https://san.com/cc/apples-230-iphone-pocket- taps- into-a-bigger- >>>>>> story-on-fashion-functionality/Wow. A website writes some text and that makes it true?
This site literally says up top, "Unbiased. Straight facts." Wow. >>>>>> You are being programmed to wear a stocking with your phone in it. >>>>>> By the masterminds at Apple. My God.
You don't see? Apple paid "san.com" to promote their gear, with a
cute story on the Web.
Really? Do you know that's what happened?
Yeah, I know that's what happened, Alan, come the fuck on.
Do you actually believe the bullshit you spout?
Did you speak to someone at san.com...someone at Apple/
Read between the lines just a little bit, dude.
 Dumbass Apple fans will be influenced to make a purchase. LikeAnd yet, the counter example of the poor sales of the iPhone Air
taking candy from a baby.
contradict that.
Not really, the Air is just a device that Apple produces because it's
obligated to pretend that there's a competitively priced segment in
their wares, they probably don't worry about how successful it is.
The point is that you keep claiming that Apple users are so "brain
damaged" that they'll buy anything Apple sells.
The poor sales of the iPhone Air contradicts that.
On 11/13/25 11:47 PM, Alan wrote:
https://san.com/cc/apples-230-iphone-pocket- taps- into-a-bigger- >>>>>>> story-on-fashion-functionality/Wow. A website writes some text and that makes it true?
This site literally says up top, "Unbiased. Straight facts."
Wow. You are being programmed to wear a stocking with your phone >>>>>>> in it. By the masterminds at Apple. My God.
You don't see? Apple paid "san.com" to promote their gear, with a >>>>> cute story on the Web.
Really? Do you know that's what happened?
Yeah, I know that's what happened, Alan, come the fuck on.
Do you actually believe the bullshit you spout?
Did you speak to someone at san.com...someone at Apple/
Read between the lines just a little bit, dude.
 Dumbass Apple fans will be influenced to make a purchase. Like >>>>> taking candy from a baby.And yet, the counter example of the poor sales of the iPhone Air
contradict that.
Not really, the Air is just a device that Apple produces because it's
obligated to pretend that there's a competitively priced segment in
their wares, they probably don't worry about how successful it is.
The point is that you keep claiming that Apple users are so "brain
damaged" that they'll buy anything Apple sells.
The poor sales of the iPhone Air contradicts that.
You seem to think Apple is just a useful company that happened to have
come along. Unfortunately, straight out of Satan's mouth.
https://san.com/cc/apples-230-iphone-pocket- taps- into-a-Wow. A website writes some text and that makes it true?
bigger- story-on-fashion-functionality/
This site literally says up top, "Unbiased. Straight facts."
Wow. You are being programmed to wear a stocking with your phone >>>>>>>> in it. By the masterminds at Apple. My God.
You don't see? Apple paid "san.com" to promote their gear, with a >>>>>> cute story on the Web.
Really? Do you know that's what happened?
Yeah, I know that's what happened, Alan, come the fuck on.
Do you actually believe the bullshit you spout?
Did you speak to someone at san.com...someone at Apple/
Read between the lines just a little bit, dude.
 Dumbass Apple fans will be influenced to make a purchase. Like >>>>>> taking candy from a baby.And yet, the counter example of the poor sales of the iPhone Air
contradict that.
Not really, the Air is just a device that Apple produces because
it's obligated to pretend that there's a competitively priced
segment in their wares, they probably don't worry about how
successful it is.
The point is that you keep claiming that Apple users are so "brain
damaged" that they'll buy anything Apple sells.
The poor sales of the iPhone Air contradicts that.
You seem to think Apple is just a useful company that happened to have
come along. Unfortunately, straight out of Satan's mouth.
What do you even mean by that?
On 12/9/25 3:13 PM, Alan wrote:
https://san.com/cc/apples-230-iphone-pocket- taps- into-a-Wow. A website writes some text and that makes it true?
bigger- story-on-fashion-functionality/
This site literally says up top, "Unbiased. Straight facts." >>>>>>>>> Wow. You are being programmed to wear a stocking with your
phone in it. By the masterminds at Apple. My God.
You don't see? Apple paid "san.com" to promote their gear, with >>>>>>> a cute story on the Web.
Really? Do you know that's what happened?
Yeah, I know that's what happened, Alan, come the fuck on.
Do you actually believe the bullshit you spout?
Did you speak to someone at san.com...someone at Apple/
Read between the lines just a little bit, dude.
 Dumbass Apple fans will be influenced to make a purchase. Like >>>>>>> taking candy from a baby.And yet, the counter example of the poor sales of the iPhone Air
contradict that.
Not really, the Air is just a device that Apple produces because
it's obligated to pretend that there's a competitively priced
segment in their wares, they probably don't worry about how
successful it is.
The point is that you keep claiming that Apple users are so "brain
damaged" that they'll buy anything Apple sells.
The poor sales of the iPhone Air contradicts that.
You seem to think Apple is just a useful company that happened to
have come along. Unfortunately, straight out of Satan's mouth.
What do you even mean by that?
I always have to remind myself that Apple does un-cripple itself in one
way, which is that preference in computing devices is personal, and I'm
only commenting on the harsh reality of price points, you are "one of
them" but I don't deny that it functions as a device.
https://san.com/cc/apples-230-iphone-pocket- taps- into-a- >>>>>>>>>> bigger- story-on-fashion-functionality/Wow. A website writes some text and that makes it true?
This site literally says up top, "Unbiased. Straight facts." >>>>>>>>>> Wow. You are being programmed to wear a stocking with your >>>>>>>>>> phone in it. By the masterminds at Apple. My God.
You don't see? Apple paid "san.com" to promote their gear, with >>>>>>>> a cute story on the Web.
Really? Do you know that's what happened?
Yeah, I know that's what happened, Alan, come the fuck on.
Do you actually believe the bullshit you spout?
Did you speak to someone at san.com...someone at Apple/
Read between the lines just a little bit, dude.
 Dumbass Apple fans will be influenced to make a purchase. >>>>>>>> Like taking candy from a baby.And yet, the counter example of the poor sales of the iPhone Air >>>>>>> contradict that.
Not really, the Air is just a device that Apple produces because
it's obligated to pretend that there's a competitively priced
segment in their wares, they probably don't worry about how
successful it is.
The point is that you keep claiming that Apple users are so "brain
damaged" that they'll buy anything Apple sells.
The poor sales of the iPhone Air contradicts that.
You seem to think Apple is just a useful company that happened to
have come along. Unfortunately, straight out of Satan's mouth.
What do you even mean by that?
I always have to remind myself that Apple does un-cripple itself in
one way, which is that preference in computing devices is personal,
and I'm only commenting on the harsh reality of price points, you are
"one of them" but I don't deny that it functions as a device.
Still have not a clue what you're getting at by "just a useful company
that happened to have come along".
What do you mean by that?
On 12/9/25 6:32 PM, Alan wrote:
https://san.com/cc/apples-230-iphone-pocket- taps- into-a- >>>>>>>>>>> bigger- story-on-fashion-functionality/Wow. A website writes some text and that makes it true?
This site literally says up top, "Unbiased. Straight facts." >>>>>>>>>>> Wow. You are being programmed to wear a stocking with your >>>>>>>>>>> phone in it. By the masterminds at Apple. My God.
You don't see? Apple paid "san.com" to promote their gear, >>>>>>>>> with a cute story on the Web.
Really? Do you know that's what happened?
Yeah, I know that's what happened, Alan, come the fuck on.
Do you actually believe the bullshit you spout?
Did you speak to someone at san.com...someone at Apple/
Read between the lines just a little bit, dude.
 Dumbass Apple fans will be influenced to make a purchase. >>>>>>>>> Like taking candy from a baby.And yet, the counter example of the poor sales of the iPhone Air >>>>>>>> contradict that.
Not really, the Air is just a device that Apple produces because >>>>>>> it's obligated to pretend that there's a competitively priced
segment in their wares, they probably don't worry about how
successful it is.
The point is that you keep claiming that Apple users are so "brain >>>>>> damaged" that they'll buy anything Apple sells.
The poor sales of the iPhone Air contradicts that.
You seem to think Apple is just a useful company that happened to
have come along. Unfortunately, straight out of Satan's mouth.
What do you even mean by that?
I always have to remind myself that Apple does un-cripple itself in
one way, which is that preference in computing devices is personal,
and I'm only commenting on the harsh reality of price points, you are
"one of them" but I don't deny that it functions as a device.
Still have not a clue what you're getting at by "just a useful company
that happened to have come along".
What do you mean by that?
Jobs clearly envisioned the Satanic plot by Apple to sell the Pocket and whatnot, they would be the anti-computer. The people like you are supporting it because of your quirks that make you prefer their software.
You seem to think Apple is just a useful company that happened to >>>>>> have come along. Unfortunately, straight out of Satan's mouth.
What do you even mean by that?
I always have to remind myself that Apple does un-cripple itself in
one way, which is that preference in computing devices is personal,
and I'm only commenting on the harsh reality of price points, you
are "one of them" but I don't deny that it functions as a device.
Still have not a clue what you're getting at by "just a useful
company that happened to have come along".
What do you mean by that?
Jobs clearly envisioned the Satanic plot by Apple to sell the Pocket
and whatnot, they would be the anti-computer. The people like you are
supporting it because of your quirks that make you prefer their software.
You're delusional.
Selling a product that only some people will want--that they might want
it for status...
...that's a nothing-burger.
Apple is successful because the computing products they make appeal to
many people so much that they're will to buy them even at higher prices.
On 12/9/25 7:25 PM, Alan wrote:
You seem to think Apple is just a useful company that happened to >>>>>>> have come along. Unfortunately, straight out of Satan's mouth.
What do you even mean by that?
I always have to remind myself that Apple does un-cripple itself in >>>>> one way, which is that preference in computing devices is personal, >>>>> and I'm only commenting on the harsh reality of price points, you
are "one of them" but I don't deny that it functions as a device.
Still have not a clue what you're getting at by "just a useful
company that happened to have come along".
What do you mean by that?
Jobs clearly envisioned the Satanic plot by Apple to sell the Pocket
and whatnot, they would be the anti-computer. The people like you
are supporting it because of your quirks that make you prefer their
software.
You're delusional.
Selling a product that only some people will want--that they might
want it for status...
...that's a nothing-burger.
Apple is successful because the computing products they make appeal to
many people so much that they're will to buy them even at higher prices.
I think the Pocket is a lot easier money for them, though,
because thoseAgain, you miss the essential point;
512 GB SSDs for $200 more than 256 GB can't get but a few nerds who have
a porn collection or something. Heh.
I think the Pocket is a lot easier money for them, though,
Dude: they're going to be less than a rounding error on their revenues.
because those 512 GB SSDs for $200 more than 256 GB can't get but a
few nerds who have a porn collection or something. Heh.
Again, you miss the essential point;
People aren't looking at the purchase price of the COMPONENTS. They're looking at the cost of getting a whole system that works the way they
want it to work.
They produce personal computers, smartphones, and tablets that work so
well for people that they'll pay the premium for that storage.
On 12/9/25 8:12 PM, Alan wrote:
I think the Pocket is a lot easier money for them, though,
Dude: they're going to be less than a rounding error on their revenues.
because those 512 GB SSDs for $200 more than 256 GB can't get but a
few nerds who have a porn collection or something. Heh.
Again, you miss the essential point;
People aren't looking at the purchase price of the COMPONENTS. They're
looking at the cost of getting a whole system that works the way they
want it to work.
They produce personal computers, smartphones, and tablets that work so
well for people that they'll pay the premium for that storage.
OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage options?
It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with Apple honestly
is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user.
I think the Pocket is a lot easier money for them, though,
Dude: they're going to be less than a rounding error on their revenues.
because those 512 GB SSDs for $200 more than 256 GB can't get but a
few nerds who have a porn collection or something. Heh.
Again, you miss the essential point;
People aren't looking at the purchase price of the COMPONENTS.
They're looking at the cost of getting a whole system that works the
way they want it to work.
They produce personal computers, smartphones, and tablets that work
so well for people that they'll pay the premium for that storage.
OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage options?
It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with Apple honestly
is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user.
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it thinks the traffic will bear?
But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space-black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10-core-gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks compared to the M5 in
the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5-pro/buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-Ultra-7-256V-vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
On 12/9/25 9:28 PM, Alan wrote:
I think the Pocket is a lot easier money for them, though,
Dude: they're going to be less than a rounding error on their revenues. >>>>
because those 512 GB SSDs for $200 more than 256 GB can't get but a >>>>> few nerds who have a porn collection or something. Heh.
Again, you miss the essential point;
People aren't looking at the purchase price of the COMPONENTS.
They're looking at the cost of getting a whole system that works the
way they want it to work.
They produce personal computers, smartphones, and tablets that work
so well for people that they'll pay the premium for that storage.
OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage
options? It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with Apple
honestly is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user.
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it thinks
the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space-black-
standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10-core-gpu-16gb-
memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD
would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks compared to the
M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5-pro/
buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-Ultra-7-256V-
vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung user.
I think the Pocket is a lot easier money for them, though,
Dude: they're going to be less than a rounding error on their
revenues.
because those 512 GB SSDs for $200 more than 256 GB can't get but >>>>>> a few nerds who have a porn collection or something. Heh.
Again, you miss the essential point;
People aren't looking at the purchase price of the COMPONENTS.
They're looking at the cost of getting a whole system that works
the way they want it to work.
They produce personal computers, smartphones, and tablets that work >>>>> so well for people that they'll pay the premium for that storage.
OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage
options? It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with
Apple honestly is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user.
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it thinks
the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung user.But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space-black-
standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10-core-gpu-16gb-
memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD
would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks compared to the
M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5-pro/
buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-Ultra-7-256V-
vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the pricey
upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
On 12/10/25 4:13 PM, Alan wrote:
I think the Pocket is a lot easier money for them, though,
Dude: they're going to be less than a rounding error on their
revenues.
because those 512 GB SSDs for $200 more than 256 GB can't get but >>>>>>> a few nerds who have a porn collection or something. Heh.
Again, you miss the essential point;
People aren't looking at the purchase price of the COMPONENTS.
They're looking at the cost of getting a whole system that works
the way they want it to work.
They produce personal computers, smartphones, and tablets that
work so well for people that they'll pay the premium for that
storage.
OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage
options? It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with
Apple honestly is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user.
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it thinks
the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung user.But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space-black-
standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10-core-
gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD
would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks compared to
the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5-pro/
buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-Ultra-7-256V-
vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the pricey
upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it
thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive.
Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung user.But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space-
black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10-core- >>>>> gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD
would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks compared to
the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5-pro/ >>>>> buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-
Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the pricey >>>> upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it
thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive.
Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung user. >>>>But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space-
black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10-
core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD >>>>>> would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks compared to >>>>>> the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5-
pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-
Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the
pricey upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple offersYou're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being better
me nothing.
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it
thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive.
Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer was
upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the gold
standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it have to
be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has theYou're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung
pricey upgrades of specs.
user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple
offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being better
than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual facts matched your attempted brag.
On 12/11/25 1:25 PM, Alan wrote:
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive.
Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer
was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it
have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with 256,
so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model. Inclusive to
itself that is a good argument but it is lost when you see what the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' Apple, and get the 512
GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is entitled to get and
not Apple's extortion.
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has theYou're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung >>>>>> user.
pricey upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple
offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being better
than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive for such
upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac user.They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying Apple was
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. >>>>>> Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer
was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it
have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with 256,
so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model. Inclusive to
itself that is a good argument but it is lost when you see what the
alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' Apple, and get the 512
GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is entitled to get
and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung >>>>>>> user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple
offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being better
than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive for such
upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from lambasting
you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying Apple was
so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
On 12/11/25 2:36 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. >>>>>>> Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer >>>>> was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it >>>>> have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with
256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model. Inclusive
to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when you see what
the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' Apple, and get
the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is entitled
to get and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. AppleSamsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a
Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is! >>>>>
offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive
for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from lambasting
you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying Apple
was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.But it is...
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe
drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer >>>>>> was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the >>>>>> gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it >>>>>> have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill
a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with
256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model.
Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when you
see what the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' Apple,
and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is
entitled to get and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you can't be rational.
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple >>>>>> offers me nothing.Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a
Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is! >>>>>>
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive >>>>> for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from lambasting
you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying Apple
was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
On 12/11/25 6:23 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose >>>>>>>>>> it?Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever >>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old
computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 >>>>>>> TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. >>>>>>> Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill >>>>>> a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with
256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model.
Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when you >>>>> see what the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' Apple, >>>>> and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is >>>>> entitled to get and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you can't be
rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or iPhone.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying AppleSamsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple >>>>>>> offers me nothing.And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is! >>>>>>>Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone. >>>>>>>
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less
expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual >>>>>> facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from
lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac user. >>>
was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walledDrag those goalposts!
garden, though?
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>> choose it?Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old
computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 >>>>>>>> TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. >>>>>>>> Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never
fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with >>>>>> 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model.
Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when
you see what the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin'
Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the
price one is entitled to get and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you can't be
rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung >>>>>>>>> is!Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has >>>>>>>>>>>> the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone. >>>>>>>>
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it.
Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less
expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the
actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from
lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac
user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying Apple >>>>> was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are
prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walled
garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than Samsung does?
Yes or no.
On 12/11/25 7:09 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>> choose it?Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old
computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 >>>>>>>>> TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. >>>>>>>>> Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never >>>>>>>> fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with >>>>>>> 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model.
Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when >>>>>>> you see what the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' >>>>>>> Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the
price one is entitled to get and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you can't
be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's still
not cheap.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderfulSamsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has >>>>>>>>>>>>> the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone. >>>>>>>>>
Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it.
Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being >>>>>>>> better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less
expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the
actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from
lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac >>>>>>> user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying
Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are
prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walled
garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than Samsung
does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone does,Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for charging
but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old >>>>>>>>>> computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. >>>>>>>>>> 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 >>>>>>>>>> GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never >>>>>>>>> fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good
with 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model. >>>>>>>> Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when >>>>>>>> you see what the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' >>>>>>>> Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the >>>>>>>> price one is entitled to get and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you can't
be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or
iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's still
not cheap.
Which doesn't make it "extortion", does it?
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful >>>>>>>>>>> Samsung is!Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone. >>>>>>>>>>
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. >>>>>>>>>> Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being >>>>>>>>> better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less
expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the >>>>>>>>> actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from
lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac >>>>>>>> user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying
Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are
prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walled
garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than Samsung
does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone does,
but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for charging
$200 to upgrade from 512GB to 1TB...
...and that you suggested Samsung wouldn't do that.
...and it turned out that Samsung was charging $350 for the same upgrade.
On 12/11/25 8:45 PM, Alan wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.Because there are people who really don't need more.Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.Do you even understand that EVERY company charges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old >>>>>>>>>>> computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. >>>>>>>>>>> 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 >>>>>>>>>>> GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*? >>>>>>>>>>
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never >>>>>>>>>> fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good >>>>>>>>> with 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model. >>>>>>>>> Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when >>>>>>>>> you see what the alternative really is, to not buy from
freakin' Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, >>>>>>>>> get the price one is entitled to get and not Apple's extortion. >>>>>>>>
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you can't >>>>>> be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or
iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's
still not cheap.
Which doesn't make it "extortion", does it?
Pretty much does.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful >>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung is!Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone. >>>>>>>>>>>
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. >>>>>>>>>>> Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being >>>>>>>>>> better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less >>>>>>>>>> expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the >>>>>>>>>> actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from
lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a >>>>>>>>> Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying >>>>>>>> Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are
prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walled
garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than Samsung
does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone does,
but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for charging
$200 to upgrade from 512GB to 1TB...
...and that you suggested Samsung wouldn't do that.
...and it turned out that Samsung was charging $350 for the same upgrade.
You're putting it wrong, it's $400 to go from 256 GB to 1 TB, which is
the real assault on the credit line of a potential buyer, Apple is only
a little expensive if you're good at 256 GB, but you better pay through
the nose if you want features.
