knowledge and
choices of hardware no better than C+ or maybe B- if I was feeling generous.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94jbkjpb6dbu9453rl9eguaa64srlugpfr@4ax.com...
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>>> your CPU & Storage benchmarks are literally half of the Apple Studio
>>>> that you've tried to compare your system against,
>>>
>>> I wasn't trying to compare the benchmarks. I was comparing realized
>>> value.
>>
>>Fine, but why did you then compare your system to one that's known to be
>>vastly more capable? Your "Apples vs Oranges" has become deliberate.
>
>
> I was comparing to an Apple device currently available, that it is
> newer and faster didn't matter, because it was about initial price.

And that sir, is your first mistake. You need to look at service life
costs.. lest your cheap initial option nickel and dime you to death ending
up being more expensive while providing consistently lower performance.

You're like the guy who buys a Ford Pinto and spends tens of thousands of
dollars trying to make it perform or at least appear like a much better car
you felt was too expensive and ends up spending far more for less
performance.

>>> My computer's beginning to age, and yet because I'm running
>>> Linux, this has no meaning to me. It might as well still be brand
>>> new. Same thing with my Galaxy S21 phone, it's still as good as new
>>> to me, I don't miss gimmicky features that an S24 would offer.
>>
>>Oh, so its just barely 3 years old and you've already noticing that it
>>is aging?
>
>
> I did after 2 1/2 years with Win11, but I don't with Linux, no.

OMG.. your computer performance was SO bad that you noted an unacceptable
decrease in OS performance 30 months?

Wow, what a miserable lifecycle you have there. Spent more for less
performance.. so had to go from driving on the interstate to taking the back
roads.. because you couldn't keep up.

That must have been a vary marginal computer if a couple of updates totaled
your performance by that much.

Yea, we certainly see that "high end system".. LOL..

