On 2024-11-23 12:26, Joel 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.

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 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.

:-)

On 2024-11-26 15:28, Joel wrote:
> 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.
You get that you could increase that, right?

Way to miss the point!

On 2024-11-26 12:46, Joel wrote:
> 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.
>

Sounds like you didn't do your homework...

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

>>> 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.
>You get that you could increase that, right?
>
>Way to miss the point!

OK, well, the Web site says to go from 256 GB to 1 TB is an extra
$400. So, what is your point, pray tell? So is going from 16 GB RAM
to 32 GB, BTW. So, $1400, not $600.

--
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, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> 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?

It's clear to me.
However as a Kamala supporter Joel, you should be adept at deciphering word salad.

--
pothead

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

On 2024-11-26 15:58, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>> You get that you could increase that, right?
>>
>> Way to miss the point!
>
>
> OK, well, the Web site says to go from 256 GB to 1 TB is an extra
> $400. So, what is your point, pray tell? So is going from 16 GB RAM
> to 32 GB, BTW. So, $1400, not $600.

Yup. And you get a much more capable system for only a little more than
you ended up paying; an insignificant amount over a reasonable system life.

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

>> Was that supposed to be anything but word salad?
>
>It's clear to me.
>However as a Kamala supporter Joel, you should be adept at deciphering word salad.

I'll take Harris's manners of speech over Trump's rambling nonsense,
are you kidding? The fantasies he drooled out, at those rallies full
of uneducable crackers? What a farce.

--
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 04:44, Joel wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> When I built the computer, the old monitor was still in use.
>>>>> Later, I bought a 4K monitor. The CPU's video handled it but barely,
>>>>> the NVIDIA card made it work more smoothly.
>>>>
>>>> And yet when you bought this PC in 2022 [it was 2021], you didn't anticipate the
>>>> likelihood of getting a 4K display to replace the 1080p when it died?
>>>
>>> What difference would that have made?
>>
>> Because buying a subsystem just once instead of buying it twice may
>> mean that you pay less overall: "Lifecyle cost management 101."
>
>
> The CPU's video is built into the CPU. It's still there right now, if
> I plug a DP cable into the motherboard's video port, but instead I use
> the discrete card, now.
>
>
>>>> Remind us again for just much money you have sunk into it already?
>>>
>>> The video card was around $100.
>>
>> Which gets added to the 2021 base system's price, bringing your total
>> invested lifecycle cost to date to be ... how much?
>
>
> No more or less than it's actually worth - which is the point. With
> Apple, I'd pay more up front, whether I needed it or not.
>
>
>>> 32 GB is about right, for my usage.
>>
>> Not today it isn't: it is still being underutilized at ~3 years system
>> age, which undermines your claimed argument of the value of moduarlity
>> for lower lifecycle costs. Looks like you were 5+ years too early in
>> spending money for RAM that you won't really need until after 2027.
>
>
> As my computer stays booted up, RAM use approaches the full quantity,
> including cache. I watch this in System Monitor.
>

So Linux is bad at memory management, is it?

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

>>>>> 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.
>>> You get that you could increase that, right?
>>>
>>> Way to miss the point!
>>
>> OK, well, the Web site says to go from 256 GB to 1 TB is an extra
>> $400. So, what is your point, pray tell? So is going from 16 GB RAM
>> to 32 GB, BTW. So, $1400, not $600.
>
>Yup. And you get a much more capable system for only a little more than
>you ended up paying; an insignificant amount over a reasonable system life.

I paid under $1000, or so, not counting the software purchases, since
I ended up using Linux exclusively. And my CPU is virtually as good
as the M1, the benchmarks showed the difference isn't really
significant. Face it, Apple is a scam.

--
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 04:44, Joel wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 32 GB [RAM] is about right, for my usage.
>>>
>>> Not today it isn't: it is still being underutilized at ~3 years system
>>> age, which undermines your claimed argument of the value of moduarlity
>>> for lower lifecycle costs. Looks like you were 5+ years too early in
>>> spending money for RAM that you won't really need until after 2027.
>>
>> As my computer stays booted up, RAM use approaches the full quantity,
>> including cache. I watch this in System Monitor.
>
>So Linux is bad at memory management, is it?

It's not a matter of managing it, it's a matter of using what's
available. I give the system enough to leave an insane amount of
stuff in cache. Maybe it's actually *Apple's* OS doing some kind of
trickery, to make its paltry offerings seem OK. Inquiring minds want
to know.