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it
thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive.
Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer was
upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the gold
standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it have to
be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being better
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a SamsungBut it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space-
black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10-
core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB
SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks
compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5- >>>>>>> pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-
Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the
pricey upgrades of specs.
user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple
offers me nothing.
than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual facts matched your attempted brag.
On 2025-12-11 10:56, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/11/25 1:25 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. >>>>>> Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer
was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it
have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with 256,
so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model. Inclusive to
itself that is a good argument but it is lost when you see what the
alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' Apple, and get the 512
GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is entitled to get
and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from lambasting
you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac user.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
Because there are people who really don't need more.You still have this ridiculous idea that:Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old >>>>>>>>>>>> computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that >>>>>>>>>>>> 512 GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*? >>>>>>>>>>>
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never >>>>>>>>>>> fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good >>>>>>>>>> with 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that
model. Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is >>>>>>>>>> lost when you see what the alternative really is, to not buy >>>>>>>>>> from freakin' Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB >>>>>>>>>> RAM, get the price one is entitled to get and not Apple's >>>>>>>>>> extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you
can't be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or
iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's
still not cheap.
Which doesn't make it "extortion", does it?
Pretty much does.
You need to buy a dictionary.
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful >>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. >>>>>>>>>>>> Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung >>>>>>>>>>> being better than Apple on the implied idea that they were >>>>>>>>>>> less expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the >>>>>>>>>>> actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from >>>>>>>>>> lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a >>>>>>>>>> Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying >>>>>>>>> Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are
prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walled >>>>>> garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than
Samsung does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone
does, but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for
charging $200 to upgrade from 512GB to 1TB...
...and that you suggested Samsung wouldn't do that.
...and it turned out that Samsung was charging $350 for the same
upgrade.
You're putting it wrong, it's $400 to go from 256 GB to 1 TB, which is
the real assault on the credit line of a potential buyer, Apple is
only a little expensive if you're good at 256 GB, but you better pay
through the nose if you want features.
So you want to drag the goalposts some more!
I used YOUR numbers and YOUR chosen alternative...
...and you were WRONG.
On 2025-12-11 2:36 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 10:56, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/11/25 1:25 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. >>>>>>> Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer >>>>> was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it >>>>> have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good with
256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that model. Inclusive
to itself that is a good argument but it is lost when you see what
the alternative really is, to not buy from freakin' Apple, and get
the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is entitled
to get and not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
That is a good point. In fact, I'm convinced that Apple would rather not have Joel as a client. Additionally, while Apple is lying that 16GB on
an Mx processor is the same as 32GB on the x86-64 platform, the reality
is that the new Macs do manage to do more with less.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from lambasting
you personally with the matter, because you are a Mac user.
Samsung is in no way superior to Apple. Even if it had functionality
that Apple doesn't currently have, the reality is that it is probably
being offered in a confusing, cumbersome way and its users are unaware
of it.
On 12/12/25 1:03 AM, Alan wrote:
You still have this ridiculous idea that:Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NVMe drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old >>>>>>>>>>>>> computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA >>>>>>>>>>>>> SSD. 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make >>>>>>>>>>>>> that 512 GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now >>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will >>>>>>>>>>>> never fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good >>>>>>>>>>> with 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that >>>>>>>>>>> model. Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is >>>>>>>>>>> lost when you see what the alternative really is, to not buy >>>>>>>>>>> from freakin' Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 >>>>>>>>>>> GB RAM, get the price one is entitled to get and not Apple's >>>>>>>>>>> extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you
can't be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or >>>>>>> iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's
still not cheap.
Which doesn't make it "extortion", does it?
Pretty much does.
You need to buy a dictionary.
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs, here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything up,
they can turn it into a big game.
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>> being better than Apple on the implied idea that they were >>>>>>>>>>>> less expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the >>>>>>>>>>>> actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from >>>>>>>>>>> lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a >>>>>>>>>>> Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying >>>>>>>>>> Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are >>>>>>> prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walled >>>>>>> garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than
Samsung does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone
does, but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for
charging $200 to upgrade from 512GB to 1TB...
...and that you suggested Samsung wouldn't do that.
...and it turned out that Samsung was charging $350 for the same
upgrade.
You're putting it wrong, it's $400 to go from 256 GB to 1 TB, which
is the real assault on the credit line of a potential buyer, Apple is
only a little expensive if you're good at 256 GB, but you better pay
through the nose if you want features.
So you want to drag the goalposts some more!
I used YOUR numbers and YOUR chosen alternative...
...and you were WRONG.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD can"When one is assembling a system".
be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
On 2025-12-11 1:25 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive.
Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer
was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it
have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being better
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung >>>>>> user.But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space- >>>>>>>> black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10- >>>>>>>> core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB >>>>>>>> SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks
compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5- >>>>>>>> pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-
Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the
pricey upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple
offers me nothing.
than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive for such
upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
No, it's because Apple wants people to opt for online storage through iCloud. Apple is always looking to gouge the user, so you are either
going to opt for an immediate storage upgrade at ridiculous prices when
you buy the hardware or opt for an online solution which will allow
Apple to have a continuous revenue through selling your data to the
highest bidder, much like Microsoft and Google.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NVMe drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it thinks the traffic will bear? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SSD. 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 512 GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will >>>>>>>>>>>>> never fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good >>>>>>>>>>>> with 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that >>>>>>>>>>>> model. Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is >>>>>>>>>>>> lost when you see what the alternative really is, to not buy >>>>>>>>>>>> from freakin' Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 >>>>>>>>>>>> GB RAM, get the price one is entitled to get and not Apple's >>>>>>>>>>>> extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you >>>>>>>>> can't be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or >>>>>>>> iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's >>>>>> still not cheap.
Which doesn't make it "extortion", does it?
Pretty much does.
You need to buy a dictionary.
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs,
here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything up,
they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>> being better than Apple on the implied idea that they were >>>>>>>>>>>>> less expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the >>>>>>>>>>>>> actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from >>>>>>>>>>>> lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a >>>>>>>>>>>> Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying >>>>>>>>>>> Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are >>>>>>>> prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a
walled garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than
Samsung does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone
does, but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for
charging $200 to upgrade from 512GB to 1TB...
...and that you suggested Samsung wouldn't do that.
...and it turned out that Samsung was charging $350 for the same
upgrade.
You're putting it wrong, it's $400 to go from 256 GB to 1 TB, which
is the real assault on the credit line of a potential buyer, Apple
is only a little expensive if you're good at 256 GB, but you better
pay through the nose if you want features.
So you want to drag the goalposts some more!
I used YOUR numbers and YOUR chosen alternative...
...and you were WRONG.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD can
be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of show-off
corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
On 2025-12-12 08:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 1:03 AM, Alan wrote:
You still have this ridiculous idea that:Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NVMe drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it thinks the traffic will bear? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SSD. 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 512 GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will >>>>>>>>>>>>> never fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be good >>>>>>>>>>>> with 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in that >>>>>>>>>>>> model. Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but it is >>>>>>>>>>>> lost when you see what the alternative really is, to not buy >>>>>>>>>>>> from freakin' Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, get the 32 >>>>>>>>>>>> GB RAM, get the price one is entitled to get and not Apple's >>>>>>>>>>>> extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child.
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you >>>>>>>>> can't be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac or >>>>>>>> iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's >>>>>> still not cheap.
Which doesn't make it "extortion", does it?
Pretty much does.
You need to buy a dictionary.
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs, here's
$1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything up,
they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
"When one is assembling a system".
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>> being better than Apple on the implied idea that they were >>>>>>>>>>>>> less expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the >>>>>>>>>>>>> actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from >>>>>>>>>>>> lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are a >>>>>>>>>>>> Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were implying >>>>>>>>>>> Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are >>>>>>>> prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a walled >>>>>>>> garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than
Samsung does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone
does, but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for
charging $200 to upgrade from 512GB to 1TB...
...and that you suggested Samsung wouldn't do that.
...and it turned out that Samsung was charging $350 for the same
upgrade.
You're putting it wrong, it's $400 to go from 256 GB to 1 TB, which
is the real assault on the credit line of a potential buyer, Apple is >>>> only a little expensive if you're good at 256 GB, but you better pay
through the nose if you want features.
So you want to drag the goalposts some more!
I used YOUR numbers and YOUR chosen alternative...
...and you were WRONG.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD can
be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of show-off
corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
Most people don't want to do that.
On 2025-12-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-12 08:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD can"When one is assembling a system".
be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of show-off
corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
Most people don't want to do that.
These days it almost doesn't even pay anymore.
The main advantage is to customize the PC to fit the intended use
and use higher quality parts as required.
So for example a hardcore gamer will want plenty of memory, a high
end graphics card and maybe extra cooling in the case.
Things an average home use probably doesn't need.
It's not that PC targeted at these specific types of users are not
available, it's just that they tend to be overpriced.
Apple caters to a certain demographic and these people tend to
be loyal and are willing to pay the price.
I use iPhones and an Apple watch and I have found them to be
bullet proof.
I also have a mid tier Samsung Android phone and it too works fine.
In no way is Apple running an extortion racket.
If you don't like Apple, go elsewhere.
For what they do, they do it very well with few hiccups.
There support is second to none and the Apple resale value
is quite good compared to other brands.
On 2025-12-12 06:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-11 1:25 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. >>>>>> Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer
was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it
have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being better
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a Samsung >>>>>>> user.But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space- >>>>>>>>> black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10- >>>>>>>>> core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB >>>>>>>>> SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks
compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy-book5- >>>>>>>>> pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-
Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple
offers me nothing.
than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive for such
upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
No, it's because Apple wants people to opt for online storage through
iCloud. Apple is always looking to gouge the user, so you are either
going to opt for an immediate storage upgrade at ridiculous prices
when you buy the hardware or opt for an online solution which will
allow Apple to have a continuous revenue through selling your data to
the highest bidder, much like Microsoft and Google.
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
On 12/12/25 3:19 PM, Alan wrote:
They are, though, the cult will accept the extortion.You still have this ridiculous idea that:Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NVMe drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever it thinks the traffic will bear? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chintzy.
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to choose it?
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SSD. 1 TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 512 GB. Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never fill a 256GB drive.
So that's good enough, for you, that some people can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> good with 256, so Apple's just offering a good choice in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that model. Inclusive to itself that is a good argument but >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is lost when you see what the alternative really is, to >>>>>>>>>>>>> not buy from freakin' Apple, and get the 512 GB or 1 TB, >>>>>>>>>>>>> get the 32 GB RAM, get the price one is entitled to get and >>>>>>>>>>>>> not Apple's extortion.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Apple's products, child. >>>>>>>>>>>
Once again, you imagine that people who don't agree with you >>>>>>>>>> can't be rational.
You have been extorted of your money by Apple by buying a Mac >>>>>>>>> or iPhone.
Nope.
Simply, unequivocally bullshit you're spouting there.
If you buy the minimum model, you get a very basic device. It's >>>>>>> still not cheap.
Which doesn't make it "extortion", does it?
Pretty much does.
You need to buy a dictionary.
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs,
here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything up,
they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has the pricey upgrades of specs.You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Samsung is!
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. Apple offers me nothing.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being better than Apple on the implied idea that they were >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual facts matched your attempted brag.
Samsung is better than Apple, yes, though I shy away from >>>>>>>>>>>>> lambasting you personally with the matter, because you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> a Mac user.
They're certainly no better in the one area you were
implying Apple was so bad at:
The price of upgrading from 512GB to 1TB.
Agreed?
It shouldn't be hundreds upon hundreds, of dollars.
But it is...
...75% MORE expensive from Samsung...
...the company you CHOSE to compare Apple against.
What I see on samsung.com tells me that proprietary devices are >>>>>>>>> prohibitively expensive. Which of the two companies has a >>>>>>>>> walled garden, though?
Drag those goalposts!
Did you imply that Apple charged more for such upgrades than
Samsung does?
Yes or no.
The point is, I have my Galaxy S21 that does everything a phone >>>>>>> does, but I still have sanity in my personal computer.
Your point WAS that (supposedly) Apple was being horrible for
charging $200 to upgrade from 512GB to 1TB...
...and that you suggested Samsung wouldn't do that.
...and it turned out that Samsung was charging $350 for the same
upgrade.
You're putting it wrong, it's $400 to go from 256 GB to 1 TB, which >>>>> is the real assault on the credit line of a potential buyer, Apple
is only a little expensive if you're good at 256 GB, but you better >>>>> pay through the nose if you want features.
So you want to drag the goalposts some more!
I used YOUR numbers and YOUR chosen alternative...
...and you were WRONG.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD
can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of
show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB SSDYour claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this regard,
it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by Apple's
mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand.
On 12/12/25 7:33 PM, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-12, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-12 08:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD can >>>> be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of show-off"When one is assembling a system".
corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
Most people don't want to do that.
These days it almost doesn't even pay anymore.
The main advantage is to customize the PC to fit the intended use
and use higher quality parts as required.
So for example a hardcore gamer will want plenty of memory, a high
end graphics card and maybe extra cooling in the case.
Things an average home use probably doesn't need.
It's not that PC targeted at these specific types of users are not
available, it's just that they tend to be overpriced.
Apple caters to a certain demographic and these people tend to
be loyal and are willing to pay the price.
I use iPhones and an Apple watch and I have found them to be
bullet proof.
I also have a mid tier Samsung Android phone and it too works fine.
In no way is Apple running an extortion racket.
If you don't like Apple, go elsewhere.
For what they do, they do it very well with few hiccups.
There support is second to none and the Apple resale value
is quite good compared to other brands.
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to use it
as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 06:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-11 1:25 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. >>>>>>> Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer >>>>> was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it >>>>> have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be aBut it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space- >>>>>>>>>> black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10- >>>>>>>>>> core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB >>>>>>>>>> SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks >>>>>>>>>> compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy- >>>>>>>>>> book5- pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-
Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.
Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is! >>>>>
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple
offers me nothing.
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive
for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
No, it's because Apple wants people to opt for online storage through
iCloud. Apple is always looking to gouge the user, so you are either
going to opt for an immediate storage upgrade at ridiculous prices
when you buy the hardware or opt for an online solution which will
allow Apple to have a continuous revenue through selling your data to
the highest bidder, much like Microsoft and Google.
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one
supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually increased in price to $255 now because of issues with memory chips. Meanwhile,
upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook Air to a 2TB nvme would
cost me $900. I have no choice but to do it at purchase because Apple doesn't allow me to change the storage after I've received the machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed advantage to
using what Apple sells.
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I consider
their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers voicing their opinion
on the matter share my opinion.
On 2025-12-12 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 06:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-11 1:25 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe
drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer >>>>>> was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the >>>>>> gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it >>>>>> have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill
a 256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be aBut it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare! >>>>>>>>>>>
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch- >>>>>>>>>>> space- black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core- >>>>>>>>>>> cpu-and-10- core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a >>>>>>>>>>> 512GB SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on
benchmarks compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy- >>>>>>>>>>> book5- pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel- >>>>>>>>>>> Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.
Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is! >>>>>>
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple >>>>>> offers me nothing.
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive >>>>> for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
No, it's because Apple wants people to opt for online storage
through iCloud. Apple is always looking to gouge the user, so you
are either going to opt for an immediate storage upgrade at
ridiculous prices when you buy the hardware or opt for an online
solution which will allow Apple to have a continuous revenue through
selling your data to the highest bidder, much like Microsoft and
Google.
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one
supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually increased
in price to $255 now because of issues with memory chips. Meanwhile,
upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook Air to a 2TB nvme would
cost me $900. I have no choice but to do it at purchase because Apple
doesn't allow me to change the storage after I've received the machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed advantage to
using what Apple sells.
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I consider
their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers voicing their
opinion on the matter share my opinion.
I'm not defending the practice.
I'm pointing out that it's what EVERY company does.
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 06:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-11 1:25 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose it? >>>>>>>>Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever it >>>>>>>>>> thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe drive. >>>>>>> Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old computer >>>>> was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 TB was the
gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. Why does it >>>>> have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill a
256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. AppleYou're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be aBut it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare!
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch-space- >>>>>>>>>> black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core-cpu-and-10- >>>>>>>>>> core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB >>>>>>>>>> SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on benchmarks >>>>>>>>>> compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy- >>>>>>>>>> book5- pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel-
Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.
Samsung user.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone.
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is! >>>>>
offers me nothing.
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less expensive
for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual
facts matched your attempted brag.
No, it's because Apple wants people to opt for online storage through
iCloud. Apple is always looking to gouge the user, so you are either
going to opt for an immediate storage upgrade at ridiculous prices
when you buy the hardware or opt for an online solution which will
allow Apple to have a continuous revenue through selling your data to
the highest bidder, much like Microsoft and Google.
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one
supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually increased in price to $255 now because of issues with memory chips. Meanwhile,
upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook Air to a 2TB nvme would
cost me $900. I have no choice but to do it at purchase because Apple doesn't allow me to change the storage after I've received the machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed advantage to
using what Apple sells.
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I consider
their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers voicing their opinion
on the matter share my opinion.
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs,
here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything up,
they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD
can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of
show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB SSD
it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by Apple's
mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this regard,
and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to use
it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
How was Apple's hardware "dainty"?
On 12/12/25 8:16 PM, Alan wrote:
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs,
here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything
up, they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
So pay the $400 I guess.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD
can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of
show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB
SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making extortionYOU CHOSE THEM.
part of the experience, of using their unique software.
On 12/12/25 8:17 PM, Alan wrote:
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to use
it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
How was Apple's hardware "dainty"?
Two cores, 2 GB RAM, primitive compared to Windows laptops of its time.What was this machine? What model and what year?
On 2025-12-12 8:18 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 06:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-11 1:25 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to choose >>>>>>>>>> it?Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever >>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old
computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 >>>>>>> TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. >>>>>>> Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never fill >>>>>> a 256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung is! >>>>>>>You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare! >>>>>>>>>>>>
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch- >>>>>>>>>>>> space- black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core- >>>>>>>>>>>> cpu-and-10- core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a >>>>>>>>>>>> 512GB SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on
benchmarks compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)...
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy- >>>>>>>>>>>> book5- pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel- >>>>>>>>>>>> Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has the >>>>>>>>>>> pricey upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone. >>>>>>>
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it. Apple >>>>>>> offers me nothing.
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less
expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the actual >>>>>> facts matched your attempted brag.
No, it's because Apple wants people to opt for online storage
through iCloud. Apple is always looking to gouge the user, so you
are either going to opt for an immediate storage upgrade at
ridiculous prices when you buy the hardware or opt for an online
solution which will allow Apple to have a continuous revenue
through selling your data to the highest bidder, much like
Microsoft and Google.
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one
supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually increased
in price to $255 now because of issues with memory chips. Meanwhile,
upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook Air to a 2TB nvme
would cost me $900. I have no choice but to do it at purchase because
Apple doesn't allow me to change the storage after I've received the
machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed advantage to
using what Apple sells.
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I consider
their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers voicing their
opinion on the matter share my opinion.
I'm not defending the practice.
I'm pointing out that it's what EVERY company does.
You might be right. Either way, it is a disgusting practise. People
should reject any hardware company which provides too little storage for
the era, which demands exorbitant prices for upgrades or doesn't allow future upgrades.
So pay $400 [for 1 TB on a Mac] I guess.
1. In the upgrade YOU first touted, it was 512GB to 1TB...
...and the price for that was $200.
2. Either way it still doesn't make it "extortion".
Words have meanings.
pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB
SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making extortion
part of the experience, of using their unique software.
YOU CHOSE THEM.
You deliberately compared Apple's price for memory and storage upgrades...
...TO SAMSUNG.
"OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage options?
It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with Apple honestly
is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user."
On 2025-12-12 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 8:17 PM, Alan wrote:What was this machine? What model and what year?
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to use
it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
How was Apple's hardware "dainty"?