>> So just how sure are you now that its going to last as many
>>years as you've been hoping it would without several more upgrades, even
>>with Linux? Keep in mind that you're already at over $1100 invested &
>>counting.
>
>
> Nothing to indicate I'll need further upgrades, and your figure for
> what I've put in seems higher than actual.
>
>
>>>> plus yesterday you revealed that you've already replaced the original
>>>> video controller because it couldn't handle a single 4K display,
>>>> whereas
>>>> the Mac Studio you've been using to compare yourself to can handle
>>>> five.
>>>
>>> I didn't have a "video controller", why do you keep saying that?
>>
>>That its integral to the CPU doesn't mean that its not a video controller.
>>
>>> It was just the CPU's video, which was great for 1080p, not for 4K.
>>> Big whoop, the cheap card I got is fine since I don't game.
>>
>>Trailing edge of technology, which you've already paid to replace. Good
>>lifecycle management plan there! /s
>
>
> That is all nonsense, I liked the i5-10400 without regard to it
> containing basic video, that was something convenient for my old
> monitor, that I had to replace it with a card was no biggie.
>
>
>>>>> Nor how they buy inferior hardware, to save money that way.
>>>>> I want the best of both worlds - self-assembled.
>>>>
>>>> Except that you actually haven't done that:
>>>>
>>>> * you under-specced your video and have replaced it already;
>>>>
>>>> * you over-specced your RAM, so you paid for it too early
>>>> (if you'll ever actually need it).
>>>
>>> Just false.
>>
>>You've already told us that you spent $100 to upgrade the video.
>>
>>You've already told us that you spent some amount (I've assumed $50) to
>>increase RAM to 32GB and that its currently not using any swap, which
>>means that the extra RAM isn't being used at all.
>
>
> I regularly use 16 GB for main usage *plus* more for cache, I even
> occasionally go slightly over the full 32 GB when both are factored
> in, slightly using swap. I *could* actually move to 48 or 64 GB, if I
> were obsessed.
>
>
>>>> It raises the question of just maybe perhaps the professionals at the
>>>> OEMs are just slightly better at this stuff than you personally are. /s
>>>
>>> Not remotely.
>>
>>In your dreams, unfortunately. As I've already noted, you could have
>>bought a Mac Mini for less & had comparable/better performing hardware.
>
>
> But it'd be running macOS. :)
>
> --
> 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.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vi4nnh$3ere5$1@dont-email.me...
> On 11/26/24 8:32 AM, Joel wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> your CPU & Storage benchmarks are literally half of the Apple Studio
>>>>> that you've tried to compare your system against,
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't trying to compare the benchmarks. I was comparing realized
>>>> value.
>>>
>>> Fine, but why did you then compare your system to one that's known to be
>>> vastly more capable? Your "Apples vs Oranges" has become deliberate.
>>
>> I was comparing to an Apple device currently available, that it is
>> newer and faster didn't matter, because it was about initial price.
>
> You went upscale instead of choosing one comparable to your PC's i5.
>
> That's like bragging that a Toyota Yaris is cheaper than a Porsche 911
> while pretending that no other cars exist in the marketplace.
>
>>>> My computer's beginning to age, and yet because I'm running
>>>> Linux, this has no meaning to me. It might as well still be brand
>>>> new. Same thing with my Galaxy S21 phone, it's still as good as new
>>>> to me, I don't miss gimmicky features that an S24 would offer.
>>>
>>> Oh, so its just barely 3 years old and you've already noticing that it
>>> is aging?
>>
>> I did after 2 1/2 years with Win11, but I don't with Linux, no.
>
> What changed in your software/useage to have 'degraded' Windows?
> I've used Windows for decades: the era of 'bitrot' was circa XP.
>
>>> So just how sure are you now that its going to last as many
>>> years as you've been hoping it would without several more upgrades, even
>>> with Linux? Keep in mind that you're already at over $1100 invested &
>>> counting.
>>
>> Nothing to indicate I'll need further upgrades, and your figure for
>> what I've put in seems higher than actual.
>
> But nothing to indicate that you actually needed the upgrades that you've
> already paid for, especially RAM.
>
> And for figure, the only one that isn't directly from what you provided is
> the cost of your +16GB RAM upgrade. I estimated it was +$50 for which
> you've protested but not provided its actual cost....
>
> ...and since that +$50 isn't included in the "$1100 invested" statement
> above, you have zero basis to complain: had my estimate for your RAM
> upgrade cost had been included, it would have said $1150.
>
>>>>> plus yesterday you revealed that you've already replaced the original
>>>>> video controller because it couldn't handle a single 4K display,
>>>>> whereas
>>>>> the Mac Studio you've been using to compare yourself to can handle
>>>>> five.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't have a "video controller", why do you keep saying that?
>>>
>>> That its integral to the CPU doesn't mean that its not a video
>>> controller.
>>>
>>>> It was just the CPU's video, which was great for 1080p, not for 4K.
>>>> Big whoop, the cheap card I got is fine since I don't game.
>>>
>>> Trailing edge of technology, which you've already paid to replace. Good
>>> lifecycle management plan there! /s
>>
>> That is all nonsense, I liked the i5-10400 without regard to it
>> containing basic video, that was something convenient for my old
>> monitor, that I had to replace it with a card was no biggie.
>
> Which is you saying that you're not sensitive to a +10% cost increase.
>
> With the prior insensitivity to your $200 Windows license part, you're at
> +$300 over, so you're not sensitive to +30% cost increases.
>
> You're not being a particularly value conscious consumer in IRL practice:
> so remind us again about why OEM markups are so 'evil'? /s
>
>
>>>>>> Nor how they buy inferior hardware, to save money that way.
>>>>>> I want the best of both worlds - self-assembled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that you actually haven't done that:
>>>>>
>>>>> * you under-specced your video and have replaced it already;
>>>>>
>>>>> * you over-specced your RAM, so you paid for it too early
>>>>> (if you'll ever actually need it).
>>>>
>>>> Just false.
>>>
>>> You've already told us that you spent $100 to upgrade the video.
>>>
>>> You've already told us that you spent some amount (I've assumed $50) to
>>> increase RAM to 32GB and that its currently not using any swap, which
>>> means that the extra RAM isn't being used at all.
>>
>> I regularly use 16 GB for main usage *plus* more for cache, I even
>> occasionally go slightly over the full 32 GB when both are factored
>> in, slightly using swap. I *could* actually move to 48 or 64 GB, if I
>> were obsessed.
>
>
> Merely allocating doesn't mean that it actually gets used: what was your
> swap performance metric *before* you chose to drop money on a RAM upgrade?
> Because without evidence of a performance degradation, you're again
> gratuitously spending your money to solve a non-problem.
>
>>>>> It raises the question of just maybe perhaps the professionals at the
>>>>> OEMs are just slightly better at this stuff than you personally are.
>>>>> /s
>>>>
>>>> Not remotely.
>>>
>>> In your dreams, unfortunately. As I've already noted, you could have
>>> bought a Mac Mini for less & had comparable/better performing hardware.
>>
>>
>> But it'd be running macOS. :)
>>
>
> Because no Mac ever has been able to run Linux? Pull my other leg.
> Now granted, there are some reports that there's not a great version of
> Linux for running on the M4 CPUs, but one can always run Linux in a VM
> under MacOS ... I've found that Windows11 does fine this way.
>
> -hh
>