--
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 16:42, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> You get that you could increase that, right?
>>>>
>>>> Way to miss the point!
>>>
>>> OK, well, the Web site says to go from 256 GB to 1 TB is an extra
>>> $400. So, what is your point, pray tell? So is going from 16 GB RAM
>>> to 32 GB, BTW. So, $1400, not $600.
>>
>> Yup. And you get a much more capable system for only a little more than
>> you ended up paying; an insignificant amount over a reasonable system life.
>
>
> I paid under $1000, or so, not counting the software purchases, since
> I ended up using Linux exclusively. And my CPU is virtually as good
> as the M1, the benchmarks showed the difference isn't really
> significant. Face it, Apple is a scam.
>

1. "Virtually as good isn't "as good".

2. You're using today's costs for the RAM expansion and drive expansion.

3. The whole system isn't near as good.

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

>>>> to go from 256 GB to 1 TB is an extra
>>>> $400. So, what is your point, pray tell? So is going from 16 GB RAM
>>>> to 32 GB, BTW. So, $1400, not $600.
>>>
>>> Yup. And you get a much more capable system for only a little more than
>>> you ended up paying; an insignificant amount over a reasonable system life.
>>
>> I paid under $1000, or so, not counting the software purchases, since
>> I ended up using Linux exclusively. And my CPU is virtually as good
>> as the M1, the benchmarks showed the difference isn't really
>> significant. Face it, Apple is a scam.
>
>1. "Virtually as good isn't "as good".

<yawn>

>2. You're using today's costs for the RAM expansion and drive expansion.

No shit, I got 1 TB storage *in the first half of 2021*. For barely
over $100, for a quality model. How is Apple doing with that, *NOW*?
Derp.

>3. The whole system isn't near as good.

Bullshit.

--
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 11/26/2024 4:16 PM, Joel wrote:
> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
>
>>> Was that supposed to be anything but word salad?
>>
>> It's clear to me.
>> However as a Kamala supporter Joel, you should be adept at deciphering word salad.
>
>
> I'll take Harris's manners of speech over Trump's rambling nonsense,
> are you kidding? The fantasies he drooled out, at those rallies full
> of uneducable crackers? What a farce.

Let's revisit what you think about those "fantasies" in six months. I'm
personally looking forward to reality shock for indoctrinated libtards.

As for the uneducable crackers, are you referring to the illiterate genZ
tranny 'tards, or the left-wing smart phone operators who can't even
pass 30, 60, or 90 day probationary hiring periods?

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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.

--
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 15:56, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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.

You imagine that as some great "gotcha", do you?
>

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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.

--
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 16:15, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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.
Better question:

Why do so many people find that it's worth it to pay that much to have a
Mac?

:-)

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

>> Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]
>> still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
>Better question:
>
>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.

--
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 16:49, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>> Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]
>>> still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
>> Better question:
>>
>> 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

On 2024-11-27 00:15:06 +0000, Joel said:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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.

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.

On 11/26/24 8:48 PM, Joel wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> to go from 256 GB to 1 TB is an extra
>>>>> $400. So, what is your point, pray tell? So is going from 16 GB RAM
>>>>> to 32 GB, BTW. So, $1400, not $600.
>>>>
>>>> Yup. And you get a much more capable system for only a little more than
>>>> you ended up paying; an insignificant amount over a reasonable system life.

Less than Joel actually spent, by accepting SSD performance that's only
equal to his current, instead of 2x as fast by using a external, and
skip the RAM upgrade as a BS claim:

Base Mini with SSD bumped to 512 +1TB external SSD: $800 +$100 = $900.

Outcome: significantly superior performing hardware, and with 1.5TB
total storage instead of just 1TB...for 22% less money.

And one _still_ has the option of running Linux on it, plus there's zero
financial cost to go back to MacOS if you decide that was a mistake.

-hh

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6lekjpcdl81hef5f8lktrm56c5hna8tmm@4ax.com...
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>> I bought good stuff relative to when I bought it and my needs.
>>
>>Except for how you claimed to have promptly had to upgrade your video,
>>showing that you didn't really buy "good" stuff: you bought marginal
>>gear which per your claim didn't even support 'state of the shelf'.
>
>
> The CPU's video is incidental to having a CPU.

not when the video is integrated and you expect to use that integrated
video.