Two cores, 2 GB RAM, primitive compared to Windows laptops of its time.
Because I bet you're making all that up.
Windows 7 was released in July of 2009.
Show us what Windows laptops at the time had so much better specs than
Mac laptops of the same era.
On 2025-12-12 18:36, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 8:18 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 06:53, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-11 1:25 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-11 05:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/10/25 8:43 PM, Alan wrote:
So people who need less storage SHOULDN'T be allowed to >>>>>>>>>>> choose it?Do you even understand that EVERY company charges whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>> it thinks the traffic will bear?
Why is 256 GB such a prominent option? Apple is just chintzy. >>>>>>>>>>>
Again: you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Not remotely. In 2021, I built my new PC with a 1 TB NVMe >>>>>>>>>> drive. Apple still wants to sell you 256 GB, today.
You still have this ridiculous idea that:
What works for YOU...
...must be what works for EVERYONE.
You know why I bought a 1 TB NVMe drive? Because the old
computer was upgraded from 1 TB SATA hard drive to SATA SSD. 1 >>>>>>>> TB was the gold standard. Let's say we could make that 512 GB. >>>>>>>> Why does it have to be 256, with Apple, *now in 2025*?
Because there are people who really don't need more.
I have quite a few clients, friends and family who will never
fill a 256GB drive.
You're the one who decided to die on the hill of Samsung being
And now you pivot away from your claim of how wonderful Samsung >>>>>>>>> is!You're the one who touted how "grateful" you were to be a >>>>>>>>>>> Samsung user.But it's interesting you mention Samsung. Let's compare! >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A 14" M5 MacBook Pro starts at $1,599.
It comes with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD.
Upgrading to a 1TB SSD will cost you $200.
<https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/14-inch- >>>>>>>>>>>>> space- black- standard-display-apple-m5-chip-with-10-core- >>>>>>>>>>>>> cpu-and-10- core- gpu-16gb- memory-512gb#>
A Samsung Galaxy Galaxy Book5 Pro with 16GB of RAM and a >>>>>>>>>>>>> 512GB SSD would cost you $1,749 (and gets stomped on >>>>>>>>>>>>> benchmarks compared to the M5 in the MacBook Pro)... >>>>>>>>>>>>>
...and an upgrade to a 1TB SSD will cost you...
...$350.
<https://www.samsung.com/ca/computers/galaxy-book/galaxy- >>>>>>>>>>>>> book5- pro/ buy/? modelCode=NP940XHA-KG1CA>
You were saying?
Oh, and the benchmark results:
<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/6294vs6981/Intel- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultra-7-256V- vs- ARM-Apple-M5-10-Core>
Samsung PCs are one thing. But even Apple's Mac mini has >>>>>>>>>>>> the pricey upgrades of specs.
And now you want to run away!
I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. But I would a Samsung phone. >>>>>>>>
Samsung is wonderful for the products I've bought from it.
Apple offers me nothing.
better than Apple on the implied idea that they were less
expensive for such upgrades.
Don't blame me that you didn't have the wit to check if the
actual facts matched your attempted brag.
No, it's because Apple wants people to opt for online storage
through iCloud. Apple is always looking to gouge the user, so you >>>>>> are either going to opt for an immediate storage upgrade at
ridiculous prices when you buy the hardware or opt for an online
solution which will allow Apple to have a continuous revenue
through selling your data to the highest bidder, much like
Microsoft and Google.
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one
supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually
increased in price to $255 now because of issues with memory chips.
Meanwhile, upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook Air to a
2TB nvme would cost me $900. I have no choice but to do it at
purchase because Apple doesn't allow me to change the storage after
I've received the machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed advantage
to using what Apple sells.
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I consider
their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers voicing their
opinion on the matter share my opinion.
I'm not defending the practice.
I'm pointing out that it's what EVERY company does.
You might be right. Either way, it is a disgusting practise. People
should reject any hardware company which provides too little storage
for the era, which demands exorbitant prices for upgrades or doesn't
allow future upgrades.
"People should"?
People do what they feel is in their best interest.
People LIKE laptops that are as thin as possible and that means
integrating components.
No one is forcing them to buy.
On 2025-12-12 11:11 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 18:36, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 8:18 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
...etc...
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one
supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually
increased in price to $255 now because of issues with memory chips. >>>>> Meanwhile, upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook Air to a
2TB nvme would cost me $900. I have no choice but to do it at
purchase because Apple doesn't allow me to change the storage after >>>>> I've received the machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed advantage
to using what Apple sells.
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I consider >>>>> their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers voicing their
opinion on the matter share my opinion.
I'm not defending the practice.
I'm pointing out that it's what EVERY company does.
You might be right. Either way, it is a disgusting practise. People
should reject any hardware company which provides too little storage
for the era, which demands exorbitant prices for upgrades or doesn't
allow future upgrades.
"People should"?
People do what they feel is in their best interest.
People LIKE laptops that are as thin as possible and that means
integrating components.
No one is forcing them to buy.
Yes, people should. The more people disregard that Apple prevents them
from upgrading, fixing their machines and getting a respectable amount
of storage for the time period, the more Apple will double down on the ripoff. As it is, Apple is benefiting from the fact that customers are looking for an alternative to Windows and enjoy the Apple experience, especially if they own other Apple products.
However, it's just a matter
of time before people realize that they can get the 20-hour battery life from much less expensive Snapdragon laptops, that they can get double
the storage and RAM by paying a few hundred less and that for the
equivalent price of an Apple laptop that can probably play a card game
or two, they can get a capable gaming machine.
Additionally, instead of
the seven years an Apple laptop lasts, a decent PC machine can easily
last a decade, especially since manufacturers are not routinely
soldering components to the motherboard the way Apple does.
On 12/13/25 07:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 11:11 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 18:36, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 8:18 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
...etc...
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one
supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually
increased in price to $255 now because of issues with memory
chips. Meanwhile, upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook
Air to a 2TB nvme would cost me $900. I have no choice but to do
it at purchase because Apple doesn't allow me to change the
storage after I've received the machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed advantage >>>>>> to using what Apple sells.
Hmmm...reviews in years past illustrated otherwise; my recollection is
that Apple has employed RAID 0 SSD boot drives, which is why my 3+yr old Mac's SSD benchmarks at ~5,500MB/sec R/W, despite its then-current PCIe
3.0 x4 tech whose bandwidth limit is ~3,500 MB/s.
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I
consider their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers voicing >>>>>> their opinion on the matter share my opinion.
I'm not defending the practice.
I'm pointing out that it's what EVERY company does.
You might be right. Either way, it is a disgusting practise. People
should reject any hardware company which provides too little storage
for the era, which demands exorbitant prices for upgrades or doesn't
allow future upgrades.
"People should"?
People do what they feel is in their best interest.
People LIKE laptops that are as thin as possible and that means
integrating components.
No one is forcing them to buy.
Yes, people should. The more people disregard that Apple prevents them
from upgrading, fixing their machines and getting a respectable amount
of storage for the time period, the more Apple will double down on the
ripoff. As it is, Apple is benefiting from the fact that customers are
looking for an alternative to Windows and enjoy the Apple experience,
especially if they own other Apple products.
Or...its that Apple has an obligation to their Stockholders /s
However, it's just a matter of time before people realize that they
can get the 20-hour battery life from much less expensive Snapdragon
laptops, that they can get double the storage and RAM by paying a few
hundred less and that for the equivalent price of an Apple laptop that
can probably play a card game or two, they can get a capable gaming
machine.
Assuming that Microsoft finally does a good job with MS-Windows on ARM,
and gets their software vendors to follow with compiling native Apps.
Additionally, instead of the seven years an Apple laptop lasts, a
decent PC machine can easily last a decade, especially since
manufacturers are not routinely soldering components to the
motherboard the way Apple does.
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from swollen batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have upgradable RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken smartphones too.
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from swollen batteries at <3 years life: it doesn't do much good to have upgradable RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch
replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken smartphones too.
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from swollen
batteries at <3 years life: it doesn't do much good to have upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch
replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken
smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I bought allows for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
My new Samsung phone is also intelligent. The manufacturers have figured
out that many portable devices are going to spend most of their lives
hooked to a charger.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I bought allows >for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
My new Samsung phone is also intelligent. The manufacturers have figured
out that many portable devices are going to spend most of their lives
hooked to a charger.
YOU CHOSE THEM.
You deliberately compared Apple's price for memory and storage
upgrades...
...TO SAMSUNG.
"OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage
options? It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with Apple
honestly is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user."
Because I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm grateful that I don't need Apple.
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from swollen >>> batteries at <3 years life: it doesn't do much good to have upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch
replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken
smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I bought allows >> for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
YOU CHOSE THEM.
You deliberately compared Apple's price for memory and storage
upgrades...
...TO SAMSUNG.
"OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage
options? It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with Apple
honestly is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user."
Because I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in this regard?
On 2025-12-13 4:55 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/13/25 07:22, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 11:11 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 18:36, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 8:18 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 16:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-12 3:20 p.m., Alan wrote:
...etc...
Are Apple's storage upgrade prices really "ridiculous"?
No, they aren't.
Here in Canada, I changed the 1TB nvme in my laptop to a 2TB one >>>>>>> supporting OPAL hardware encryption for $175. It's actually
increased in price to $255 now because of issues with memory
chips. Meanwhile, upgrading the 512GB on the highest end MacBook >>>>>>> Air to a 2TB nvme would cost me $900. I have no choice but to do >>>>>>> it at purchase because Apple doesn't allow me to change the
storage after I've received the machine.
That is ridiculous, especially since there is _no_ speed
advantage to using what Apple sells.
Hmmm...reviews in years past illustrated otherwise; my recollection is
that Apple has employed RAID 0 SSD boot drives, which is why my 3+yr
old Mac's SSD benchmarks at ~5,500MB/sec R/W, despite its then-current
PCIe 3.0 x4 tech whose bandwidth limit is ~3,500 MB/s.
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines at
the same price?
I'm sure that you'll defend this practice of theirs, but I
consider their pricing to be ridiculous and many YouTubers
voicing their opinion on the matter share my opinion.
I'm not defending the practice.
I'm pointing out that it's what EVERY company does.
You might be right. Either way, it is a disgusting practise. People >>>>> should reject any hardware company which provides too little
storage for the era, which demands exorbitant prices for upgrades
or doesn't allow future upgrades.
"People should"?
People do what they feel is in their best interest.
People LIKE laptops that are as thin as possible and that means
integrating components.
No one is forcing them to buy.
Yes, people should. The more people disregard that Apple prevents
them from upgrading, fixing their machines and getting a respectable
amount of storage for the time period, the more Apple will double
down on the ripoff. As it is, Apple is benefiting from the fact that
customers are looking for an alternative to Windows and enjoy the
Apple experience, especially if they own other Apple products.
Or...its that Apple has an obligation to their Stockholders /s
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for sure,
but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually realize
that they're being ripped off.
However, it's just a matter of time before people realize that they
can get the 20-hour battery life from much less expensive Snapdragon
laptops, that they can get double the storage and RAM by paying a few
hundred less and that for the equivalent price of an Apple laptop
that can probably play a card game or two, they can get a capable
gaming machine.
Assuming that Microsoft finally does a good job with MS-Windows on
ARM, and gets their software vendors to follow with compiling native
Apps.
Admittedly, I have yet to use an ARM-equipped machine with Windows 11. I imagine it can't be that great if Dell is opting for Core 7 Ultra rather than more Snapdragon X laptops.
Additionally, instead of the seven years an Apple laptop lasts, a
decent PC machine can easily last a decade, especially since
manufacturers are not routinely soldering components to the
motherboard the way Apple does.
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from
swollen batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have
upgradable RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't
even touch replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n
kaboodle with new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto
for broken smartphones too.
With batteries, that might be the result of the offending part being
glued to other components. My own laptop allows me to replace my battery fairly easily if I choose to do so, but I notice that quite a few manufacturers are imitating Apple because of the thinness obsession and gluing or soldering components.
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from
swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have upgradable >>>> RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch
replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken
smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I bought
allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
On 12/15/25 5:06 PM, Alan wrote:
YOU CHOSE THEM.
You deliberately compared Apple's price for memory and storage
upgrades...
...TO SAMSUNG.
"OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage
options? It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with
Apple honestly is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user."
Because I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in
this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially capable market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not something I can begin to want.But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company doing
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from
swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have
upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch
replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with >>>>> new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I bought
allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full and >>>> that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor is
Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from
swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have
upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch >>>>>> replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with >>>>>> new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I bought >>>>> allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full and >>>>> that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor
is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the 'Pads
was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under $200/
yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only $1800.
Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7 dual
core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran ~$1500, but
lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned ($500+/yr).
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in
this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially capable
market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not something I can begin
to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company doing
it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
I would never buy Apple's garbage.
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from
swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have
upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch >>>>>> replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle with >>>>>> new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I bought >>>>> allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full and >>>>> that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor
is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the 'Pads
was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under $200/
yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only $1800.
Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7 dual
core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran ~$1500, but
lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned ($500+/yr).
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines at
the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago, which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Admittedly, I have yet to use an ARM-equipped machine with Windows 11.
I imagine it can't be that great if Dell is opting for Core 7 Ultra
rather than more Snapdragon X laptops.
Which means that those customers will therefore gravitate to Apple,
despite yon "less bang for the buck" insinuations. Since they're voting with their wallet, their vote is quite credible.
With batteries, that might be the result of the offending part being
glued to other components. My own laptop allows me to replace my
battery fairly easily if I choose to do so, but I notice that quite a
few manufacturers are imitating Apple because of the thinness
obsession and gluing or soldering components.
Which means that it isn't an "only Apple" thing. And come to think of
it, the battery in the most recent Mac laptop that I've retired was
still unswollen and ~okay condition at the seven (7) year mark. Doesn't
 this observation also run counter to "less bang for the buck" claims?
I would never buy Apple's garbage.
You'll never buy a Ferrari either, will you? ;-)
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature of the
Mac hardware now?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap 128 GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the 256 GB option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3 collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I even had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated interface, doesn't even need a GUI.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't actually
capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of
course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing
myself on what other people have said.
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap 128 GB
SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the 256 GB
option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3
collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I even had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated interface,
doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger SSD can
be had, so easily, today.
On 12/15/25 6:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from >>>>>>> swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have
upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch >>>>>>> replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle >>>>>>> with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I
bought allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full >>>>>> and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor
is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd
die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the
'Pads was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under $200/
yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only $1800.
Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7 dual
core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran ~$1500, but
lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned ($500+/yr).
Looking at Lenovo's choices of laptops, they are crazy expensive. Not necessarily as brazenly extorting as Apple, but bad. Competitive
pricing matters, IMO, when I can get by so well with this PC made in China.
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines
at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only $10 more
but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use its full
speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of
course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said.
You think battery chemistry and charging circuitry don't make aAdmittedly, I have yet to use an ARM-equipped machine with Windows
11. I imagine it can't be that great if Dell is opting for Core 7
Ultra rather than more Snapdragon X laptops.
Which means that those customers will therefore gravitate to Apple,
despite yon "less bang for the buck" insinuations. Since they're
voting with their wallet, their vote is quite credible.
I doubt that most people who buy Macs or PCs even have an idea of what
kind of processor it is equipped with.
With batteries, that might be the result of the offending part being
glued to other components. My own laptop allows me to replace my
battery fairly easily if I choose to do so, but I notice that quite a
few manufacturers are imitating Apple because of the thinness
obsession and gluing or soldering components.
Which means that it isn't an "only Apple" thing. And come to think of
it, the battery in the most recent Mac laptop that I've retired was
still unswollen and ~okay condition at the seven (7) year mark.
Doesn't   this observation also run counter to "less bang for the
buck" claims?
Lithium-ion will swell no matter what. If it didn't happen with the
Apple laptop, I can only wonder what the origin of their lithium is and
why the batteries in Razer laptops seem to swell much faster.
On 12/15/25 6:15 PM, Alan wrote:
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in
this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially capable
market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not something I can
begin to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company
doing it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
Samsung is a general electronics maker, broader in scope than Apple,But when pressed as to why it's actually supposedly "garbage"...
it's why their smartphone is the best, they aren't just the club of self-absorbed intellects, they're the device for those in the, real,
know. I would never buy Apple's garbage.
On 12/15/25 5:06 PM, Alan wrote:
YOU CHOSE THEM.
You deliberately compared Apple's price for memory and storage
upgrades...
...TO SAMSUNG.
"OK, but do you even look at Apple's scale of high RAM/storage
options? It's chilling how corporate the entire experience with
Apple honestly is. I'm grateful to stand as a Samsung user."
Because I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in
this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire operating system,
Apple's Mac options are for the financially capable market, it's--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
luxury computer gear basically, not something I can begin to want.
On 12/12/25 8:17 PM, Alan wrote:
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to use
it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
How was Apple's hardware "dainty"?
Two cores, 2 GB RAM, primitive compared to Windows laptops of its time.LOL!
On 12/12/25 8:16 PM, Alan wrote:
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs,
here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything
up, they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
So pay the $400 I guess.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD
can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of
show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB
SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making extortion
part of the experience, of using their unique software.
On 2025-12-15 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature of the >>>> Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old netbook
that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap 128 GB
SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the 256 GB
option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3
collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I even had. >>> It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the
next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated interface,
doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger SSD can
be had, so easily, today.
Indeed... ..but not for free.
So if you buy more storage than you need...
On 2025-12-15 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 6:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from >>>>>>>> swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have >>>>>>>> upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch >>>>>>>> replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle >>>>>>>> with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I
bought allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely
full and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor >>>>> is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd
die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the
'Pads was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under
$200/ yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only
$1800. Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7
dual core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran ~$1500,
but lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned ($500+/yr).
Looking at Lenovo's choices of laptops, they are crazy expensive. Not
necessarily as brazenly extorting as Apple, but bad. Competitive
pricing matters, IMO, when I can get by so well with this PC made in
China.
Oh, look!
Another backtrack!
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in >>>>> this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially
capable market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not something I
can begin to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company
doing it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
Samsung is a general electronics maker, broader in scope than Apple,
it's why their smartphone is the best, they aren't just the club of
self-absorbed intellects, they're the device for those in the, real,
know. I would never buy Apple's garbage.
But when pressed as to why it's actually supposedly "garbage"...
...you have ALWAYS failed.
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in
this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system,
Which changes the situation... ...how?
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to use
it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
Bullshit!
How was Apple's hardware "dainty"?
Two cores, 2 GB RAM, primitive compared to Windows laptops of its time.
LOL!
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD >>>>>> can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of
show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB
SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making extortion
part of the experience, of using their unique software.
I see...
...so even when other companies charge a lot for upgrades...
...it's somehow possible for you to still blame Apple!
LOLOLOLOLOLOl
On 12/15/25 9:42 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still >>>>> matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature of >>>>> the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell tower >>>> last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old netbook
that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap 128
GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the 256 GB >>>> option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3
collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works nicely. >>>>
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I even
had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the
next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated interface, >>>> doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger SSD
can be had, so easily, today.
Indeed... ..but not for free.
So if you buy more storage than you need...
In my box with 1 TB and 512 GB NVMe drives, I had the kind of breathing room, storage-wise, that would make a really stellar system. Buying a
mere 128 GB, is saying that one is timid about using the machine.
On 12/15/25 9:42 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 15:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 6:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:Lenovo is one of the best.
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops >>>>>>>>> from swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have >>>>>>>>> upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even >>>>>>>>> touch
replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n
kaboodle with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for >>>>>>>>> broken
smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I
bought allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely >>>>>>>> full and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters. >>>>>>>
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you >>>>>>> and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed",
nor is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple >>>>> would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd
die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the
'Pads was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under
$200/ yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only
$1800. Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7
dual core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran
~$1500, but lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned
($500+/yr).