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>>>> I didn't even need the Win10 license, it turned out, my Win7 Pro
>>>> product key from 2010 would've worked, because it'd been upgraded on
>>>> my previous machine. I've since given both keys away, since I have
>>>> zero intention of ever going back to Winblows.
>>>
>>> So that's another 'spent too much' research error on your part. Check.
>>
>> I don't mind, the keys can be reused by others. It's a minor write-
>> off, I got my use out of Winblows when I used it, I will never want it
>> back.
>
>That you "don't mind" means ...
>
>...that you're okay with spending 20% more than you really have to(!).

I got my $200 worth out of Win10/11, between when I first booted 20H2
in 2021, and switching to Linux in 2023. No biggie, the key is still
valid for DFS to use, as my Win7 key is for my other friend.

--
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.

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>>>>> your CPU & Storage benchmarks are literally half of the Apple Studio
>>>>> that you've tried to compare your system against,
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't trying to compare the benchmarks. I was comparing realized
>>>> value.
>>>
>>> Fine, but why did you then compare your system to one that's known to be
>>> vastly more capable? Your "Apples vs Oranges" has become deliberate.
>>
>> I was comparing to an Apple device currently available, that it is
>> newer and faster didn't matter, because it was about initial price.
>
>You went upscale instead of choosing one comparable to your PC's i5.
>
>That's like bragging that a Toyota Yaris is cheaper than a Porsche 911
>while pretending that no other cars exist in the marketplace.

I bought good stuff relative to when I bought it and my needs.

>>>> My computer's beginning to age, and yet because I'm running
>>>> Linux, this has no meaning to me. It might as well still be brand
>>>> new. Same thing with my Galaxy S21 phone, it's still as good as new
>>>> to me, I don't miss gimmicky features that an S24 would offer.
>>>
>>> Oh, so its just barely 3 years old and you've already noticing that it
>>> is aging?
>>
>> I did after 2 1/2 years with Win11, but I don't with Linux, no.
>
>What changed in your software/useage to have 'degraded' Windows?
>I've used Windows for decades: the era of 'bitrot' was circa XP.

It's just heavier demands on hardware. M$ is not in the consumer's
interest. Linux is.

>>> So just how sure are you now that its going to last as many
>>> years as you've been hoping it would without several more upgrades, even
>>> with Linux? Keep in mind that you're already at over $1100 invested &
>>> counting.
>>
>> Nothing to indicate I'll need further upgrades, and your figure for
>> what I've put in seems higher than actual.
>
>But nothing to indicate that you actually needed the upgrades that
>you've already paid for, especially RAM.

Wrong, my usage hits 16 GB *not* including cache right away. 32 GB is
a very reasonable amount to have.

>And for figure, the only one that isn't directly from what you provided
>is the cost of your +16GB RAM upgrade. I estimated it was +$50 for
>which you've protested but not provided its actual cost....
>
>...and since that +$50 isn't included in the "$1100 invested" statement
>above, you have zero basis to complain: had my estimate for your RAM
>upgrade cost had been included, it would have said $1150.

It's something like $50, yeah, no biggie, much like the cheap video
card.

