Yon Wane <"yonwane-lol!"@pac2.com> wrote:

>> 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?

We aren't going to live in a dictatorship.

--
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.

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>On 2024-11-27 00:15:06 +0000, Joel said:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And it had how much storage, again? Heh.
>>>
>>> You imagine that as some great "gotcha", do you?
>>
>> Yeah, it is, because it's where Apple rips people off. Why is 256 GB
>> still the basic option? In almost 2025? Retarded.
>
>Because you obviously don't understand Apple's CPUs and / or stuck in
>the same old MHz-myth style nonsense that caused Apple to swap to Intel
>CPU years ago. Apple's chips simply don't actually need as much RAM as
>Intel CISC CPUs do.

The 256 GB is storage, not RAM, and why would RISC need *less* RAM?
You're talking out of your ass, apparently.

--
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 2024-11-27 08:55, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:s3kckj5omrimu2r25rnj5mfr02d0bhafi1@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
> Says the person who couldn't get a monitor to work with his compatible
> hardware.
>
>>  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.
>
> You 'thought'? I thought you were the person who was an expert on
> computer software and hardware. I mean it's a "high end system" so why
> did you need to buy extra hardware that you didn't need?
>
>> It also gave me a second video
>> port, which allows me to use my TV as a monitor, too.  What a
>> travesty, huh?  Derp.
>
> Which off course you didn't plan on or you would have provided for that
> when you built the system in the first place. It was only after you
> decided you fucked up that you had the capacity and now could do so...
> even though this is the first hint you've ever made to having a dual
> monitor setup. Sounds like someone making it up as their errors are
> pointed out.
>
>
>

Hey...

Joel isn't just an expert...

....he's "elite"!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

On 11/26/24 10:35 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.
>
> 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'.

>>>>> 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?

> M$ is not in the consumer's interest. Linux is.

With a ~65% market share, how is MS not clearly consumers' #1 choice?

>>>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

>>> 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.

That claim has already been shown to be untrue, for your CPU & SSD
bandwidths (& perhaps RAM too) are literally half, while you paid more.

>>> 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.

Modern OSs are designed to use all of the available hardware RAM, which
makes the old method of looking at just usage effectively obsolete.

>>>>>> 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.

Avoidance, which is even if you don't want to run MacOS, the opportunity
that you spurned to get better hardware at a lower price.

-hh

On 11/27/24 2:19 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.
>
>
> Uh, I didn't. The NVIDIA card is the only card I've put in, in the
> lifetime of the machine.

Incorrect: your first video controller was the one that came integrated
into your i5 (the "F" version is cheaper & comes without) which you paid
for. That makes the NVIDIA card you bought later the second one.

>>>>> 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.

Not in this you're not, for you've shown us that you've spent 30% more
(that we know of) than you had to for your capability.

-hh

On 2024-11-27 11:19, 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.
>
>
> Uh, I didn't. The NVIDIA card is the only card I've put in, in the
> lifetime of the machine.

Uh, you did.

You paid once for a CPU with an integrated GPU...

....then paid again for a separate card when the "expert" couldn't figure
out how to make his integrated GPU work with a 4K monitor.

>
>
>>>>> 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.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

On 2024-11-27 05:27, 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
>
>
> So it reflects having an intact brain, to pay $400 extra for something
> i got for barely over $100, 3 1/2 years ago? "Riiiiight".
It can, yes.

Because you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.

"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vi5ilf$3jtcs$13@dont-email.me...
> 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"!

....and the rather dubious assertion of being "high end"... which it might
have been... 15 years ago.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00dckj9vndun04npv6met22hu8fa1fmrka@4ax.com...
> 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.

Because that way it insures you have a usable bootup until you load drivers
and alter settings to handled specific hardware.

It's called a 'standard', but clearly you expect manufactures to just 'know'
what hardware you plan to have installed when you first boot up a system AND
have all the drivers and such already installed to run any hardware at
maximum capability. Instead they go with a given standard which current and
even older hardware is going to support, say 720p, until you install the
system drivers and change the settings for THAT particular standard.

Of course, they COULD add in a library of every driver known to man, and
really increase installation size of which most of it will NEVER be
required.

For someone who claims to know, oh, so much about computers.. you seem
pretty ignorant of why things are done.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tocckjht8dqtg058rqpd4l4arg53aefkb3@4ax.com...
> 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.

So to be clear, it wasn't a problem with windows or even your system, but
that specific monitor and drivers. So why are you blaming Win11 for what
clearly an issue caused by that specific monitor?

Further I'm still unclear as to why a video card would suddenly overcome
those issues as the drivers/monitor would still remain unchanged.

"sniff" "sniff" still smells like you're pushing horseshit.

"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vi5m65$3lin4$2@dont-email.me...
> 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...

At the very least. Then apparently wasted money on a video card he didn't
need.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cpbkj18m7dbovgrbouqjh55i3a88tu84p@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.
>>
>>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.