Looking at Lenovo's choices of laptops, they are crazy expensive.
Not necessarily as brazenly extorting as Apple, but bad. Competitive
pricing matters, IMO, when I can get by so well with this PC made in
China.
Oh, look!
Another backtrack!
It's clearly the result of the OEMs going out of fashion. Lenovo at one time had competitively priced laptops.
Today, they're being undersold--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
big time, I imagine. So it turns into another Apple.
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap 128 GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the 256 GB option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3 collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I even had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated interface, doesn't even need a GUI.
On 12/15/25 9:46 PM, Alan wrote:
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company
in this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially
capable market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not something
I can begin to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company
doing it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
Samsung is a general electronics maker, broader in scope than Apple,
it's why their smartphone is the best, they aren't just the club of
self-absorbed intellects, they're the device for those in the, real,
know. I would never buy Apple's garbage.
But when pressed as to why it's actually supposedly "garbage"...
...you have ALWAYS failed.
It goes back to the Galaxy S3 ad, with the guy saving a spot in line forNothing in that in any way supports a claim that Apple's hardware is in
his parents to buy the new iPhones, he was the cool rich nerd, the Apple drones were eating his dust. Likewise, you eat my Linux and Android dust.
On 12/15/25 9:48 PM, Alan wrote:
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company in
this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system,
Which changes the situation... ...how?
Microsoft lets operations in China make PCs like the one I have, it's
not necessarily the official "OEM" experience one gets from Dell and
such, but it means that computers can be sold at competitive prices, something Apple fails to do altogether. To be a macOS fan is to be an elitist, basically.
On 12/15/25 9:49 PM, Alan wrote:
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in thisThe point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the
SSD can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch >>>>>>> of show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB >>>>> SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand. >>>
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making extortion
part of the experience, of using their unique software.
I see...
...so even when other companies charge a lot for upgrades...
...it's somehow possible for you to still blame Apple!
LOLOLOLOLOLOl
Yes. Samsung when it comes to PC hardware is a lot like Apple. I wouldn't buy a Samsung laptop. And conversely, your iPhone is OK, much better than your MacBook. Phones are the kind of thing where Apple can actually suffice. I would never buy an iPhone, but I get it at least.
But the Mac, Christ, what a dead end.
On 12/15/25 9:48 PM, Alan wrote:
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to
use it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
Bullshit!
Uh, it did, I had given it away to a friend who liked laptops. She
loved using it, but it imploded in her use.
How was Apple's hardware "dainty"?
Two cores, 2 GB RAM, primitive compared to Windows laptops of its time.
LOL!
How is that unclear? I could've spent the money on a Windows laptop,--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
and gotten better specs.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger SSD can
be had, so easily, today.
In my box with 1 TB and 512 GB NVMe drives, I had the kind of breathing
room, storage-wise, that would make a really stellar system. Buying a
mere 128 GB, is saying that one is timid about using the machine.
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to
use it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
Bullshit!
Uh, it did, I had given it away to a friend who liked laptops. She
loved using it, but it imploded in her use.
Or she abused it.
Since it didn't die while you had it, you don't really know why it died,
do you?
Thanks for your response. All makes sense to me!
Here's a surprise for you:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z9PS5CAT3Q&t=0
Wonderful!
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines
at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only $10
more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use its
full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't actually
capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that
the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore.
Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm
basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
Lithium-ion will swell no matter what. If it didn't happen with theYou think battery chemistry and charging circuitry don't make a
Apple laptop, I can only wonder what the origin of their lithium is
and why the batteries in Razer laptops seem to swell much faster.
difference, do you?
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines
at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only $10
more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use its
full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't actually
capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that
the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore.
Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm
basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
On 2025-12-12 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 8:17 PM, Alan wrote:
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to use
it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty.
More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
Bullshit!
LOL!
How was Apple's hardware "dainty"?
Two cores, 2 GB RAM, primitive compared to Windows laptops of its time.
On 2025-12-12 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 8:16 PM, Alan wrote:
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs, >>>>>> here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything
up, they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
So pay the $400 I guess.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the SSD >>>>>> can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch of
show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB
SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making extortion
part of the experience, of using their unique software.
I see...
...so even when other companies charge a lot for upgrades...
...it's somehow possible for you to still blame Apple!
LOLOLOLOLOLOl
On 2025-12-15 19:03, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:42 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still >>>>>> matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature
of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell
tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old
netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap 128
GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the
256 GB
option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3
collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works nicely. >>>>>
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I even >>>>> had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the
next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated
interface,
doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger SSD
can be had, so easily, today.
Indeed... ..but not for free.
So if you buy more storage than you need...
In my box with 1 TB and 512 GB NVMe drives, I had the kind of
breathing room, storage-wise, that would make a really stellar
system. Buying a mere 128 GB, is saying that one is timid about using
the machine.
"Breathing room" on an SSD is utterly irrelevant.
An HD might need enough free space to perform an occasional
defragmentation in a reasonable length of time, but SSDs don't need to
be defragmented.
Paying for more storage than you need just buys you bragging rights...
...which appears to be all you're really interested in anyway.
On 2025-12-15 19:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:46 PM, Alan wrote:Nothing in that in any way supports a claim that Apple's hardware is in
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm
grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company >>>>>>> in this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially
capable market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not something >>>>>> I can begin to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company
doing it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
Samsung is a general electronics maker, broader in scope than Apple,
it's why their smartphone is the best, they aren't just the club of
self-absorbed intellects, they're the device for those in the, real,
know. I would never buy Apple's garbage.
But when pressed as to why it's actually supposedly "garbage"...
...you have ALWAYS failed.
It goes back to the Galaxy S3 ad, with the guy saving a spot in line
for his parents to buy the new iPhones, he was the cool rich nerd, the
Apple drones were eating his dust. Likewise, you eat my Linux and
Android dust.
any way "garbage".
On 2025-12-16 3:25 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 19:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:46 PM, Alan wrote:Nothing in that in any way supports a claim that Apple's hardware is
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm >>>>>>>>> grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple.
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer company >>>>>>>> in this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire
operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially
capable market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not
something I can begin to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company >>>>>> doing it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
Samsung is a general electronics maker, broader in scope than
Apple, it's why their smartphone is the best, they aren't just the
club of self-absorbed intellects, they're the device for those in
the, real, know. I would never buy Apple's garbage.
But when pressed as to why it's actually supposedly "garbage"...
...you have ALWAYS failed.
It goes back to the Galaxy S3 ad, with the guy saving a spot in line
for his parents to buy the new iPhones, he was the cool rich nerd,
the Apple drones were eating his dust. Likewise, you eat my Linux
and Android dust.
in any way "garbage".
I have to agree that Apple is definitely not garbage at the moment. Nevertheless, the MacBook Air 2017 I purchased recently (and dropped
coffee on) was definitely underwhelming.
On 2025-12-15 9:49 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 8:16 PM, Alan wrote:
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve Jobs, >>>>>>> here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything >>>>>>> up, they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
So pay the $400 I guess.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in thisThe point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the
SSD can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a bunch >>>>>>> of show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB >>>>> SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another brand. >>>
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making extortion
part of the experience, of using their unique software.
I see...
...so even when other companies charge a lot for upgrades...
...it's somehow possible for you to still blame Apple!
LOLOLOLOLOLOl
The other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact; they only
charge similarly or more if you change the specifications at initial purchase time.
Can you buy a larger NVMe after you buy the MacBook in your hands? No.LOL!
Can you add to the amount of RAM? No. Can you switch the NVMe when it reaches its TBW and is about to brick your machine? No.
The worst part is that I'm saying this as an Apple fan with a few of
their products in my home and a strong likelihood that my next machine
will be from them. I'm simply being realistic, something that you're incapable of being because your Apple religion requires you to perform taqiyya to defend your gods.
On 12/16/25 3:28 AM, Alan wrote:
Windows 7 annihilated the MacBook I bought, admittedly trying to >>>>>>> use it as a Winblows laptop isn't advisable, but Apple is dainty. >>>>>>More bullshit words!
Nope, the machine died less than a year old.
Bullshit!
Uh, it did, I had given it away to a friend who liked laptops. She
loved using it, but it imploded in her use.
Or she abused it.
Since it didn't die while you had it, you don't really know why it
died, do you?
I presume she put it through some stress, yeah, but that's what people
do with computers. It killed the device.
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines >>>>> at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only $10
more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use its
full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't actually
capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that
the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore.
Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm
basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
No, it is a well known fact: <https://ibb.co/6jwrkVY>
I imagine that you're just as shocked as muhammedans are when they learn that their prophet was raped by demons in the Night of the Jinn, that he beaten into submission by "the angel Gabriel" who was clearly a demon--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
and that the koran says that it confirms the Torah and Bible all the
while contradicting all of it. Your god is a false one.
< snip >
Lithium-ion will swell no matter what. If it didn't happen with theYou think battery chemistry and charging circuitry don't make a
Apple laptop, I can only wonder what the origin of their lithium is
and why the batteries in Razer laptops seem to swell much faster.
difference, do you?
I think that the advantage Apple has is better quality lithium, not a
better chemistry. However, I have admittedly not seen many examples of
Apple batteries swelling though I have seen tons of Razer batteries swelling. In Apple's case, the panel seems to crack a lot, the keyboard tends to fail and the machines tend to brick when the TBW is reached. I guess all manufacturers have their issues.
On 2025-12-16 07:01, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 3:25 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 19:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:46 PM, Alan wrote:Nothing in that in any way supports a claim that Apple's hardware is
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm >>>>>>>>>> grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple. >>>>>>>>>
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer
company in this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire >>>>>>>> operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially >>>>>>>> capable market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not
something I can begin to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a company >>>>>>> doing it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
Samsung is a general electronics maker, broader in scope than
Apple, it's why their smartphone is the best, they aren't just the >>>>>> club of self-absorbed intellects, they're the device for those in >>>>>> the, real, know. I would never buy Apple's garbage.
But when pressed as to why it's actually supposedly "garbage"...
...you have ALWAYS failed.
It goes back to the Galaxy S3 ad, with the guy saving a spot in line
for his parents to buy the new iPhones, he was the cool rich nerd,
the Apple drones were eating his dust. Likewise, you eat my Linux
and Android dust.
in any way "garbage".
I have to agree that Apple is definitely not garbage at the moment.
Nevertheless, the MacBook Air 2017 I purchased recently (and dropped
coffee on) was definitely underwhelming.
You recently purchased a computer 8 years old, and it was "underwhelming"?
This surprises you?
On 2025-12-16 06:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:49 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 8:16 PM, Alan wrote:
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve
Jobs, here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks everything >>>>>>>> up, they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
So pay the $400 I guess.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the >>>>>>>> SSD can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a
bunch of show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" >>>>>>>> bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 GB >>>>>> SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet by
Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy another
brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making
extortion part of the experience, of using their unique software.
I see...
...so even when other companies charge a lot for upgrades...
...it's somehow possible for you to still blame Apple!
LOLOLOLOLOLOl
The other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact; they only
charge similarly or more if you change the specifications at initial
purchase time.
SOME other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact.
On 2025-12-16 06:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only
$10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use
its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple >>>>>> stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for >>>>>> sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually >>>>>> realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't
actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I
believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari
and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the
time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
No, it is a well known fact: <https://ibb.co/6jwrkVY>
Sorry, but just because Brittanica claimed it doesn't make it so.
Got a quote?
On 2025-12-16 11:54 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 07:01, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 3:25 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 19:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:46 PM, Alan wrote:Nothing in that in any way supports a claim that Apple's hardware is
I'm a Samsung user for my phone (and TV) specifically. I'm >>>>>>>>>>> grateful that I don't need Apple.
But your chosen company "gouges" people even more than Apple. >>>>>>>>>>
So:
Can you show that Apple is worse than ANY other computer
company in this regard?
Samsung gouges on some items, but they don't control an entire >>>>>>>>> operating system, Apple's Mac options are for the financially >>>>>>>>> capable market, it's luxury computer gear basically, not
something I can begin to want.
But you were the one who chose them as your exemplar of a
company doing it better than Apple.
And you can't find a better example when challenged.
Got it.
Samsung is a general electronics maker, broader in scope than
Apple, it's why their smartphone is the best, they aren't just
the club of self-absorbed intellects, they're the device for
those in the, real, know. I would never buy Apple's garbage.
But when pressed as to why it's actually supposedly "garbage"...
...you have ALWAYS failed.
It goes back to the Galaxy S3 ad, with the guy saving a spot in
line for his parents to buy the new iPhones, he was the cool rich
nerd, the Apple drones were eating his dust. Likewise, you eat my >>>>> Linux and Android dust.
in any way "garbage".
I have to agree that Apple is definitely not garbage at the moment.
Nevertheless, the MacBook Air 2017 I purchased recently (and dropped
coffee on) was definitely underwhelming.
You recently purchased a computer 8 years old, and it was
"underwhelming"?
This surprises you?
It was underwhelming even by 2017 standards. Apple truly was ripping
people off with that piece of crap. 1440x900 in 2017 is unforgivable.
On 2025-12-16 11:55 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:49 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 8:16 PM, Alan wrote:
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve >>>>>>>>> Jobs, here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks
everything up, they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
So pay the $400 I guess.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the >>>>>>>>> SSD can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a >>>>>>>>> bunch of show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" >>>>>>>>> bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 >>>>>>> GB SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet >>>>>>> by Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy
another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this
regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making
extortion part of the experience, of using their unique software.
I see...
...so even when other companies charge a lot for upgrades...
...it's somehow possible for you to still blame Apple!
LOLOLOLOLOLOl
The other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact; they only
charge similarly or more if you change the specifications at initial
purchase time.
SOME other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact.
MOST other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact. Microsoft is
the exception.
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines >>>>> at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only $10
more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use its
full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't actually
capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that
the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore.
Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm
basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the value
of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to pricing. He often chose prices that were significantly higher than the cost of production, reflecting his vision for creating products that combined elegance and functionality. For example, the original Apple-1 computer
was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate choice to emphasize the product's uniqueness and the power of ideas behind it. Jobs's philosophy
was that by investing in quality and innovation, Apple could command a premium price, positioning the company as a luxury brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-pricing- strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s pricing strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing model. Jobs
firmly believed in creating products that combined elegance,
functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple to position
itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar to how high-end fashion brands are priced higher due to their perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing exceptional design, user experience, and quality. This strategy enabled Apple to
charge a premium for its products while maintaining customer loyalty and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which was launched in 2007, was priced significantly higher than most other smartphones on the market at
the time. Jobs understood that customers were willing to pay more for a product that not only functioned well but also looked and felt superior. This pricing strategy reinforced Apple’s identity as a premium brand, willing to sacrifice mass-market appeal for exclusivity and quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured in
such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before and
it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the value
of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to pricing.
He often chose prices that were significantly higher than the cost of
production, reflecting his vision for creating products that combined
elegance and functionality. For example, the original Apple-1 computer
was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate choice to emphasize the
product's uniqueness and the power of ideas behind it. Jobs's
philosophy was that by investing in quality and innovation, Apple
could command a premium price, positioning the company as a luxury
brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-pricing-
strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s pricing
strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing model. Jobs
firmly believed in creating products that combined elegance,
functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple to position
itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar to how high-end
fashion brands are priced higher due to their perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing exceptional
design, user experience, and quality. This strategy enabled Apple to
charge a premium for its products while maintaining customer loyalty
and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which was launched in 2007,
was priced significantly higher than most other smartphones on the
market at the time. Jobs understood that customers were willing to pay
more for a product that not only functioned well but also looked and
felt superior. This pricing strategy reinforced Apple’s identity as a
premium brand, willing to sacrifice mass-market appeal for exclusivity
and quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured in
such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before and
it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others' interpretations.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people the impression of higher quality".
On 2025-12-16 10:02, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 11:55 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:56, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:49 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-12 19:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/12/25 8:16 PM, Alan wrote:
"I want Apple." "You will pay handsomely." "OK, cool, Steve >>>>>>>>>> Jobs, here's $1400, I have to have a MacBook Pro!"
It's that "I have to have Apple" mentality that fucks
everything up, they can turn it into a big game.
Even if all that were true (it's not)...
...it still isn't "EXTORTION".
Sure looks that way to me.
Because you're ignorant.
So pay the $400 I guess.
The point is, when one is assembling a system, the size of the >>>>>>>>>> SSD can be literally anything, it's just a part, Apple is a >>>>>>>>>> bunch of show-off corporate "I can afford this, I'm affluent" >>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
"When one is assembling a system".
Most people don't want to do that.
OK, so pay them $400 for a $70 part. Plus the value of the 256 >>>>>>>> GB SSD it replaced, in reality, it's extracted from your wallet >>>>>>>> by Apple's mighty macOS tentacles, they know you won't buy
another brand.
Your claim was that Apple was worse than other companies in this >>>>>>> regard, and your given example was Samsung...
...and Samsung was actually worse.
Samsung is just being the copycat. Apple is the one making
extortion part of the experience, of using their unique software.
I see...
...so even when other companies charge a lot for upgrades...
...it's somehow possible for you to still blame Apple!
LOLOLOLOLOLOl
The other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact; they only
charge similarly or more if you change the specifications at initial
purchase time.
SOME other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact.
MOST other companies allow you to upgrade after the fact. Microsoft is
the exception.
Really?
Without even looking, I'd guess there are lots of laptops that no come
with no RAM expansion.
On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only
$10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use
its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple >>>>>> stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for >>>>>> sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually >>>>>> realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't
actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I
believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari
and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the
time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the value
of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to pricing.
He often chose prices that were significantly higher than the cost of
production, reflecting his vision for creating products that combined
elegance and functionality. For example, the original Apple-1 computer
was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate choice to emphasize the
product's uniqueness and the power of ideas behind it. Jobs's
philosophy was that by investing in quality and innovation, Apple
could command a premium price, positioning the company as a luxury
brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-pricing-
strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s pricing
strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing model. Jobs
firmly believed in creating products that combined elegance,
functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple to position
itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar to how high-end
fashion brands are priced higher due to their perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing exceptional
design, user experience, and quality. This strategy enabled Apple to
charge a premium for its products while maintaining customer loyalty
and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which was launched in 2007,
was priced significantly higher than most other smartphones on the
market at the time. Jobs understood that customers were willing to pay
more for a product that not only functioned well but also looked and
felt superior. This pricing strategy reinforced Apple’s identity as a
premium brand, willing to sacrifice mass-market appeal for exclusivity
and quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured in
such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before and
it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others' interpretations.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people the impression of higher quality".
On 2025-12-16 11:57 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting...
On 2025-12-16 06:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only >>>>> $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to
use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 >>>>> x4.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines wereI doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the
Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit
margins, for sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers >>>>>>> who eventually realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago, >>>>>> which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming. >>>>>
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't
actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I
believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari >>>>> and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at
the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
No, it is a well known fact: <https://ibb.co/6jwrkVY>
Sorry, but just because Brittanica claimed it doesn't make it so.
Got a quote?
Sure, let me dig up Steve Jobs's corpse and reanimate him.
On 12/16/25 1:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the
value of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to
pricing. He often chose prices that were significantly higher than
the cost of production, reflecting his vision for creating products
that combined elegance and functionality. For example, the original
Apple-1 computer was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate choice
to emphasize the product's uniqueness and the power of ideas behind
it. Jobs's philosophy was that by investing in quality and
innovation, Apple could command a premium price, positioning the
company as a luxury brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-
pricing- strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s
pricing strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing model.