>> I liked the i5-10400 without regard to it
>> containing basic video, that was something convenient for my old
>> monitor, that I had to replace it with a card was no biggie.
>
>Which is you saying that you're not sensitive to a +10% cost increase.
>
>With the prior insensitivity to your $200 Windows license part, you're
>at +$300 over, so you're not sensitive to +30% cost increases.
>
>You're not being a particularly value conscious consumer in IRL
>practice: so remind us again about why OEM markups are so 'evil'? /s

The problem is that to get what I have, you have to pay so much up
front, with Apple. There's no question I got equally good components
for less.

>> I regularly use 16 GB for main usage *plus* more for cache, I even
>> occasionally go slightly over the full 32 GB when both are factored
>> in, slightly using swap. I *could* actually move to 48 or 64 GB, if I
>> were obsessed.
>
>Merely allocating doesn't mean that it actually gets used: what was your
>swap performance metric *before* you chose to drop money on a RAM
>upgrade? Because without evidence of a performance degradation, you're
>again gratuitously spending your money to solve a non-problem.

I watch System Monitor, I see that my 32 GB approaches and even
slightly surpasses getting maxed out, including cache, leading to
minor use of swap.

>>>>> It raises the question of just maybe perhaps the professionals at the
>>>>> OEMs are just slightly better at this stuff than you personally are. /s
>>>>
>>>> Not remotely.
>>>
>>> In your dreams, unfortunately. As I've already noted, you could have
>>> bought a Mac Mini for less & had comparable/better performing hardware.
>>
>> But it'd be running macOS. :)
>
>Because no Mac ever has been able to run Linux? Pull my other leg.
>Now granted, there are some reports that there's not a great version of
>Linux for running on the M4 CPUs, but one can always run Linux in a VM
>under MacOS ... I've found that Windows11 does fine this way.

I wouldn't buy Apple hardware to run something other than macOS. That
it can isn't really a material point.

--
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.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>my usage hits 16 GB *not* including cache right away

I would clarify, it's actually not quite that when I first boot up and
load everything, but approaching it. It's more when I additionally
load LibreOffice Writer and GIMP, and the PDF viewer, yada yada, it
hits and exceeds 16 GB main RAM use.

--
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.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Unless he's doing something graphically
>intensive, Joel's 10th-gen i5 should have no trouble driving a 4k
>monitor.

To this day, I don't entirely know what the issue was, but Win11 had
serious problems utilizing the i5-10400's video for 4K, with this Acer
brand monitor. If I'd foreseen all the hassles it would give me, I
wouldn't have bought it. Linux distros have had problems with it,
too, even with the NVIDIA card, although my current Debian install
handled it well.

--
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.

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>>>I may be mistaken but I seem to remember Joel complaining that Microsoft
>>>somehow disabled his Windows machine and he was unable to repair it.
>>>
>>>Joel appears to be a switch hitter in more ways than one. He uses Windows for
>>>a while, screws it up somehow then switches to Linux and claims Linux solved
>>>all of his self inflicted issues.
>>
>> Utter BS. I made an error with regard to *the specific ways* M$ was
>> committing fraud on Win10 users, although they still were doing such.
>> I admitted my error, I regretted it, I went back to using Windows 10
>> and then 11, too. I gave them every chance in the world. But that's
>> over. I will never disgrace my precious hardware with Winblows,
>> again.
>>
>So did Microsoft disable your Windows computer or not?

If I had merely turned on my TV to the HDMI input connected to my old
computer's video card, that fiasco never would've happened. Why M$
and Linux distros insist on defaulting to what is clearly a 720p TV,
rather than my actual monitor, I'll never know, but it's something
I've gotten used to.