> The NVIDIA card is an
> add-on that was something I'd considered as a possibility all along.

But apparently not enough to get one until the hardware you paid for in your
"high end" system provided, or rather you claim, was inadequate.

> WTF are you harping on that for?

Shows your poor decisions.

>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>Which was more of doing what? Games? Computational Fluid Dynamics?
>
>
> Just existing, M$ steals CPU cycles.

Any operating system does. Otherwise, it won't work.

You think Linux doesn't use CPU time?

>
>>> M$ is not in the consumer's interest. Linux is.
>>
>>With a ~65% market share, how is MS not clearly consumers' #1 choice?
>
>
> It goes to show how much they know.

It certainly does.. while linux is, what, about 3%?

>>>> 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.
>>
>>You sure that it didn't hit 16GB because you set up the 16GB cache?
>>Change to a 4GB cache and tell us what amount it says its usage hits.
>
>
> I didn't mess with anything of that nature, I just let the OS work.

So you didn't actually set up such a cache, much less expand it, because you
don't mess with anything of that nature.

LOL.. So how did you know you needed more?

>>>> 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.
>>
>>But it still all adds up. As has been already noted, you've overpaid by
>>a good 30% while getting less capability overall.
>
>
> Not in the least, I got good prices at the times I purchased the gear,

Apparently not when you paid more to get less capable hardware.

> it adds up to a great value, long-lasting with Linux, unlike Winblows
> 11.

That's amusing given my hardware mostly predates Win11 and totally rocks
under Win11.. and cost less than yours.

On 11/27/24 12:32 PM, Joel wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>> I bought good stuff relative to when I bought it and my needs.
>>
>> Except for how you claimed to have promptly had to upgrade your video,
>> showing that you didn't really buy "good" stuff: you bought marginal
>> gear which per your claim didn't even support 'state of the shelf'.
>
> The CPU's video is incidental to having a CPU. The NVIDIA card is an
> add-on that was something I'd considered as a possibility all along.
> WTF are you harping on that for?

It would be incidental if you hadn't ended up paying twice for video.

>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Which was more of doing what? Games? Computational Fluid Dynamics?
>
> Just existing, M$ steals CPU cycles.

If that were true, then why didn't you know enough to know that the
system was inadequate on initial setup & returned it all for a refund?

>>> M$ is not in the consumer's interest. Linux is.
>>
>> With a ~65% market share, how is MS not clearly consumers' #1 choice?
>
> It goes to show how much they know.

The combined knowledge of three people is more than what you know...

>>>> 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.
>>
>> You sure that it didn't hit 16GB because you set up the 16GB cache?
>> Change to a 4GB cache and tell us what amount it says its usage hits.
>
> I didn't mess with anything of that nature, I just let the OS work.

Except for how that claim contradicts what you've previously said.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> But it still all adds up. As has been already noted, you've overpaid by
>> a good 30% while getting less capability overall.
>
> Not in the least, I got good prices at the times I purchased the gear,
> it adds up to a great value, long-lasting with Linux, unlike Winblows
> 11.

Because your costs to date of $1150 is less than a $600 mini before it
may have been optioned-up? Nope.

Nor even your initial spend of $1000 before your later upgrades.

FWIW, a bare bones stripped M1 mini is a fine persona computer.
And the current M4 generation is a pretty damn great one.

-hh

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>>>> I bought good stuff relative to when I bought it and my needs.
>>>
>>> Except for how you claimed to have promptly had to upgrade your video,
>>> showing that you didn't really buy "good" stuff: you bought marginal
>>> gear which per your claim didn't even support 'state of the shelf'.
>>
>> The CPU's video is incidental to having a CPU. The NVIDIA card is an
>> add-on that was something I'd considered as a possibility all along.
>> WTF are you harping on that for?
>
>It would be incidental if you hadn't ended up paying twice for video.

Uh, I didn't. The NVIDIA card is the only card I've put in, in the
lifetime of the machine.

>>>> M$ is not in the consumer's interest. Linux is.
>>>
>>> With a ~65% market share, how is MS not clearly consumers' #1 choice?
>>
>> It goes to show how much they know.
>
>The combined knowledge of three people is more than what you know...

Doubtful, I'm an expert, having used and observed the hardware and
software in recent years.

--
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:

>>>> Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB [storage]
>>>> still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
>>> Better question:
>>>
>>> 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".

--
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.