Jobs firmly believed in creating products that combined elegance,
functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple to position
itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar to how high-
end fashion brands are priced higher due to their perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing
exceptional design, user experience, and quality. This strategy
enabled Apple to charge a premium for its products while maintaining
customer loyalty and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which was
launched in 2007, was priced significantly higher than most other
smartphones on the market at the time. Jobs understood that customers
were willing to pay more for a product that not only functioned well
but also looked and felt superior. This pricing strategy reinforced
Apple’s identity as a premium brand, willing to sacrifice mass-market >>> appeal for exclusivity and quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured
in such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before
and it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'
interpretations.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
On 2025-12-16 1:08 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was only >>>>> $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to
use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 >>>>> x4.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines wereI doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the
Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit
margins, for sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers >>>>>>> who eventually realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago, >>>>>> which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming. >>>>>
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't
actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I
believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari >>>>> and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at
the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the
value of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to
pricing. He often chose prices that were significantly higher than
the cost of production, reflecting his vision for creating products
that combined elegance and functionality. For example, the original
Apple-1 computer was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate choice
to emphasize the product's uniqueness and the power of ideas behind
it. Jobs's philosophy was that by investing in quality and
innovation, Apple could command a premium price, positioning the
company as a luxury brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-
pricing- strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s
pricing strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing model.
Jobs firmly believed in creating products that combined elegance,
functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple to position
itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar to how high-
end fashion brands are priced higher due to their perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing
exceptional design, user experience, and quality. This strategy
enabled Apple to charge a premium for its products while maintaining
customer loyalty and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which was
launched in 2007, was priced significantly higher than most other
smartphones on the market at the time. Jobs understood that customers
were willing to pay more for a product that not only functioned well
but also looked and felt superior. This pricing strategy reinforced
Apple’s identity as a premium brand, willing to sacrifice mass-market >>> appeal for exclusivity and quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured
in such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before
and it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'
interpretations.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
In other words, Alan is saying that even when he's proven wrong, he is right.
On 2025-12-16 10:31, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/16/25 1:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the
value of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to
pricing. He often chose prices that were significantly higher than
the cost of production, reflecting his vision for creating products
that combined elegance and functionality. For example, the original
Apple-1 computer was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate
choice to emphasize the product's uniqueness and the power of ideas
behind it. Jobs's philosophy was that by investing in quality and
innovation, Apple could command a premium price, positioning the
company as a luxury brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-
pricing- strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s
pricing strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing
model. Jobs firmly believed in creating products that combined
elegance, functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple
to position itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar
to how high- end fashion brands are priced higher due to their
perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing
exceptional design, user experience, and quality. This strategy
enabled Apple to charge a premium for its products while maintaining
customer loyalty and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which
was launched in 2007, was priced significantly higher than most
other smartphones on the market at the time. Jobs understood that
customers were willing to pay more for a product that not only
functioned well but also looked and felt superior. This pricing
strategy reinforced Apple’s identity as a premium brand, willing to >>>> sacrifice mass-market appeal for exclusivity and quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured
in such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before
and it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'
interpretations.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
On 2025-12-16 3:22 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 19:03, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:42 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still >>>>>>> matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature >>>>>>> of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell >>>>>> tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old
netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap 128 >>>>>> GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the
256 GB
option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3 >>>>>> collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works
nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I
even had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the >>>>>> next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated
interface,
doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger SSD >>>>> can be had, so easily, today.
Indeed... ..but not for free.
So if you buy more storage than you need...
In my box with 1 TB and 512 GB NVMe drives, I had the kind of
breathing room, storage-wise, that would make a really stellar
system. Buying a mere 128 GB, is saying that one is timid about
using the machine.
"Breathing room" on an SSD is utterly irrelevant.
Breathing room increases the lifespan of the device. That is why manufacturers like Samsung allow you to set some reserved space on the
drive so that it doesn't wear out as quickly. This is pure ignorance on
your part.
An HD might need enough free space to perform an occasional
defragmentation in a reasonable length of time, but SSDs don't need to
be defragmented.
But they do need a TRIM from time to time and for different areas of the storage to be written so as to not cause excessive wear.
Paying for more storage than you need just buys you bragging rights...
...which appears to be all you're really interested in anyway.
Pure ignorance from someone willing to make do with less to appease his gods. I just hope Apple doesn't eventually demand your first born as a
down payment for your purchase.
On 12/16/25 2:11 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 10:31, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/16/25 1:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the
value of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to
pricing. He often chose prices that were significantly higher than
the cost of production, reflecting his vision for creating products >>>>> that combined elegance and functionality. For example, the original >>>>> Apple-1 computer was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate
choice to emphasize the product's uniqueness and the power of ideas >>>>> behind it. Jobs's philosophy was that by investing in quality and
innovation, Apple could command a premium price, positioning the
company as a luxury brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-
pricing- strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s
pricing strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing
model. Jobs firmly believed in creating products that combined
elegance, functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple
to position itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar
to how high- end fashion brands are priced higher due to their
perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing
exceptional design, user experience, and quality. This strategy
enabled Apple to charge a premium for its products while
maintaining customer loyalty and satisfaction. For example, the
iPhone, which was launched in 2007, was priced significantly higher >>>>> than most other smartphones on the market at the time. Jobs
understood that customers were willing to pay more for a product
that not only functioned well but also looked and felt superior.
This pricing strategy reinforced Apple’s identity as a premium
brand, willing to sacrifice mass-market appeal for exclusivity and
quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured >>>>> in such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it
before and it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'
interpretations.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power user
who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
On 12/16/25 2:46 PM, Alan wrote:
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power user
who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
On 2025-12-16 10:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 11:57 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting...
On 2025-12-16 06:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:What?
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware. >>>>>>> What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was
only $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able >>>>>> to use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe >>>>>> 3.0 x4.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were >>>>>> premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren'tI doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the
Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit
margins, for sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers >>>>>>>> who eventually realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago, >>>>>>> which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming. >>>>>>
actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I
believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from
Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own
one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said. >>>>>
Complete bullshit you just made up.
No, it is a well known fact: <https://ibb.co/6jwrkVY>
Sorry, but just because Brittanica claimed it doesn't make it so.
Got a quote?
Sure, let me dig up Steve Jobs's corpse and reanimate him.
You think that the only way to get a quote of someone's words is to ask
him personally.
Find someone quoting things he has actually SAID.
On 2025-12-16 10:36, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 1:08 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:47, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:What?
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware. >>>>>>> What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was
only $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able >>>>>> to use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe >>>>>> 3.0 x4.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were >>>>>> premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren'tI doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the
Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit
margins, for sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers >>>>>>>> who eventually realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago, >>>>>>> which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming. >>>>>>
actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I
believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from
Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own
one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said. >>>>>
Complete bullshit you just made up.
Another quote, from Bing: "Steve Jobs had a strong belief in the
value of innovation and quality, which influenced his approach to
pricing. He often chose prices that were significantly higher than
the cost of production, reflecting his vision for creating products
that combined elegance and functionality. For example, the original
Apple-1 computer was priced at $666.66, which was a deliberate
choice to emphasize the product's uniqueness and the power of ideas
behind it. Jobs's philosophy was that by investing in quality and
innovation, Apple could command a premium price, positioning the
company as a luxury brand in the tech industry. "
Here's another link to prove it:
<https://palospublishing.com/how-steve-jobs-influenced-apples-
pricing- strategy/>
"1. Premium Pricing Strategy
One of the most significant ways Steve Jobs influenced Apple’s
pricing strategy was through the adoption of a premium pricing
model. Jobs firmly believed in creating products that combined
elegance, functionality, and innovation. This vision allowed Apple
to position itself as a luxury brand in the tech industry, similar
to how high- end fashion brands are priced higher due to their
perceived value.
Rather than competing on price, Apple focused on providing
exceptional design, user experience, and quality. This strategy
enabled Apple to charge a premium for its products while maintaining
customer loyalty and satisfaction. For example, the iPhone, which
was launched in 2007, was priced significantly higher than most
other smartphones on the market at the time. Jobs understood that
customers were willing to pay more for a product that not only
functioned well but also looked and felt superior. This pricing
strategy reinforced Apple’s identity as a premium brand, willing to >>>> sacrifice mass-market appeal for exclusivity and quality."
This is where you'll claim that my original sentence was structured
in such and such a way and that I'm still wrong. I've seen it before
and it's part of why I don't take you seriously.
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'
interpretations.
;
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
In other words, Alan is saying that even when he's proven wrong, he is
right.
Nope.
Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:
'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines were
premium by charging more.'
Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an impression
that they're premium.
On 2025-12-16 06:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 3:22 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 19:03, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:42 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD >>>>>>>> still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature >>>>>>>> of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my Dell >>>>>>> tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old
netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap
128 GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the >>>>>>> 256 GB
option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3 >>>>>>> collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works
nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I
even had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to the >>>>>>> next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated
interface,
doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger SSD >>>>>> can be had, so easily, today.
Indeed... ..but not for free.
So if you buy more storage than you need...
In my box with 1 TB and 512 GB NVMe drives, I had the kind of
breathing room, storage-wise, that would make a really stellar
system. Buying a mere 128 GB, is saying that one is timid about
using the machine.
"Breathing room" on an SSD is utterly irrelevant.
Breathing room increases the lifespan of the device. That is why
manufacturers like Samsung allow you to set some reserved space on the
drive so that it doesn't wear out as quickly. This is pure ignorance
on your part.
An HD might need enough free space to perform an occasional
defragmentation in a reasonable length of time, but SSDs don't need
to be defragmented.
But they do need a TRIM from time to time and for different areas of
the storage to be written so as to not cause excessive wear.
Paying for more storage than you need just buys you bragging rights...
...which appears to be all you're really interested in anyway.
Pure ignorance from someone willing to make do with less to appease
his gods. I just hope Apple doesn't eventually demand your first born
as a down payment for your purchase.
<yawn>
'A joint study between Google and the University of Toronto covering
drive failure rates on data servers. The study concluded that the
physical age of the SSD, rather than the amount or frequency of data written, is the prime determiner in probability of data retention errors.'
<https://www.howtogeek.com/322856/how-long-do-solid-state-drives-really- last/>
And unlike you, I'll include the link to the study:
<http://0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459- c0245c5c937c5dedcca3f1764ecc9b2f.r43.cf2.rackcdn.com/23105-fast16- papers-schroeder.pdf>
'While wear-out from usage is often the focus of at-
tention, we note that independently of usage the age of a
drive, i.e. the time spent in the field, affects reliability.'
More:
'You won’t believe how much data can be written to modern SSDs. No, seriously. Our ongoing SSD Endurance Experiment has demonstrated that
some consumer-grade drives can withstand over a petabyte of writes
before burning out.'
<https://techreport.com/review/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two- remain-after-1-5pb/>
In short, you'll want a new computer long before your SSD fails.
On 2025-12-16 12:11, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/16/25 2:46 PM, Alan wrote:
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power user >>>> who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people the >impression of higher quality".
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power user >>>> who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
On 2025-12-16 3:43 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 12:11, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/16/25 2:46 PM, Alan wrote:
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple. >>>>>>"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power
user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
Be careful, Joel might want you to take him up the butt.
On 2025-12-16 2:11 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 10:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 11:57 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting...
On 2025-12-16 06:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware. >>>>>>>> What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a >>>>>>> 2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was
only $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been
able to use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is >>>>>>> a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the >>>>>>>>> Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit >>>>>>>>> margins, for sure, but not an inevitable backlash fromApple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years
customers who eventually realize that they're being ripped off. >>>>>>>>
ago, which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're >>>>>>>> assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines
were premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't >>>>>>> actually capable of anything more than the competition, though I >>>>>>> believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from
Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own >>>>>>> one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have >>>>>>> said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
No, it is a well known fact: <https://ibb.co/6jwrkVY>
Sorry, but just because Brittanica claimed it doesn't make it so.
Got a quote?
Sure, let me dig up Steve Jobs's corpse and reanimate him.
You think that the only way to get a quote of someone's words is to
ask him personally.
Find someone quoting things he has actually SAID.
Out of curiosity, do you think he said this to the press or to the
people he worked with. His pricing scheme was in several documentaries
and was reported to the people creating the documentaries by the people
who worked for and under him. I would have expected that you would have learned this about your god while you were worshiping him. Bad zealot, bad.
Atone for your sins.
On 12/16/25 3:43 PM, Alan wrote:
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple. >>>>>>"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power
user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
I don't need to "know" what you specifically do to get the idea of what
kind of things, you do. You're someone with a lot of familiarity of software.
On 2025-12-16 2:30 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 3:22 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 19:03, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:42 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD >>>>>>>>> still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance
nature of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my
Dell tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old
netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap >>>>>>>> 128 GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple the >>>>>>>> 256 GB
option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my mp3 >>>>>>>> collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works >>>>>>>> nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I >>>>>>>> even had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to >>>>>>>> the next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated
interface,
doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger >>>>>>> SSD can be had, so easily, today.
Indeed... ..but not for free.
So if you buy more storage than you need...
In my box with 1 TB and 512 GB NVMe drives, I had the kind of
breathing room, storage-wise, that would make a really stellar
system. Buying a mere 128 GB, is saying that one is timid about
using the machine.
"Breathing room" on an SSD is utterly irrelevant.
Breathing room increases the lifespan of the device. That is why
manufacturers like Samsung allow you to set some reserved space on
the drive so that it doesn't wear out as quickly. This is pure
ignorance on your part.
An HD might need enough free space to perform an occasional
defragmentation in a reasonable length of time, but SSDs don't need
to be defragmented.
But they do need a TRIM from time to time and for different areas of
the storage to be written so as to not cause excessive wear.
Paying for more storage than you need just buys you bragging rights... >>>>
...which appears to be all you're really interested in anyway.
Pure ignorance from someone willing to make do with less to appease
his gods. I just hope Apple doesn't eventually demand your first born
as a down payment for your purchase.
<yawn>
'A joint study between Google and the University of Toronto covering
drive failure rates on data servers. The study concluded that the
physical age of the SSD, rather than the amount or frequency of data
written, is the prime determiner in probability of data retention
errors.'
<https://www.howtogeek.com/322856/how-long-do-solid-state-drives-
really- last/>
And unlike you, I'll include the link to the study:
<http://0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-
c0245c5c937c5dedcca3f1764ecc9b2f.r43.cf2.rackcdn.com/23105-fast16-
papers-schroeder.pdf>
'While wear-out from usage is often the focus of at-
tention, we note that independently of usage the age of a
drive, i.e. the time spent in the field, affects reliability.'
More:
'You won’t believe how much data can be written to modern SSDs. No,
seriously. Our ongoing SSD Endurance Experiment has demonstrated that
some consumer-grade drives can withstand over a petabyte of writes
before burning out.'
<https://techreport.com/review/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-
remain-after-1-5pb/>
In short, you'll want a new computer long before your SSD fails.
That's good to know. Nevertheless, the manufacturer still recommends breathing space and there is a reason behind it. In the end, we both end
up being right.
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple. >>>>>>>"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power
user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
I don't need to "know" what you specifically do to get the idea of
what kind of things, you do. You're someone with a lot of familiarity
of software.
Really?
What "kind of things" do I do?
And note that the comma after "kind of things" is completely unnecessary.
On 12/16/25 5:00 PM, Alan wrote:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple. >>>>>>>>"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power >>>>>>> user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees. >>>>>>
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
I don't need to "know" what you specifically do to get the idea of
what kind of things, you do. You're someone with a lot of
familiarity of software.
Really?
What "kind of things" do I do?
And note that the comma after "kind of things" is completely unnecessary.
You have said that you assist people with computers.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple. >>>>>>>>>"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power >>>>>>>> user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees. >>>>>>>
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
I don't need to "know" what you specifically do to get the idea of
what kind of things, you do. You're someone with a lot of
familiarity of software.
Really?
What "kind of things" do I do?
And note that the comma after "kind of things" is completely
unnecessary.
You have said that you assist people with computers.
So what you "know" about me is solely what I've told you?
On 15/12/2025 23:16, -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from >>>>>>> swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have
upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch >>>>>>> replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle >>>>>>> with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I
bought allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full >>>>>> and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor
is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd
die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the
'Pads was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under $200/
yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only $1800.
Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7 dual
core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran ~$1500, but
lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned ($500+/yr).
You hit the nail on the head: upgradeable RAM/SSD designs are
meaningless if the corporate IT Department treats the machine as
disposable. That’s where Apple’s sealed design, while less flexible, often wins in corporate environments because they simply replace the
whole unit anyway.
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance nature of the
Mac hardware now?
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines
at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO.
The Pro was only $10 more
but it used more power and I wouldn't have been able to use its full
speed anyway since my laptop's interface is a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more.
In the end, their machines weren't actually
capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of
course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what other people have said.
Admittedly, I have yet to use an ARM-equipped machine with Windows
11. I imagine it can't be that great if Dell is opting for Core 7
Ultra rather than more Snapdragon X laptops.
Which means that those customers will therefore gravitate to Apple,
despite yon "less bang for the buck" insinuations. Since they're
voting with their wallet, their vote is quite credible.
I doubt that most people who buy Macs or PCs even have an idea of what
kind of processor it is equipped with.
With batteries, that might be the result of the offending part being
glued to other components. My own laptop allows me to replace my
battery fairly easily if I choose to do so, but I notice that quite a
few manufacturers are imitating Apple because of the thinness
obsession and gluing or soldering components.
Which means that it isn't an "only Apple" thing. And come to think of
it, the battery in the most recent Mac laptop that I've retired was
still unswollen and ~okay condition at the seven (7) year mark.
Doesn't   this observation also run counter to "less bang for the
buck" claims?
Lithium-ion will swell no matter what. If it didn't happen with the
Apple laptop, I can only wonder what the origin of their lithium is and
why the batteries in Razer laptops seem to swell much faster.
On 2025-12-16 12:49, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 2:11 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 10:03, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 11:57 a.m., Alan wrote:Interesting...
On 2025-12-16 06:42, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 17:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable >>>>>>>>>> machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware. >>>>>>>>> What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a >>>>>>>> 2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO. The Pro was >>>>>>>> only $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have been >>>>>>>> able to use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is >>>>>>>> a PCIe 3.0 x4.
I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the >>>>>>>>>> Apple stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit >>>>>>>>>> margins, for sure, but not an inevitable backlash fromApple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years >>>>>>>>> ago, which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're >>>>>>>>> assuming.
customers who eventually realize that they're being ripped off. >>>>>>>>>
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines >>>>>>>> were premium by charging more. In the end, their machines
weren't actually capable of anything more than the competition, >>>>>>>> though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more robust than
machines from Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old
enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what >>>>>>>> other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
No, it is a well known fact: <https://ibb.co/6jwrkVY>
Sorry, but just because Brittanica claimed it doesn't make it so.
Got a quote?
Sure, let me dig up Steve Jobs's corpse and reanimate him.
You think that the only way to get a quote of someone's words is to
ask him personally.
Find someone quoting things he has actually SAID.
Out of curiosity, do you think he said this to the press or to the
people he worked with. His pricing scheme was in several documentaries
and was reported to the people creating the documentaries by the
people who worked for and under him. I would have expected that you
would have learned this about your god while you were worshiping him.
Bad zealot, bad.
Atone for your sins.
Out of curiosity, are you at all interested in what he actually said?
On 2025-12-16 12:51, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 2:30 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 06:59, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 3:22 a.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 19:03, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:42 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-15 18:26, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 9:16 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:42:55 +0000, David B. wrote:
If you were buying for yourself, would the upgradeable RAM/SSD >>>>>>>>>> still
matter, or do you prefer the integrated, high-performance >>>>>>>>>> nature of the
Mac hardware now?
Somewhat. I added RAM, and SSD, and a better processor to my >>>>>>>>> Dell tower
last year. Yesterday I replaced the HDD with a SSD in an old >>>>>>>>> netbook that
did wonders for booting and loading.
Joel would be upset. Given my intended use I went with a cheap >>>>>>>>> 128 GB SSD.
I don't anticipate running out of room. If I bought an Apple >>>>>>>>> the 256 GB
option would also be adequate.
I did put a 1 TB in the tower and use it in part to serve up my >>>>>>>>> mp3
collection. I discovered a cli utility, randomplay, that works >>>>>>>>> nicely.
randomplay /nfs/music/
works its way through 20 GB of music, some of which I forgot I >>>>>>>>> even had.