--
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 2024-11-25 09:29, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aj25kj1mjp2b0j8f90o5vkgol3nc85s9ir@4ax.com...
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> you claimed:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'You're a sucker if you use Apple's crap hardware and software.'
>>>>>
>>>>> So I'll ask again.
>>>>
>>>> OK, well, you're paying a premium price for junk software.  Is that
>>>> clear enough?
>>>
>>> You haven't yet explained WHY it is "junk software".
>>>
>>> That much is entirely clear.
>>
>>
>> It's a toy, it's not serious,
>
> So how many high end professionals find your system to be a "must have"?
>
>> I mean you have very specific
>> applications for macOS that are large, e.g. video editing, but not
>> everyone does these things.
>
> I see, so unless it's something EVERYONE uses.. then it's junk software..
>
> In which metric Windows is FAR better than Linux.
>
>
>
>> For the average personal-computer user,
>> it's just wasted potential,
>
> Windows
>
>> you have this nice hardware running
>> inferior software, it's powered by Unix to be sure, and has that
>> potential within it, but most never realize that.
>
> EVERY modern OS has Unix as it's base.
>
> Windows is powered by Unix.
No. To be accurate, Windows is NOT powered by Unix.

As far as the roots of the OS that began as Windows NT, and which is now
Windows 11, it is mostly closely related to VMS. This is hardly
surprising, as Microsoft hired Dave Cutler away from DEC to be lead
architect on Windows NT.

Dave Cutler is on record as having a particular disdain for Unix, BTW.

On 2024-11-25 03:18, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> He couldn't future-proof his video system.
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Are you really so surprised that the CPU's integrated video wouldn't
>>> do well, with 4K? It seems obvious that it'd help to have a discreet
>>> video card, I didn't need an expensive one, it's not a big deal. I'm
>>> glad to spend a little, to get a lot of mileage.
>>
>> /I'm/ not...
>>
>> ...but apparently you were.
>
>
> No I wasn't surprised, and I handled it, I bought an inexpensive card.
> Big F'ing deal.
If you hadn't been surprised, you have bought the card from the beginning.

On 2024-11-25 05:59, Joel wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>>> the braggadocio on having to go manually set up a capability
>>>> that mainstream OS users already have, and take for granted.
>>>>
>>>> To use an automotive analogy, its like he's bragging that he upgraded
>>>> his carb to have automatic choke ... not realizing that everyone else
>>>> looks at them, thinking: "there's still cars which have a manual choke?"
>>>
>>> I can't imagine how lazy people are, to pay so much for Apple's and
>>> higher-end OEMs' offerings.
>>
>> Some are buying for the actual high-end performance. We've already seen
>> how your claimed "high-end" PC isn't really so high end after all:
>>
>> your CPU & Storage benchmarks are literally half of the Apple Studio
>> that you've tried to compare your system against,
>
>
> I wasn't trying to compare the benchmarks. I was comparing realized
> value. My computer's beginning to age, and yet because I'm running
> Linux, this has no meaning to me. It might as well still be brand
> new. Same thing with my Galaxy S21 phone, it's still as good as new
> to me, I don't miss gimmicky features that an S24 would offer.
>
>
>> plus yesterday you revealed that you've already replaced the original
>> video controller because it couldn't handle a single 4K display, whereas
>> the Mac Studio you've been using to compare yourself to can handle five.
>
>
> I didn't have a "video controller", why do you keep saying that? It
> was just the CPU's video, which was great for 1080p, not for 4K. Big
> whoop, the cheap card I got is fine since I don't game.

The fact that it was integrated into the motherboard doesn't make it any
less a video controller, doofus.

You really aren't very 1337 if you don't understand that fact.

On 2024-11-26 05:32, Joel wrote:
>> Trailing edge of technology, which you've already paid to replace. Good
>> lifecycle management plan there! /s
>
> That is all nonsense, I liked the i5-10400 without regard to it
> containing basic video, that was something convenient for my old
> monitor, that I had to replace it with a card was no biggie.

The i5 processors don't "contain basic video" in any way shape or form.

Are you sure you know ANYTHING about how computers work?