Anyone could say that about any piece of crap they bought. You asserted your
system was "high end".
Oh, and if it was good stuff.. why did your monitor cause you so many issues
then? I mean look at how much money you wasted on hardware you didn't need.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rosbkj196f9d8nf3krl56vbbamcgj02erh@4ax.com...
> 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.

Really?

LibreOffice Writer - 256MB
GIMP - 4GB
PDF viewer - about 400MB
Win11 - 2GB-8GB

However, I would expect a "high end" system to have adequate memory when
setup. Because even if we take the high end for Win11, you still have lots
of overhead for ordinary programs. I would think a well educated builder
putting together a "high end" system in the habit of having a lot of
programs active would have allowed for that in his build at the start. Now
you've had to either replace your memory or fill up your remaining slots
because you failed to properly determine your hardware needs at the start.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p1rbkjltkdthmhujobr8klhv7ih5qgjfle@4ax.com...
> -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.

And yet despite claiming that Win11 was so bad you had to revamp your
hardware and software.. you're claiming Win11 delivered good value to you.

Damn.. if we could just harness that spin we could solve the power needs of
the world.

"Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in message
news:vi5i4c$3jtcs$10@dont-email.me...
> 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.

More than that, by his own admissions that means earlier he wasn't surprised
his monitor was such a POS that he HAD to buy a video card he didn't need.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3kckj5omrimu2r25rnj5mfr02d0bhafi1@4ax.com...
> 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?

Says the person who couldn't get a monitor to work with his compatible
hardware.

> 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.

You 'thought'? I thought you were the person who was an expert on computer
software and hardware. I mean it's a "high end system" so why did you need
to buy extra hardware that you didn't need?

> It also gave me a second video
> port, which allows me to use my TV as a monitor, too. What a
> travesty, huh? Derp.

Which off course you didn't plan on or you would have provided for that when
you built the system in the first place. It was only after you decided you
fucked up that you had the capacity and now could do so... even though this
is the first hint you've ever made to having a dual monitor setup. Sounds
like someone making it up as their errors are pointed out.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:84mckjlguej13g63nm3hrf1h48tltt2giv@4ax.com...
> 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.

Which reason turned out to be your own ineptitude.

> The 4K monitor gave me such a reason.

IOW, you fucked up and had to spend more money because of that.

> I bought a
> motherboard that gave me options.

But apparently not the ones you needed. So now you paid more for a
motherboard that had options you are using, and even more for add-ons to
give you the options you do need which aren't supported by the options you
chose.

> The notion that I could've bought
> the CPU without integrated video is meaningless, trivial difference.

Except that you claim to know what you were doing when you made this "high
end" system, while attacking cheaper system that not only would have given
you all of that but much more.

I mean the very reason you gave for needing the extra system memory would
have been better performed on the system you tried to attack.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69kckjh3lg6go3mf44dl54dk18ksei2q7i@4ax.com...
> 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.

Translation: I suck at computers, ok, quit rubbing my nose in that fact.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vamckj5vg8n9utkhhiqssmqio69g60lu4f@4ax.com...
> 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.

Sure, just buy an external drive with a compatible interface, plug it in and
good..
I mean a great computer expert like yourself shouldn't have any issues
doing that.

I mean, most of what you would need such storage for would be for data files
and other such storage.. not for the OS or programs.

Get you a nice 8TB for a mere $319 +s/h

Oh, let me guess.. you use the main drive for all your data storage..

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v0ockjd17rff2pbsrpt8ral4nm9850uqub@4ax.com...
> 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.

I can take you from 256GB to 256GB + 8TB for around $320. that's a combined
total of 8.25T

I mean you do know that data files do NOT have to be on the main drive,
right?

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tiqckjdr9ueccqtsam4eb2tndhkdc2kq0f@4ax.com...
> 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.

Except for better hardware that actually works, and more hardware, and more
capacity and unless you REQUIRE internal storage pretty much as much storage
as you might want.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vi6vjf$3vl3n$1@dont-email.me...
> 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.

or if he wanted to go crazy bump it to 8TB for around $320 or about what he
paid for his whole system plus the updates.

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

or over 8 times as much for the same 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.

Now, now. Joel never makes mistakes.. well except for buying an expensive
monitor he claims his system couldn't support, Paying for software he
couldn't handle, and spending lord knows how many hours of his time trying
to download, install, and integrate Linux into his system. Only to end up
with inferior hardware.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kk7ekj59h7j074o9a8jjovqb1oam4c9qc4@4ax.com...
> Yon Wane <"yonwane-lol!"@pac2.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
>
> We aren't going to live in a dictatorship.

But you keep trying to vote for one.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7pqckjl8gloc5kp01co6pafua1gc43qaqu@4ax.com...
> 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.

Analysis based on data provided would seem to indicate otherwise.

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".
>It can, yes.
>
>Because you don't buy an SSD just to have one on a shelf.

In other words, because Apple requires these payments, you rationalize
that you didn't really need so much empty space, anyway. Congrats.
Meanwhile, I already had that much empty space, going back years. Is
it superfluous? Maybe. But then again, it's elite.

--
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.