It does identify the cuts.
GENRE: Alternative Country
TRACKNUM: 10
TITLE: Greenville
ARTIST: Lucinda Williams
ALBUM: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
TAGVERSION: ID3v1.1 / ID3v2.3.0
Weight: 0
+ means the selection gets more play, - gets less, n skips to >>>>>>>>> the next, b
to the previous, p to pause, and q to quit. Very complicated >>>>>>>>> interface,
doesn't even need a GUI.
128 GB is enough to operate a system. It's just that a larger >>>>>>>> SSD can be had, so easily, today.
Indeed... ..but not for free.
So if you buy more storage than you need...
In my box with 1 TB and 512 GB NVMe drives, I had the kind of
breathing room, storage-wise, that would make a really stellar
system. Buying a mere 128 GB, is saying that one is timid about >>>>>> using the machine.
"Breathing room" on an SSD is utterly irrelevant.
Breathing room increases the lifespan of the device. That is why
manufacturers like Samsung allow you to set some reserved space on
the drive so that it doesn't wear out as quickly. This is pure
ignorance on your part.
An HD might need enough free space to perform an occasional
defragmentation in a reasonable length of time, but SSDs don't need >>>>> to be defragmented.
But they do need a TRIM from time to time and for different areas of
the storage to be written so as to not cause excessive wear.
Paying for more storage than you need just buys you bragging rights... >>>>>
...which appears to be all you're really interested in anyway.
Pure ignorance from someone willing to make do with less to appease
his gods. I just hope Apple doesn't eventually demand your first
born as a down payment for your purchase.
<yawn>
'A joint study between Google and the University of Toronto covering
drive failure rates on data servers. The study concluded that the
physical age of the SSD, rather than the amount or frequency of data
written, is the prime determiner in probability of data retention
errors.'
<https://www.howtogeek.com/322856/how-long-do-solid-state-drives-
really- last/>
And unlike you, I'll include the link to the study:
<http://0b4af6cdc2f0c5998459-
c0245c5c937c5dedcca3f1764ecc9b2f.r43.cf2.rackcdn.com/23105-fast16-
papers-schroeder.pdf>
'While wear-out from usage is often the focus of at-
tention, we note that independently of usage the age of a
drive, i.e. the time spent in the field, affects reliability.'
More:
'You won’t believe how much data can be written to modern SSDs. No,
seriously. Our ongoing SSD Endurance Experiment has demonstrated that
some consumer-grade drives can withstand over a petabyte of writes
before burning out.'
<https://techreport.com/review/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-
remain-after-1-5pb/>
In short, you'll want a new computer long before your SSD fails.
That's good to know. Nevertheless, the manufacturer still recommends
breathing space and there is a reason behind it. In the end, we both
end up being right.
Quote such a recommendation...
On 12/16/25 6:43 PM, Alan wrote:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to >>>>>>>>>>> Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power >>>>>>>>> user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees. >>>>>>>>
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
I don't need to "know" what you specifically do to get the idea of
what kind of things, you do. You're someone with a lot of
familiarity of software.
Really?
What "kind of things" do I do?
And note that the comma after "kind of things" is completely
unnecessary.
You have said that you assist people with computers.
So what you "know" about me is solely what I've told you?
It derives from it, I suppose.
On 12/15/25 20:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines
at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO.
Looks like its been a $2K-$3K laptop, +$200 more for the new NVMe.
The Pro was only $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have
been able to use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is
a PCIe 3.0 x4.
Either would benchmark well below what I'd already mentioned. Nothing wrong with that if you don't believe you'll need the performance, either initially or within the system's expected X year lifespan.
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more.
So? All well-run corporations want to (& strive to) create moats, and
this is one of many time-tested practices for product differentiation.
In the end, their machines weren't actually capable of anything more
than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more
robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old
enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what other
people have said.
Clearly, you never had to use a Timex-Sinclair keyboard! ;-)Â Apple has been more solidly built, and they also have a better dealership network
for providing customer support (which isn't free), long before they
started their own retail stores.
Admittedly, I have yet to use an ARM-equipped machine with Windows
11. I imagine it can't be that great if Dell is opting for Core 7
Ultra rather than more Snapdragon X laptops.
Which means that those customers will therefore gravitate to Apple,
despite yon "less bang for the buck" insinuations. Since they're
voting with their wallet, their vote is quite credible.
I doubt that most people who buy Macs or PCs even have an idea of what
kind of processor it is equipped with.
Depends on one's level of geekery.
That's why I'm thinking that some companies get a higher quality metalWith batteries, that might be the result of the offending part being
glued to other components. My own laptop allows me to replace my
battery fairly easily if I choose to do so, but I notice that quite
a few manufacturers are imitating Apple because of the thinness
obsession and gluing or soldering components.
Which means that it isn't an "only Apple" thing. And come to think
of it, the battery in the most recent Mac laptop that I've retired
was still unswollen and ~okay condition at the seven (7) year mark.
Doesn't   this observation also run counter to "less bang for the
buck" claims?
Lithium-ion will swell no matter what. If it didn't happen with the
Apple laptop, I can only wonder what the origin of their lithium is
and why the batteries in Razer laptops seem to swell much faster.
Material aging properties like this are why the Engineering plans ahead
for in the design. Shortsighted and cheap-ass outfits who cut corners
will invariably get burned by that decision later on.
I've participated in some Li-Ion powerpack development; the last one
that I was closely involved with was originally delivered in 2010 and as
of the last time that I personally saw it in Summer 2022, it was still
doing fine:Â that's 12 years & counting.
On 2025-12-16 4:59 p.m., Alan wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you at all interested in what he actually said?
Being born on the same day as Steve Jobs got me interested in the guy.
I've seen enough documentaries and read enough articles about him to
know what he said and what he was thinking. He indeed wanted his
products to be priced more to give the impression that they were luxury items, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge that. It was that
kind of thinking which resulted in the Macintosh which cost way more
than everything else, offered little to no upgradeability and managed to
do a lot less than the competition.
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to >>>>>>>>>>>> Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a >>>>>>>>>> power user who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows >>>>>>>>>> on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
I don't need to "know" what you specifically do to get the idea of >>>>>> what kind of things, you do. You're someone with a lot of
familiarity of software.
Really?
What "kind of things" do I do?
And note that the comma after "kind of things" is completely
unnecessary.
You have said that you assist people with computers.
So what you "know" about me is solely what I've told you?
It derives from it, I suppose.
Ah! So you are claiming some expertise that allows you to draw
conclusions from something as simple as the fact that I do computer technical support.
Today, the rate of change is not as dramatic, so a delay doesn't save as
much money. PCs have long since passed the point of "good enough" for mainstream tasks such that we could replace desktop iron with
ever-lighter laptops. As such, there's a reduced demand for high
performance because its no longer this month's cutting edge new stuff: everyone can afford pretty high flying stuff without much drama.
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
Nope.
Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:
'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines were
premium by charging more.'
Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an impression
that they're premium.
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
On 2025-12-16 12:11, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/16/25 2:46 PM, Alan wrote:
It is a curiosity why an operative like you is so loyal to Apple.
"Operative" is it now?
You have said some things to indicate it, yeah. You're a power user
who prefers Apple. It's not something that grows on trees.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLO!
You're an expert on computer user demographics now?
I wouldn't say that. But I've gotten to know you, a bit.
You know nothing.
Clearly, you never had to use a Timex-Sinclair keyboard! ;-) Apple has
been more solidly built, and they also have a better dealership network
for providing customer support (which isn't free), long before they
started their own retail stores.
On 2025-12-15 9:44 p.m., Alan wrote:
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more. In the end, their machines weren't actually
capable of anything more than the competition, though I believe that
the Apple ][ felt more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore.
Of course, I wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm
basing myself on what other people have said.
What?
Complete bullshit you just made up.
No, it is a well known fact: <https://ibb.co/6jwrkVY>
I imagine that you're just as shocked as muhammedans
On 12/15/25 6:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from >>>>>>> swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have
upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch >>>>>>> replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle >>>>>>> with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I
bought allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely full >>>>>> and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor
is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd
die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the
'Pads was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under $200/
yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only $1800.
Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7 dual
core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran ~$1500, but
lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned ($500+/yr).
Looking at Lenovo's choices of laptops, they are crazy expensive. Not necessarily as brazenly extorting as Apple, but bad.
Competitive pricing matters, IMO, when I can get by so well with this PC made in China.
On 12/15/25 18:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 6:16 PM, -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 17:55, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/15/25 5:08 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-13 18:29, pothead wrote:
On 2025-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 16:55:03 -0500, -hh wrote:
Wish that was the case, because I've lost some Dell laptops from >>>>>>>> swollen
batteries at <3 years life:Â it doesn't do much good to have >>>>>>>> upgradable
RAM/SSD designs when the office IT Department then won't even touch >>>>>>>> replacing a battery: they just replace the whole kit 'n kaboodle >>>>>>>> with
new, reimage it to set it up & migrate user data. Ditto for broken >>>>>>>> smartphones too.
I was happy to see that the refurbished Lenovo T480 laptop I
bought allows
for cutting off the charging before the battery is completely
full and
that there is a Linux cli utility to set the charge parameters.
Lenovo is one of the best.
Indestructable, business grade laptop designed to travel with you
and keep working despite abuse.
Make sure to keep the fan free from dust.
Typical of most laptops.
And to get that level of quality, you PAY for it.
And people who pay it don't get accused of being "brainwashed", nor >>>>> is Lenovo accused of "extorting" them.
If I wanted a laptop, Lenovo would be a good choice, though. Apple
would be an expensive choice.
Back in my Thinkpad era, the IBM ones were running close to $3K, and
Lenovo was $2-2.5K. In today's dollars, that's quite a bit more.
Migrated then to Dell and these were still ballpark $1.5K but they'd
die every 3 years (if you were lucky), so a lifespan similar to the
'Pads was still $3-4K.
Meantime, that Mac laptop that went seven years was $1350 (under
$200/ yr), and last year's replacement for it (APMCX14LLA) was only
$1800. Bottom line is better lifecycle cost versus their business PC
equivalents that I've used...
...vastly better than my second to last Dell, a Latitude 7280 (i7
dual core Koby Lake @ 2.8GHz; 16GB RAM & 256GB SSD) which ran ~$1500,
but lasted less than 3 years before its battery ballooned ($500+/yr).
Looking at Lenovo's choices of laptops, they are crazy expensive. Not
necessarily as brazenly extorting as Apple, but bad.
I had a couple of Thinkpads which cost the same or more as my
counterpart Mac laptops.
On Dec 16, 2025 at 1:50:48 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote <6941c628$0$21959$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
Nope.
Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:
'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines were
premium by charging more.'
Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an impression
that they're premium.
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
I am NOT an expert in the others, but from what I saw nothing compared to the old AppleWorks. Of course that is just one class of software.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 19:09:09 -0500, -hh wrote:
Clearly, you never had to use a Timex-Sinclair keyboard! ;-) Apple has
been more solidly built, and they also have a better dealership network
for providing customer support (which isn't free), long before they
started their own retail stores.
I bought the kit form of the ZX-80 to see what you got for $100. That keyboard is something I'd rather commit to the memory hole.
Between that
and the TV video adapter it was a good example of you get what you pay
for,
On 2025-12-16 7:09 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 20:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines >>>>> at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021
model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO.
Looks like its been a $2K-$3K laptop, +$200 more for the new NVMe.
I recall paying $1,899 plus tax Canadian in June 2021.
The Pro was only $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have
been able to use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is
a PCIe 3.0 x4.
Either would benchmark well below what I'd already mentioned. Nothing
wrong with that if you don't believe you'll need the performance,
either initially or within the system's expected X year lifespan.
There is a good chance that the storage in Macs, by default, performed better than my Zephyrus G14 did by default. With a RAID0, I would expect that. However, both Apple computers and those of competitors perform on
par nowadays in their default configurations.
; I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple
stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for
sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually
realize that they're being ripped off.
Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,
which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.
Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were
premium by charging more.
So? All well-run corporations want to (& strive to) create moats, and
this is one of many time-tested practices for product differentiation.
I'm not saying that it wasn't successful. In fact, it might have been responsible for serious business people seeing Apple as the only
alternative to IBM rather than Commodore or Atari. However, it gives a
false impression that what Apple offered/offers is superior to what the competition gives you.
the way the machines interoperate and how easy it is to get a warranty, recycle your machine and get a repair is quite attractive. It feels like
the company's really got it together whereas with every other company,
it feels like the head doesn't know what the ass is doing.
I wouldn't
play too many games on it, but I suppose that matters less and less now.
In the end, their machines weren't actually capable of anything more
than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more
robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't
old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what
other people have said.
Clearly, you never had to use a Timex-Sinclair keyboard! ;-)Â Apple
has been more solidly built, and they also have a better dealership
network for providing customer support (which isn't free), long before
they started their own retail stores.
I have to admit that I would have found that attractive if I were a
computer user in the 80s and the Apple ][ and/or Mac were available for purchase. OF course, living through the 80s, the only computer I really thought was awesome was the Amiga.
Admittedly, I have yet to use an ARM-equipped machine with Windows
11. I imagine it can't be that great if Dell is opting for Core 7
Ultra rather than more Snapdragon X laptops.
Which means that those customers will therefore gravitate to Apple,
despite yon "less bang for the buck" insinuations. Since they're
voting with their wallet, their vote is quite credible.
I doubt that most people who buy Macs or PCs even have an idea of
what kind of processor it is equipped with.
Depends on one's level of geekery.
Well, I can tell you that back when my Dell died in 2010 and I had to
shop for a replacement, I had no idea what the heck an i3 was. I just
knew that the Core 2 Duo Apple was offering was very outdated.
With batteries, that might be the result of the offending part
being glued to other components. My own laptop allows me to replace >>>>> my battery fairly easily if I choose to do so, but I notice that
quite a few manufacturers are imitating Apple because of the
thinness obsession and gluing or soldering components.
Which means that it isn't an "only Apple" thing. And come to think
of it, the battery in the most recent Mac laptop that I've retired
was still unswollen and ~okay condition at the seven (7) year mark.
Doesn't   this observation also run counter to "less bang for the
buck" claims?
Lithium-ion will swell no matter what. If it didn't happen with the
Apple laptop, I can only wonder what the origin of their lithium is
and why the batteries in Razer laptops seem to swell much faster.
Material aging properties like this are why the Engineering plans
ahead for in the design. Shortsighted and cheap-ass outfits who cut
corners will invariably get burned by that decision later on.
I've participated in some Li-Ion powerpack development; the last one
that I was closely involved with was originally delivered in 2010 and
as of the last time that I personally saw it in Summer 2022, it was
still doing fine:Â that's 12 years & counting.
That's why I'm thinking that some companies get a higher quality metal
than others. Alan is suggesting that it's the chemistry and I'll accept that, but Apple doesn't make its own batteries as far as I know and buy
them from someone else. The question, for me, is who does Razer buy from
for theirs to blow up within two years and who is Apple buying from?
I had a couple of Thinkpads which cost the same or more as my
counterpart Mac laptops.
On 12/16/25 19:48, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 7:09 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 20:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO.
Looks like its been a $2K-$3K laptop, +$200 more for the new NVMe.
I recall paying $1,899 plus tax Canadian in June 2021.
Which is fine; I just did a quick google without listing features, so it could have had a newer GPU/etc. That's a price point where one should
get pretty respectable capabilities (snarky side eye at ChromeBooks :-)
There is a good chance that the storage in Macs, by default, performed
better than my Zephyrus G14 did by default. With a RAID0, I would
expect that. However, both Apple computers and those of competitors
perform on par nowadays in their default configurations.
I'd suspect/expect that the Macs which were using the RAID0 performance approach 3-4 years ago are still doing that today, and those that didn't still aren't. The minimally bumped basic MBP business machine that I picked up last year doesn't need higher performance and is an example of
the latter:Â it benches at just ~3K read/write, much less than the older personal machine that I prioritize performance for media work.
FWIW, here's an example of a still very raw test dump I did last month
on a personal project:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2025/Norway_Aurora_20251021.mov>
...this version's been de-rezz'ed down to just 1080p and lost its IQ.
That's part of the next part to figure out.
I'm not saying that it wasn't successful. In fact, it might have been
responsible for serious business people seeing Apple as the only
alternative to IBM rather than Commodore or Atari. However, it gives a
false impression that what Apple offered/offers is superior to what
the competition gives you.
By whatever means, they have been one of the very few survivors, and did
so without a abuse-of-monopoly type of overtone. I think a lot of their staying power has come from the iPhone era, specifically during its introduction while RIM's Blackberry was so dominant in Corporate
America:Â what ended up happening was that the C-Suite executives
preferred to use the iPhone over the BB and instead of asking their IT
Dept if they could "pretty please" consider adding the iPhone, IT was
flat out ordered to do it.
Likewise, when it came to competition from Android in the office, when employees were allowed to choose (and didn't have to pay), the
preference was pretty compelling. I can recall an old COLA conversation
on the Android-vs-iOS wars where I posted this pic from our office
showing the delivery of new smartphones for the office:
<https://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/iphones>
I'd have to go see what the old COLA post said to be 100% accurate, but
my recollection is there was something like just 1 or 2 Androids in that pile of ~20, with the rest all iPhones...a pretty brutal ratio.
I wouldn't play too many games on it, but I suppose that matters less
and less now.
Understood & agreed; I suspect that a lot of the "Power User" PC club
has historically been younger guys who still have good eyes and reaction times who want to play GPU-intensive games at home. As one migrates
away from playing "twich" games, one learns that something like
Civilization 5 doesn't really need a huge GPU/etc.
In the end, their machines weren't actually capable of anything more
than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more
robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't
old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what
other people have said.
Clearly, you never had to use a Timex-Sinclair keyboard! ;-)Â Apple
has been more solidly built, and they also have a better dealership
network for providing customer support (which isn't free), long
before they started their own retail stores.
I have to admit that I would have found that attractive if I were a
computer user in the 80s and the Apple ][ and/or Mac were available
for purchase. OF course, living through the 80s, the only computer I
really thought was awesome was the Amiga.
The Amiga was a good attempt at a GUI centric OS that was competing
against Apple and had its fans. I don't recall why why it flamed out.
Depends on one's level of geekery.
Well, I can tell you that back when my Dell died in 2010 and I had to
shop for a replacement, I had no idea what the heck an i3 was. I just
knew that the Core 2 Duo Apple was offering was very outdated.
There's been a lot of creaky cheap stuff on minimal spec systems. I
have a Celeron based PC sitting around that I need to figure out what to
do with it, or turn it in for recycling. Maybe a linux server box for a bunch of tiny old Hard Drives...if its power consumption isn't too bad.
I honestly don't know enough about how they produce the batteries toMaterial aging properties like this are why the Engineering plans
ahead for in the design. Shortsighted and cheap-ass outfits who cut
corners will invariably get burned by that decision later on.
I've participated in some Li-Ion powerpack development; the last one
that I was closely involved with was originally delivered in 2010 and
as of the last time that I personally saw it in Summer 2022, it was
still doing fine:Â that's 12 years & counting.
That's why I'm thinking that some companies get a higher quality metal
than others. Alan is suggesting that it's the chemistry and I'll
accept that, but Apple doesn't make its own batteries as far as I know
and buy them from someone else. The question, for me, is who does
Razer buy from for theirs to blow up within two years and who is Apple
buying from?
Its probably an "all of the above" situation, where some chemistry
specifics apply (good enough vs best practices), ditto the manufacturing
& tolerances, and then the supplier/supply chain which does a better job
of preventing shoddy counterfeits from getting snuck in. For example,
the stuff I was using was primarily from SAFT; their VL30P had the specs
we needed...and we paid for it. After subtracting off their NRE fee for the first unit, its 2010 cost was a shade over $1000 per kW-hr.
They definitely don't retain their value the way that Macs do though. I
got the 2019 Thinkpad I'm typing this on for $115 plus shipping.