On 2024-11-25 09:49, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9757kjp8pi1klqhk7didm6jdhgo3juutdn@4ax.com...
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/24/24 3:21 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-24 11:39, Joel wrote:
>>>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I paid less to get high-end gear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please remind me: just what's the specs of this claimed "high-
>>>>>>>>>> end" gear?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have a Gigabyte AORUS motherboard, not some no-name junk that
>>>>>>>>> you'd
>>>>>>>>> get in a prefab box on Newegg for a hot price, ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, doesn't mean much to me:  what's its salient characteristics
>>>>>>>> which relate to it being "high-end"?  For example, is it PCI5 or 4?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's meant for elite gaming systems, I wanted it for the
>>>>>>> expandability, bragging rights, reliability over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bragging rights?  I certainly hope you're not saying that you paid
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> for a name(!).
>>>>>
>>>>> The motherboard is more relevant to overall quality than a lot of
>>>>> people might realize.  It's not paying for a name, it's paying for
>>>>> durability and quality.
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who literally said:
>>>> "bragging rights".
>>>
>>> While also snipping a whole bunch of other objective metrics.
>>>
>>> Gosh, it musta been another "accident"...
>>>
>>> ...instead of a tacit admission through avoidance that he knows that he
>>> can't support his assertion that he made a rational product decision.
>>
>>
>> Incorrect.  I don't care about benchmarks.
>
> Translation: I don’t care if it's fast or slow...
>
>
>>  I care about having a
>> modern, reliable, functional system.
>
> Which can be dirt slow as long as it looks good....

Don't forget "bragging rights"!

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

>>>>> He couldn't future-proof his video system.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Are you really so surprised that the CPU's integrated video wouldn't
>>>> do well, with 4K? It seems obvious that it'd help to have a discreet
>>>> video card, I didn't need an expensive one, it's not a big deal. I'm
>>>> glad to spend a little, to get a lot of mileage.
>>>
>>> /I'm/ not...
>>>
>>> ...but apparently you were.
>>
>> No I wasn't surprised, and I handled it, I bought an inexpensive card.
>> Big F'ing deal.
>If you hadn't been surprised, you have bought the card from the beginning.

That's idiotic, are you so bamboozled and brainwashed by Apple that
you don't understand modifying a real, assembled desktop machine, you
fucking moron? I thought, as chrisv blindly asserted, that the CPU
would work fine, when it didn't, I did an upgrade with a discrete
card, which made a large difference. It also gave me a second video
port, which allows me to use my TV as a monitor, too. What a
travesty, huh? Derp.

--
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.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2024-11-25 05:59, Joel wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>>> plus yesterday you revealed that you've already replaced the original
>>> video controller because it couldn't handle a single 4K display, whereas
>>> the Mac Studio you've been using to compare yourself to can handle five.
>>
>> I didn't have a "video controller", why do you keep saying that? It
>> was just the CPU's video, which was great for 1080p, not for 4K. Big
>> whoop, the cheap card I got is fine since I don't game.
>
>The fact that it was integrated into the motherboard doesn't make it any
>less a video controller, doofus.
>
>You really aren't very 1337 if you don't understand that fact.

It was integrated into the CPU, it's still there, I could put a third
monitor on, I guess, and utilize it along with the NVIDIA card, but
then again I could also buy a Mac like your dumb ass - to speak of
things I will not be doing.

--
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.

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

>>> Trailing edge of technology, which you've already paid to replace. Good
>>> lifecycle management plan there! /s
>>
>> That is all nonsense, I liked the i5-10400 without regard to it
>> containing basic video, that was something convenient for my old
>> monitor, that I had to replace it with a card was no biggie.
>
>The i5 processors don't "contain basic video" in any way shape or form.
>
>Are you sure you know ANYTHING about how computers work?

Was that supposed to be anything but word salad?

--
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 2024-11-26 14:51, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> He couldn't future-proof his video system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really so surprised that the CPU's integrated video wouldn't
>>>>> do well, with 4K? It seems obvious that it'd help to have a discreet
>>>>> video card, I didn't need an expensive one, it's not a big deal. I'm
>>>>> glad to spend a little, to get a lot of mileage.
>>>>
>>>> /I'm/ not...
>>>>
>>>> ...but apparently you were.
>>>
>>> No I wasn't surprised, and I handled it, I bought an inexpensive card.
>>> Big F'ing deal.
>> If you hadn't been surprised, you have bought the card from the beginning.
>
>
> That's idiotic, are you so bamboozled and brainwashed by Apple that
> you don't understand modifying a real, assembled desktop machine, you
> fucking moron? I thought, as chrisv blindly asserted, that the CPU
> would work fine, when it didn't, I did an upgrade with a discrete
> card, which made a large difference. It also gave me a second video
> port, which allows me to use my TV as a monitor, too. What a
> travesty, huh? Derp.
I understand it fine.