Meanwhile, a Mac from the same year will cost at least triple despite it
no longer receiving updates from the company Alan worships.
A few years later I learned that a couple of coworkers went in on
another relic of the past, the Ti/99. At least one of them bought like
3 or 4 of them when they were on fire sale clearance. I still have no
idea why...same guy also had like four old Corvettes, none of which were
in good enough condition for them to be able to drive it to work. They
were just collecting dust in rented garages ($$), as they weren't even
making any effort to get them back into running condition.
On 12/16/25 9:26 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Dec 16, 2025 at 1:50:48 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<6941c628$0$21959$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
Nope.
Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:
'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines were
premium by charging more.'
Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an impression
that they're premium.
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
I am NOT an expert in the others, but from what I saw nothing compared to the
old AppleWorks. Of course that is just one class of software.
AppleWorks was a remarkable achievement. It's par for the course, now,
for an OS to offer certain things, but in the past, it had to be
fashioned by any means necessary. That was why I ended up being glad my
mom bought the used Apple IIe we had, because I learned so much about self-reliance in programming on it.
On Dec 17, 2025 at 9:17:03 AM MST, ""Joel W. Crump"" wrote <5IA0R.416292$w6H4.248666@fx11.iad>:
On 12/16/25 9:26 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
On Dec 16, 2025 at 1:50:48 PM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote
<6941c628$0$21959$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
Nope.
Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:
'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines
were premium by charging more.'
Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an
impression that they're premium.
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll
give you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than
even Atari's machines.
I am NOT an expert in the others, but from what I saw nothing
compared to the old AppleWorks. Of course that is just one class of
software.
AppleWorks was a remarkable achievement. It's par for the course,
now, for an OS to offer certain things, but in the past, it had to be
fashioned by any means necessary. That was why I ended up being glad
my mom bought the used Apple IIe we had, because I learned so much
about self-reliance in programming on it.
Tha and a bunch of EDU software is what drew me to the Apple IIe, but
also familiarity. Just happened to be what I was around. I did play
with some other systems of the era but not as much. I first saw
Lemmings on an Amiga and had fun with that.
On 2025-12-17 2:11 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/16/25 19:48, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 7:09 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 20:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.
What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO.
Looks like its been a $2K-$3K laptop, +$200 more for the new NVMe.
I recall paying $1,899 plus tax Canadian in June 2021.
Which is fine; I just did a quick google without listing features, so
it could have had a newer GPU/etc. That's a price point where one
should get pretty respectable capabilities (snarky side eye at
ChromeBooks :-)
I never want to pay more than $2,500 (taxes included) on a machine that
I hold onto for no more than five years. If games don't run as well on
my five-year-old machine as they used to, I'm happy to drop the graphics
or buy older games. The latest and greatest means nothing to me,
especially since the new titles have become political anyway. Still, I
doubt I'll be playing for much longer. I generally stick to Civilization more than anything else.
There is a good chance that the storage in Macs, by default,
performed better than my Zephyrus G14 did by default. With a RAID0, I
would expect that. However, both Apple computers and those of
competitors perform on par nowadays in their default configurations.
I'd suspect/expect that the Macs which were using the RAID0
performance approach 3-4 years ago are still doing that today, and
those that didn't still aren't. The minimally bumped basic MBP
business machine that I picked up last year doesn't need higher
performance and is an example of the latter:Â it benches at just ~3K
read/write, much less than the older personal machine that I
prioritize performance for media work.
FWIW, here's an example of a still very raw test dump I did last month
on a personal project:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2025/Norway_Aurora_20251021.mov>
...this version's been de-rezz'ed down to just 1080p and lost its IQ.
That's part of the next part to figure out.
I have to admit that I'm looking forward to having an excuse to buy a
new laptop.
In the meantime, games still play great on this nearly five-
year-old GPU and the machine itself has more RAM and storage than I'll
ever need. It's also in stellar shape (despite all the repairs I sent it
out for). I've had to have the keyboard replaced (typical issue
nowadays) and eventual motherboard replacement but the latter was of my
own doing. I was convinced that when they changed the battery, they
caused a spark which took out the fingerprint reader and was ready break
a connector to force them to replace it. I was right. It works perfectly now. The repair cost me nothing in both cases.
I'm not saying that it wasn't successful. In fact, it might have been
responsible for serious business people seeing Apple as the only
alternative to IBM rather than Commodore or Atari. However, it gives
a false impression that what Apple offered/offers is superior to what
the competition gives you.
By whatever means, they have been one of the very few survivors, and
did so without a abuse-of-monopoly type of overtone. I think a lot of
their staying power has come from the iPhone era, specifically during
its introduction while RIM's Blackberry was so dominant in Corporate
America:Â what ended up happening was that the C-Suite executives
preferred to use the iPhone over the BB and instead of asking their IT
Dept if they could "pretty please" consider adding the iPhone, IT was
flat out ordered to do it.
Likewise, when it came to competition from Android in the office, when
employees were allowed to choose (and didn't have to pay), the
preference was pretty compelling. I can recall an old COLA
conversation on the Android-vs-iOS wars where I posted this pic from
our office showing the delivery of new smartphones for the office:
<https://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/iphones>
I'd have to go see what the old COLA post said to be 100% accurate,
but my recollection is there was something like just 1 or 2 Androids
in that pile of ~20, with the rest all iPhones...a pretty brutal ratio.
Honestly, I don't blame people for preferring iPhones. The very fact
that developers only have to develop for one operating system means that that iOS app you're downloading is going to run right whether it is an iPhone 12 or an iPhone 17. Meanwhile, the Android ecosystem has so many versions and so many varieties that making your application run properly must be a nightmare. I know that Bell Canada stopped making its French
RDS sports app available for Android TV because there was no way of guaranteeing that it would work for everyone. Meanwhile, the iOS edition
is still available and works great.
I wouldn't play too many games on it, but I suppose that matters less
and less now.
Understood & agreed; I suspect that a lot of the "Power User" PC club
has historically been younger guys who still have good eyes and
reaction times who want to play GPU-intensive games at home. As one
migrates away from playing "twich" games, one learns that something
like Civilization 5 doesn't really need a huge GPU/etc.
And it's not a worse game. Heck, some people believe that Civilization 4
was the best and others think the 6 was the peak. Whether you can play
the 7 or not means nothing because if you even play 2 from the late 90s,
the game concept hasn't changed that significantly. It looks better and
some things are neat, but if you need your Civilization fix, even the
first one ever made will do the job. Only Freeciv is completely awful.
In the end, their machines weren't actually capable of anything
more than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt
more robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of course, I
wasn't old enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself >>>>> on what other people have said.
Clearly, you never had to use a Timex-Sinclair keyboard! ;-)Â Apple
has been more solidly built, and they also have a better dealership
network for providing customer support (which isn't free), long
before they started their own retail stores.
I have to admit that I would have found that attractive if I were a
computer user in the 80s and the Apple ][ and/or Mac were available
for purchase. OF course, living through the 80s, the only computer I
really thought was awesome was the Amiga.
The Amiga was a good attempt at a GUI centric OS that was competing
against Apple and had its fans. I don't recall why why it flamed out.
Commodore kept selling the same machine since 1987. The upgrades were
few and far between and even after they were released, developers
targeted the lowest common denominator in the Amiga 500. It was the same problem with the Atari 520ST being targeted despite many improvements. People wanted something superior and only the PC and Mac developers were bothering to develop for the latest technology.
Depends on one's level of geekery.
Well, I can tell you that back when my Dell died in 2010 and I had to
shop for a replacement, I had no idea what the heck an i3 was. I just
knew that the Core 2 Duo Apple was offering was very outdated.
There's been a lot of creaky cheap stuff on minimal spec systems. I
have a Celeron based PC sitting around that I need to figure out what
to do with it, or turn it in for recycling. Maybe a linux server box
for a bunch of tiny old Hard Drives...if its power consumption isn't
too bad.
You can always give it away to a needy family.
I'm going to start doing
that with older laptops I use at work. A ten-year-old machine is a piece
of crap unless you put Linux on it and give it to a kid whose family can barely afford to eat. Luckily, I work in a school where there are tons
of poor families and they would appreciate the gift.
Material aging properties like this are why the Engineering plans
ahead for in the design. Shortsighted and cheap-ass outfits who cut >>>> corners will invariably get burned by that decision later on.
I've participated in some Li-Ion powerpack development; the last one
that I was closely involved with was originally delivered in 2010
and as of the last time that I personally saw it in Summer 2022, it
was still doing fine:Â that's 12 years & counting.
That's why I'm thinking that some companies get a higher quality
metal than others. Alan is suggesting that it's the chemistry and
I'll accept that, but Apple doesn't make its own batteries as far as
I know and buy them from someone else. The question, for me, is who
does Razer buy from for theirs to blow up within two years and who is
Apple buying from?
Its probably an "all of the above" situation, where some chemistry
specifics apply (good enough vs best practices), ditto the
manufacturing & tolerances, and then the supplier/supply chain which
does a better job of preventing shoddy counterfeits from getting snuck
in. For example, the stuff I was using was primarily from SAFT; their
VL30P had the specs we needed...and we paid for it. After subtracting
off their NRE fee for the first unit, its 2010 cost was a shade over
$1000 per kW-hr.
I honestly don't know enough about how they produce the batteries to comment, but I know that once the original battery of a typical PC manufacturer's machine wears out, you are likely to get a terrible counterfeit if you seek to get it from anywhere but the manufacturer
itself. I had what turned out to be a complete piece of garbage in my
old MSI GT72 when I replaced the original battery and the experience was almost traumatizing.
On 12/17/25 14:45, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-17 2:11 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/16/25 19:48, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 7:09 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/15/25 20:15, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:
What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable
machines at the same price?
Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware. >>>>>>> What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?
Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a
2021 model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO.
Looks like its been a $2K-$3K laptop, +$200 more for the new NVMe.
I recall paying $1,899 plus tax Canadian in June 2021.
Which is fine; I just did a quick google without listing features, so
it could have had a newer GPU/etc. That's a price point where one
should get pretty respectable capabilities (snarky side eye at
ChromeBooks :-)
I never want to pay more than $2,500 (taxes included) on a machine
that I hold onto for no more than five years. If games don't run as
well on my five-year-old machine as they used to, I'm happy to drop
the graphics or buy older games. The latest and greatest means nothing
to me, especially since the new titles have become political anyway.
Still, I doubt I'll be playing for much longer. I generally stick to
Civilization more than anything else.
I'd like for it to be <$100, but I also know that the market doesn't
care what our personal preferences are, as they sell to huge market segments. Typically, they'll design to a consumer price point and the product is what it is for that price point. Apple used to chronically
do this with their "starting at" and hurt their image by selling
machines which were pragmatically under-specc'ed for their OS. MS was similarly guilty with promises of how little RAM Windows needed, etc.
Ditto with car manufacturers & everyone else. As such, I tailor what
the need is to the tasks, so a business laptop might be up to ~$2K these days, whereas my media workstation will not need to be mobile but will
need more capacity. This last go-around the core unit was just $2500, which was quite a bit less than its 2012 predecessor.
There is a good chance that the storage in Macs, by default,
performed better than my Zephyrus G14 did by default. With a RAID0,
I would expect that. However, both Apple computers and those of
competitors perform on par nowadays in their default configurations.
I'd suspect/expect that the Macs which were using the RAID0
performance approach 3-4 years ago are still doing that today, and
those that didn't still aren't. The minimally bumped basic MBP
business machine that I picked up last year doesn't need higher
performance and is an example of the latter:Â it benches at just ~3K
read/write, much less than the older personal machine that I
prioritize performance for media work.
FWIW, here's an example of a still very raw test dump I did last
month on a personal project:
<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2025/Norway_Aurora_20251021.mov>
...this version's been de-rezz'ed down to just 1080p and lost its IQ.
That's part of the next part to figure out.
I have to admit that I'm looking forward to having an excuse to buy a
new laptop.
My last laptop was doing fine, but at seven years it was getting due,
and since Apple had moved from Intel CPUs to their own M series, a new
one has 2-3x the battery life. A cherry on top was that despite being seven years old, its trade-in value was ~10% of its original price.
In the meantime, games still play great on this nearly five- year-old
GPU and the machine itself has more RAM and storage than I'll ever
need. It's also in stellar shape (despite all the repairs I sent it
out for). I've had to have the keyboard replaced (typical issue
nowadays) and eventual motherboard replacement but the latter was of
my own doing. I was convinced that when they changed the battery, they
caused a spark which took out the fingerprint reader and was ready
break a connector to force them to replace it. I was right. It works
perfectly now. The repair cost me nothing in both cases.
Not to say that Apple is perfect, but in trying to think of the last
time that I had to have a Mac be serviced ... I'd probably have to go
back to a 2005 vintage PowerMac G5's CD/DVD burner.
I'm not saying that it wasn't successful. In fact, it might have
been responsible for serious business people seeing Apple as the
only alternative to IBM rather than Commodore or Atari. However, it
gives a false impression that what Apple offered/offers is superior
to what the competition gives you.
By whatever means, they have been one of the very few survivors, and
did so without a abuse-of-monopoly type of overtone. I think a lot
of their staying power has come from the iPhone era, specifically
during its introduction while RIM's Blackberry was so dominant in
Corporate America:Â what ended up happening was that the C-Suite
executives preferred to use the iPhone over the BB and instead of
asking their IT Dept if they could "pretty please" consider adding
the iPhone, IT was flat out ordered to do it.
Likewise, when it came to competition from Android in the office,
when employees were allowed to choose (and didn't have to pay), the
preference was pretty compelling. I can recall an old COLA
conversation on the Android-vs-iOS wars where I posted this pic from
our office showing the delivery of new smartphones for the office:
<https://huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/iphones>
I'd have to go see what the old COLA post said to be 100% accurate,
but my recollection is there was something like just 1 or 2 Androids
in that pile of ~20, with the rest all iPhones...a pretty brutal ratio.
Honestly, I don't blame people for preferring iPhones. The very fact
that developers only have to develop for one operating system means
that that iOS app you're downloading is going to run right whether it
is an iPhone 12 or an iPhone 17. Meanwhile, the Android ecosystem has
so many versions and so many varieties that making your application
run properly must be a nightmare. I know that Bell Canada stopped
making its French RDS sports app available for Android TV because
there was no way of guaranteeing that it would work for everyone.
Meanwhile, the iOS edition is still available and works great.
Agreed; there's strengths and weaknesses to try-2-be-it-all-for-everyone architectures.
I wouldn't play too many games on it, but I suppose that matters
less and less now.
Understood & agreed; I suspect that a lot of the "Power User" PC club
has historically been younger guys who still have good eyes and
reaction times who want to play GPU-intensive games at home. As one
migrates away from playing "twich" games, one learns that something
like Civilization 5 doesn't really need a huge GPU/etc.
And it's not a worse game. Heck, some people believe that Civilization
4 was the best and others think the 6 was the peak. Whether you can
play the 7 or not means nothing because if you even play 2 from the
late 90s, the game concept hasn't changed that significantly. It looks
better and some things are neat, but if you need your Civilization
fix, even the first one ever made will do the job. Only Freeciv is
completely awful.
I think it was Civ 3 and/or 5 that I had squandered many an hour on; was
a good diversion at the time.
Depends on one's level of geekery.
Well, I can tell you that back when my Dell died in 2010 and I had
to shop for a replacement, I had no idea what the heck an i3 was. I
just knew that the Core 2 Duo Apple was offering was very outdated.
There's been a lot of creaky cheap stuff on minimal spec systems. I
have a Celeron based PC sitting around that I need to figure out what
to do with it, or turn it in for recycling. Maybe a linux server box
for a bunch of tiny old Hard Drives...if its power consumption isn't
too bad.
You can always give it away to a needy family.
If I could figure out the Windows password to do a good secure wipe, I'd consider that; my recollection is that it was (barely) running Vista.
I honestly don't know enough about how they produce the batteries to
comment, but I know that once the original battery of a typical PC
manufacturer's machine wears out, you are likely to get a terrible
counterfeit if you seek to get it from anywhere but the manufacturer
itself. I had what turned out to be a complete piece of garbage in my
old MSI GT72 when I replaced the original battery and the experience
was almost traumatizing.
The one thing that Elon did right with Tesla was to employ what's
basically a consumer electronics battery in his car design ... but the trade-off is that doing health monitoring and power tailoring down to
the individual cell level is onerous (& probably skipped). That's a
corner that can be cut for a product with a 3-5 year lifespan, but
becomes increasingly problematic (and a higher fire risk). It almost
goes without saying that therefore, I'd never risk parking one of his
inside of an attached garage...and while I've not done a detailed check,
I suspect that the same probably also applies too to his power walls.
On 12/16/25 7:30 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 4:59 p.m., Alan wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you at all interested in what he actually said?
Being born on the same day as Steve Jobs got me interested in the guy.
I've seen enough documentaries and read enough articles about him to
know what he said and what he was thinking. He indeed wanted his
products to be priced more to give the impression that they were
luxury items, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge that. It
was that kind of thinking which resulted in the Macintosh which cost
way more than everything else, offered little to no upgradeability and
managed to do a lot less than the competition.
Jobs did a great job steering Apple into what it is today. And yet who
in the hell would pay them for a fuckin' thing?
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'
interpretations.
;
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
In other words, Alan is saying that even when he's proven wrong, he
is right.
Nope.
Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:
'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines were
premium by charging more.'
Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an impression
that they're premium.
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
Alan wrote:
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people the
impression of higher quality".
Lots of companies do this. Economists have a name for it - a Giffen
good.
On 2025-12-17 8:26 p.m., -hh wrote:
[...]
Not to say that Apple is perfect, but in trying to think of the last
time that I had to have a Mac be serviced ... I'd probably have to go
back to a 2005 vintage PowerMac G5's CD/DVD burner.
For what it's worth, I loved the PowerBook G4 I had in the early 2000s
and the iMac G5 that replaced it.
The iBook G3 was okay for Mac OS X,
even with 640MB RAM, but it ran OS 9 beautifully. Even the MacBook Air
M1 I had was a joy to use. I don't think I've ever disliked anything I
got from Apple.
I'd have to go see what the old COLA post said to be 100% accurate,Honestly, I don't blame people for preferring iPhones. The very fact
but my recollection is there was something like just 1 or 2 Androids
in that pile of ~20, with the rest all iPhones...a pretty brutal ratio. >>>
that developers only have to develop for one operating system means
that that iOS app you're downloading is going to run right whether it
is an iPhone 12 or an iPhone 17. Meanwhile, the Android ecosystem has
so many versions and so many varieties that making your application
run properly must be a nightmare. I know that Bell Canada stopped
making its French RDS sports app available for Android TV because
there was no way of guaranteeing that it would work for everyone.
Meanwhile, the iOS edition is still available and works great.
Agreed; there's strengths and weaknesses to try-2-be-it-all-for-
everyone architectures.
I can't imagine going back to an Android now that I'm with the iPhone
13. I can get used to it again either way, but I never really found
Android to be a pleasant experience.
I think it was Civ 3 and/or 5 that I had squandered many an hour on;
was a good diversion at the time.
It's the most perfect game I have ever come across.
You can always give it away to a needy family.
If I could figure out the Windows password to do a good secure wipe,
I'd consider that; my recollection is that it was (barely) running Vista.
Wow, at that age you're better off using it as a paperweight. Of course,
it will probably run Linux fine.
< snip >
I honestly don't know enough about how they produce the batteries to
comment, but I know that once the original battery of a typical PC
manufacturer's machine wears out, you are likely to get a terrible
counterfeit if you seek to get it from anywhere but the manufacturer
itself. I had what turned out to be a complete piece of garbage in my
old MSI GT72 when I replaced the original battery and the experience
was almost traumatizing.
The one thing that Elon did right with Tesla was to employ what's
basically a consumer electronics battery in his car design ... but the
trade-off is that doing health monitoring and power tailoring down to
the individual cell level is onerous (& probably skipped). That's a
corner that can be cut for a product with a 3-5 year lifespan, but
becomes increasingly problematic (and a higher fire risk). It almost
goes without saying that therefore, I'd never risk parking one of his
inside of an attached garage...and while I've not done a detailed
check, I suspect that the same probably also applies too to his power
walls.