I've done it.

And a low end Mac Mini supports up to THREE displays with 6K resolution
on two of them and one more with 5K resolution (if on Thunderbolt) or 4K
resolution (if on HDMI).

And that's for $600.

So, yeah: you paying more than you had to for a CPU with an integrated
GPU (yeah: I got that wrong in another post. Sorry) and then having to
pay for a discrete video card...

....that was a travesty of good sense.

:-)

On 2024-11-26 14:53, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-11-25 05:59, Joel wrote:
>>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> plus yesterday you revealed that you've already replaced the original
>>>> video controller because it couldn't handle a single 4K display, whereas
>>>> the Mac Studio you've been using to compare yourself to can handle five.
>>>
>>> I didn't have a "video controller", why do you keep saying that? It
>>> was just the CPU's video, which was great for 1080p, not for 4K. Big
>>> whoop, the cheap card I got is fine since I don't game.
>>
>> The fact that it was integrated into the motherboard doesn't make it any
>> less a video controller, doofus.
>>
>> You really aren't very 1337 if you don't understand that fact.
>
>
> It was integrated into the CPU, it's still there, I could put a third
> monitor on, I guess, and utilize it along with the NVIDIA card, but
> then again I could also buy a Mac like your dumb ass - to speak of
> things I will not be doing.
If you bought a Mac Mini for $600 you'd get support for a lot more in
terms of video.

:-)

On 2024-11-26 14:54, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Trailing edge of technology, which you've already paid to replace. Good
>>>> lifecycle management plan there! /s
>>>
>>> That is all nonsense, I liked the i5-10400 without regard to it
>>> containing basic video, that was something convenient for my old
>>> monitor, that I had to replace it with a card was no biggie.
>>
>> The i5 processors don't "contain basic video" in any way shape or form.
>>
>> Are you sure you know ANYTHING about how computers work?
>
>
> Was that supposed to be anything but word salad?
>

Yeah... ...I didn't look up the spec. Sorry.

But OTOH, you paid extra to get a CPU with integrated GPU that you then
needed to supersede with a video card.

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

>>> If you hadn't been surprised, you have bought the card from the beginning.
>>
>> That's idiotic, are you so bamboozled and brainwashed by Apple that
>> you don't understand modifying a real, assembled desktop machine, you
>> fucking moron? I thought, as chrisv blindly asserted, that the CPU
>> would work fine, when it didn't, I did an upgrade with a discrete
>> card, which made a large difference. It also gave me a second video
>> port, which allows me to use my TV as a monitor, too. What a
>> travesty, huh? Derp.
>I understand it fine.
>
>I've done it.
>
>And a low end Mac Mini supports up to THREE displays with 6K resolution
>on two of them and one more with 5K resolution (if on Thunderbolt) or 4K
>resolution (if on HDMI).
>
>And that's for $600.
>
>So, yeah: you paying more than you had to for a CPU with an integrated
>GPU (yeah: I got that wrong in another post. Sorry) and then having to
>pay for a discrete video card...
>
>...that was a travesty of good sense.
>
>:-)

I always had the intention to install a video card if there were a
reason to. The 4K monitor gave me such a reason. I bought a
motherboard that gave me options. The notion that I could've bought
the CPU without integrated video is meaningless, trivial difference.

--
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.

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

>>>> I didn't have a "video controller", why do you keep saying that? It
>>>> was just the CPU's video, which was great for 1080p, not for 4K. Big
>>>> whoop, the cheap card I got is fine since I don't game.
>>>
>>> The fact that it was integrated into the motherboard doesn't make it any
>>> less a video controller, doofus.
>>>
>>> You really aren't very 1337 if you don't understand that fact.
>>
>> It was integrated into the CPU, it's still there, I could put a third
>> monitor on, I guess, and utilize it along with the NVIDIA card, but
>> then again I could also buy a Mac like your dumb ass - to speak of
>> things I will not be doing.
>If you bought a Mac Mini for $600 you'd get support for a lot more in
>terms of video.
>
>:-)

With 256 GB storage? Heh.

--
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.