My wife flat-out refuses to get an electric car and considering the
problems they've been shown to have (as well as the fact that they don't truly benefit "the planet" like they claim), I'm quite happy to hold
onto my gas engine. Besides, electric cars wear out tires faster even if
you accept the risks attached to those vehicles or truly believe that
you're saving the world by owning one.
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:50:48 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
I don't know how much the demographic has changed but in the Apple II era
I associated Apples with desktop publishing and other artsy stuff. If you wanted to do something like keep books for your small business you bought
a CP/M box.
I wouldn't want to read too much into my ex has an iPhone and I have an Android :)
On 2025-12-16 13:01, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:Ummmmmm...no.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
Lots of companies do this. Economists have a name for it - a Giffen
good.
Look up the actual definition of a "Giffen good" and you'll see that it doesn't match up very well at all with Apple's products.
I do wonder sometimes of how many people are Android users simply
because they are "Apple haters" for whatever reason.
They produce something so good that people are willing to buy it even
when there are less expensive choices for which they could opt.
On 12/16/25 21:17, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:50:48 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
I don't know how much the demographic has changed but in the Apple II
era I associated Apples with desktop publishing and other artsy stuff.
If you wanted to do something like keep books for your small business
you bought a CP/M box.
hmm...
One of the first times I ever saw a ][ was in a business office setting,
and they were trying out what we now call a 'spreadsheet'. Circa 1980.
On 2025-12-16 12:50, CrudeSausage wrote:
What you've not shown are Jobs actual words, but rather others'
interpretations.
;
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people >>>>> the impression of higher quality".
In other words, Alan is saying that even when he's proven wrong, he
is right.
Nope.
Because you haven't even supported your first claim that:
'Jobs wanted to give people the IMPRESSION that their machines were
premium by charging more.'
Actually building premium machines isn't giving people an impression
that they're premium.
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
What were the release dates of each?
Back then, the pace of change was ridiculous.
On 12/17/25 21:50, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-17 8:26 p.m., -hh wrote:
[...]
Not to say that Apple is perfect, but in trying to think of the last
time that I had to have a Mac be serviced ... I'd probably have to go
back to a 2005 vintage PowerMac G5's CD/DVD burner.
For what it's worth, I loved the PowerBook G4 I had in the early 2000s
and the iMac G5 that replaced it.
I got a 12" PB G4 at one point ... actually still have it: I'll have to see if it still boots up, and what's still on it. Think all of the
Intel MBP laptops got traded-in, but I still have two cheesegraters.
I can't imagine going back to an Android now that I'm with the iPhone
13. I can get used to it again either way, but I never really found
Android to be a pleasant experience.
I do wonder sometimes of how many people are Android users simply
because they are "Apple haters" for whatever reason.
I think it was Civ 3 and/or 5 that I had squandered many an hour on;
was a good diversion at the time.
It's the most perfect game I have ever come across.
The last version I had ran on Steam...hmm...going to have to see if I
can go find my Steam account to try running it again.
(update:Â found some ancient Civ 2(!) files ... and the Steam account
for V ... might be out of touch until mid-January now)
My wife flat-out refuses to get an electric car and considering the
problems they've been shown to have (as well as the fact that they
don't truly benefit "the planet" like they claim), I'm quite happy to
hold onto my gas engine. Besides, electric cars wear out tires faster
even if you accept the risks attached to those vehicles or truly
believe that you're saving the world by owning one.
I suspect that a strategic mistake several automakers have made has been
to try to jump to pure EV instead of the transitional step of a hybrid.
The reason why is because from a manufacturer's perspective, a hybrid is
the worst of both worlds: it has the costs of design & manufacture of
two engines per vehicle instead of just one. Nevertheless, Toyota has announced that they're heading there more broadly. Time will tell to
what degree its been in the back room at a lot of other OEMs which could
be more broadly deployed; I know that Porsche has had a few models ship
with hybrid configurations (eg. Panamera) which didn't get much attention.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 21:58:07 -0500, -hh wrote:
I do wonder sometimes of how many people are Android users simply
because they are "Apple haters" for whatever reason.
When I finally bought a smart phone I don't remember specifically
rejecting Apple. However before that we had started developing a tablet
app on Android so Android probably seemed logical.
We did buy a Mac mini to compile the app for Apple but abandoned the
project. Going through the Apple Store hoops for a proprietary application that would be tied to specific PSAPs wasn't worth the hassle. You can sideload an apk although I've read Google is going to kill that off.
I was surprised by how many public service agencies use Apple tablets and phones. Your tax dollars at work. The dispatch centers themselves are
Windows all the way so if Microsoft hadn't dropped the ball I doubt Apple could have picked it up.
On 2025-12-16 17:03, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/16/25 7:30 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-16 4:59 p.m., Alan wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you at all interested in what he actually said?
Being born on the same day as Steve Jobs got me interested in the
guy. I've seen enough documentaries and read enough articles about
him to know what he said and what he was thinking. He indeed wanted
his products to be priced more to give the impression that they were
luxury items, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge that. It
was that kind of thinking which resulted in the Macintosh which cost
way more than everything else, offered little to no upgradeability
and managed to do a lot less than the competition.
Jobs did a great job steering Apple into what it is today. And yet
who in the hell would pay them for a fuckin' thing?
Empirically, lots of people.
That's what makes them so successful.
They produce something so good that people are willing to buy it even
when there are less expensive choices for which they could opt.
On 2025-12-18 9:58 p.m., -hh wrote:
On 12/17/25 21:50, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-12-17 8:26 p.m., -hh wrote:
[...]
Not to say that Apple is perfect, but in trying to think of the last
time that I had to have a Mac be serviced ... I'd probably have to
go back to a 2005 vintage PowerMac G5's CD/DVD burner.
For what it's worth, I loved the PowerBook G4 I had in the early
2000s and the iMac G5 that replaced it.
I got a 12" PB G4 at one point ... actually still have it:Â I'll have
to see if it still boots up, and what's still on it. Think all of the
Intel MBP laptops got traded-in, but I still have two cheesegraters.
There was something special about the Macs that didn't run on Intel
chips, even back then. Of course, their performance was rather awful at
some point and Apple didn't have a choice but to go to Intel, but the
magic was lost the moment they did so. Luckily, they are back to using
their own chips and have restored that magic.
< snip >
I can't imagine going back to an Android now that I'm with the iPhone
13. I can get used to it again either way, but I never really found
Android to be a pleasant experience.
I do wonder sometimes of how many people are Android users simply
because they are "Apple haters" for whatever reason.
I know that a few are aware of the company (and their government's)
desire to censor everything, so Android's ability to sideload
application is a benefit. Of course, a few manufacturers seem to be
actively disabling that feature, so the benefit won't be around for much longer. Once it's gone, there will truly be no good reason to choose
Android over iOS.
I think it was Civ 3 and/or 5 that I had squandered many an hour on;
was a good diversion at the time.
It's the most perfect game I have ever come across.
The last version I had ran on Steam...hmm...going to have to see if I
can go find my Steam account to try running it again.
(update:Â found some ancient Civ 2(!) files ... and the Steam account
for V ... might be out of touch until mid-January now)
I had the original Civilization on a computer I traded for. I had never heard of the game but the original owner was nice enough to show me how
it worked and I didn't immediately realize how much that game was going
to take over my life. Once the 2 came out, I was dazzled by the full-
motion video. It gave the game some additional personality that made it
even more fun to play. Of course, the personality of the original, with Genghis Khan and others smiling as they're offering you garbage deals
was fun too.
< snip >
My wife flat-out refuses to get an electric car and considering the
problems they've been shown to have (as well as the fact that they
don't truly benefit "the planet" like they claim), I'm quite happy to
hold onto my gas engine. Besides, electric cars wear out tires faster
even if you accept the risks attached to those vehicles or truly
believe that you're saving the world by owning one.
I suspect that a strategic mistake several automakers have made has
been to try to jump to pure EV instead of the transitional step of a
hybrid. The reason why is because from a manufacturer's perspective, a
hybrid is the worst of both worlds: it has the costs of design &
manufacture of two engines per vehicle instead of just one.
Nevertheless, Toyota has announced that they're heading there more
broadly. Time will tell to what degree its been in the back room at a
lot of other OEMs which could be more broadly deployed; I know that
Porsche has had a few models ship with hybrid configurations (eg.
Panamera) which didn't get much attention.
If I were to get an EV of any kind, it would have to be hybrid. If the electric motor fails, I want to know that the traditional engine will
still get me to my destination and vice versa. All I would want is
greater fuel economy. Saving the world is not my concern, especially
since my government and others are busily importing garbage people with
no concern for their immediate environment or social cohesion.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 23:06:35 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 12/16/25 21:17, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:50:48 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
The Apple ][ was built better than the plastic competition, I'll give
you that much. Nevertheless, it was capable of much less than even
Atari's machines.
I don't know how much the demographic has changed but in the Apple II
era I associated Apples with desktop publishing and other artsy stuff.
If you wanted to do something like keep books for your small business
you bought a CP/M box.
hmm...
One of the first times I ever saw a ][ was in a business office setting,
and they were trying out what we now call a 'spreadsheet'. Circa 1980.
I've had very limited exposure to business offices.
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form that was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that businesses were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app":
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
On 12/19/25 12:49 PM, Alan wrote:
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form that
was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that businesses
were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app":
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
IBM certainly has been late to the game, over the course of this. Gates played them well. They adopted Linux when it became the clear platform
of choice for Unix. And yet Apple is always working with stuff that's
too "different", and gets left behind. It's a weird industry, overall,
but I feel great about having Linux as a way to avoid the lameness, of proprietary environments in computing.
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form that
was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that
businesses were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app":
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
IBM certainly has been late to the game, over the course of this.
Gates played them well. They adopted Linux when it became the clear
platform of choice for Unix. And yet Apple is always working with
stuff that's too "different", and gets left behind. It's a weird
industry, overall, but I feel great about having Linux as a way to
avoid the lameness, of proprietary environments in computing.
And as always, you make a reply that basically has nothing to do with
the topic under discussion.
On 12/19/25 2:13 PM, Alan wrote:
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form that
was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that
businesses were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app":
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
IBM certainly has been late to the game, over the course of this.
Gates played them well. They adopted Linux when it became the clear
platform of choice for Unix. And yet Apple is always working with
stuff that's too "different", and gets left behind. It's a weird
industry, overall, but I feel great about having Linux as a way to
avoid the lameness, of proprietary environments in computing.
And as always, you make a reply that basically has nothing to do with
the topic under discussion.
And as always, you expect the flow of discussion to go a certain way,
that it may not.
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form that >>>>> was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that
businesses were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app": >>>>>
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
IBM certainly has been late to the game, over the course of this.
Gates played them well. They adopted Linux when it became the clear >>>> platform of choice for Unix. And yet Apple is always working with
stuff that's too "different", and gets left behind. It's a weird
industry, overall, but I feel great about having Linux as a way to
avoid the lameness, of proprietary environments in computing.
And as always, you make a reply that basically has nothing to do with
the topic under discussion.
And as always, you expect the flow of discussion to go a certain way,
that it may not.
I expect it not to immediately spring off to your favourite bete noire.
A common complaint. In a nutshell, Apple's standards are quite rough on developers, so quite understandably, some develop a hate for products
which are harder for them to work on.
The benefit is (of course) a better customer UI experience, but for
someone who doesn't appreciate the differences, that won't matter.
On 12/19/25 3:23 PM, Alan wrote:
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form
that was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that
businesses were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app": >>>>>>
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
IBM certainly has been late to the game, over the course of this.
Gates played them well. They adopted Linux when it became the
clear platform of choice for Unix. And yet Apple is always working >>>>> with stuff that's too "different", and gets left behind. It's a
weird industry, overall, but I feel great about having Linux as a
way to avoid the lameness, of proprietary environments in computing.
And as always, you make a reply that basically has nothing to do
with the topic under discussion.
And as always, you expect the flow of discussion to go a certain way,
that it may not.
I expect it not to immediately spring off to your favourite bete noire.
You included Apple in your previous statement, about VisiCalc.
They doLOL!
get credit for certain milestones like that. But yet they lag behind Microsoft and Linux due to their esoteric nature.
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form that was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that businesses were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app":
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:05:40 -0500, -hh wrote:
The benefit is (of course) a better customer UI experience, but for
someone who doesn't appreciate the differences, that won't matter.
I would question the 'better' UX. I can't do a A/B comparison since I
don't have any Apple devices but I am not dissatisfied with the Android experience. Maybe I'm a redneck with poor tastes.
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form
that was cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that >>>>>>> businesses were buying Apple II computers for the first "killer >>>>>>> app":
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
IBM certainly has been late to the game, over the course of this. >>>>>> Gates played them well. They adopted Linux when it became the
clear platform of choice for Unix. And yet Apple is always
working with stuff that's too "different", and gets left behind. >>>>>> It's a weird industry, overall, but I feel great about having
Linux as a way to avoid the lameness, of proprietary environments >>>>>> in computing.
And as always, you make a reply that basically has nothing to do
with the topic under discussion.
And as always, you expect the flow of discussion to go a certain
way, that it may not.
I expect it not to immediately spring off to your favourite bete noire.
You included Apple in your previous statement, about VisiCalc.
Because the Apple II was being discussed...
...which you know, because you carefully snipped it out.
They do get credit for certain milestones like that. But yet they lag
behind Microsoft and Linux due to their esoteric nature.
LOL!
Nah, you're just someone with common sense, Android gets shit done, iOS
has to have the signature Apple motif, who could care less? It's
corporate crapware, at the end of the day, fools believe they're getting something "nicer", smart people would like me go for something like the Galaxy S where you just have a robust, functioning setup, iPhones will accomplish most of the same things, maybe even some extra things, I just
hate them.
Nah, you're just someone with common sense, Android gets shit done, iOS
has to have the signature Apple motif, who could care less? It's
corporate crapware, at the end of the day, fools believe they're getting
something "nicer", smart people would like me go for something like the
Galaxy S where you just have a robust, functioning setup, iPhones will
accomplish most of the same things, maybe even some extra things, I just
hate them.
The Galaxy A16 works for me. I don't need a 'flagship'. It could be a
little smaller but some of the heft is the bumper case.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:43:05 -0800, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-16 13:01, chrisv wrote:
Alan wrote:Ummmmmm...no.
And offering higher quality for higher prices is not "giving people
the impression of higher quality".
Lots of companies do this. Economists have a name for it - a Giffen
good.
Look up the actual definition of a "Giffen good" and you'll see that it
doesn't match up very well at all with Apple's products.
Veblen came closer to the Apple model.
I know that a few are aware of the company (and their government's)
desire to censor everything, so Android's ability to sideload
application is a benefit. Of course, a few manufacturers seem to be
actively disabling that feature, so the benefit won't be around for
much longer. Once it's gone, there will truly be no good reason to
choose Android over iOS.
This is alluding to the "walled garden" complaints. As I mentioned to rbowman, its pretty common for developers to hate having specific rules imposed on their work, even if they understand the reasons why. The benefit to customers is fewer security holes/etc and fewer instances of having to deal with "lab rat" quality software with UI violations/etc.
I think it was Civ 3 and/or 5 that I had squandered many an hour
on; was a good diversion at the time.
It's the most perfect game I have ever come across.
The last version I had ran on Steam...hmm...going to have to see if I
can go find my Steam account to try running it again.
(update:Â found some ancient Civ 2(!) files ... and the Steam account
for V ... might be out of touch until mid-January now)
I had the original Civilization on a computer I traded for. I had
never heard of the game but the original owner was nice enough to show
me how it worked and I didn't immediately realize how much that game
was going to take over my life. Once the 2 came out, I was dazzled by
the full- motion video. It gave the game some additional personality
that made it even more fun to play. Of course, the personality of the
original, with Genghis Khan and others smiling as they're offering you
garbage deals was fun too.
Bad news for me is that I got Civ 5 up & running last night ;-)
If I were to get an EV of any kind, it would have to be hybrid. If the
electric motor fails, I want to know that the traditional engine will
still get me to my destination and vice versa. All I would want is
greater fuel economy. Saving the world is not my concern, especially
since my government and others are busily importing garbage people
with no concern for their immediate environment or social cohesion.
Unfortunately, hybrids reduce overall reliability because both drive-
train systems have to be functional in order to operate. Their primary benefit is as you note, better fuel economy - but even this needs to be hedged in terms of where the biggest benefit is, which is where there's
more opportunities for energy regeneration from braking, so its more for stop-n-go city driving than it is for constant-velocity highway driving.
The A16 looks like a great phone. The Galaxy S is nice to have but the
one I've had for four years and counting is still good enough. I
wouldn't replace it just because there was something newer available,
having to constantly upgrade hardware just doesn't make sense, even if I
had money to burn on such a thing.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:49:27 -0800, Alan wrote:
The whole reason that IBM rushed out the original PC in a form that was
cloneable with an OS that they'd only licensed was that businesses were
buying Apple II computers for the first "killer app":
VisiCalc.
The very first spreadsheet program.
Maybe that was IBM's motivation. SuperCalc was available for CP/M shortly after VisiCalc. SuperCalc was going long after VisiCalc was bought by
Lotus and killed.
On 12/19/25 3:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:05:40 -0500, -hh wrote:
The benefit is (of course) a better customer UI experience, but for
someone who doesn't appreciate the differences, that won't matter.
I would question the 'better' UX. I can't do a A/B comparison since I
don't have any Apple devices but I am not dissatisfied with the Android
experience. Maybe I'm a redneck with poor tastes.
Nah, you're just someone with common sense, Android gets shit done,
iOS
has to have the signature Apple motif, who could care less?
It's
corporate crapware, at the end of the day, fools believe they're getting something "nicer", smart people would like me go for something like the Galaxy S where you just have a robust, functioning setup, iPhones will accomplish most of the same things, maybe even some extra things, I just hate them.
As for SuperCalc, sure: it came out for CP/M a year after VisiCalc came
out for the Apple II. What of it?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 14:11:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
As for SuperCalc, sure: it came out for CP/M a year after VisiCalc came
out for the Apple II. What of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-80_SoftCard
The Apple II was so great people wanted to run CP/M on it.
On 2025-12-19 12:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/19/25 3:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:05:40 -0500, -hh wrote:
The benefit is (of course) a better customer UI experience, but for
someone who doesn't appreciate the differences, that won't matter.
I would question the 'better' UX. I can't do a A/B comparison since I
don't have any Apple devices but I am not dissatisfied with the Android
experience. Maybe I'm a redneck with poor tastes.
Nah, you're just someone with common sense, Android gets shit done,
So does iOS.
That's why people keep buying it.
iOS has to have the signature Apple motif, who could care less?
What are you even talking about?
It's corporate crapware, at the end of the day, fools believe they're
getting something "nicer", smart people would like me go for something
like the Galaxy S where you just have a robust, functioning setup,
iPhones will accomplish most of the same things, maybe even some extra
things, I just hate them.
In what ways is Android more "robust" or "functioning" than an iOS device.
On 2025-12-21 23:19, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 14:11:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
As for SuperCalc, sure: it came out for CP/M a year after VisiCalc
came out for the Apple II. What of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-80_SoftCard
The Apple II was so great people wanted to run CP/M on it.
Why are you changing the subject?
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:03:39 -0800, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-21 23:19, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2025 14:11:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
As for SuperCalc, sure: it came out for CP/M a year after VisiCalc
came out for the Apple II. What of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-80_SoftCard
The Apple II was so great people wanted to run CP/M on it.
Why are you changing the subject?
I'm done with the whole subject. Enjoy your Apple.
On 12/21/25 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-19 12:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/19/25 3:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:05:40 -0500, -hh wrote:
The benefit is (of course) a better customer UI experience, but for
someone who doesn't appreciate the differences, that won't matter.
I would question the 'better' UX. I can't do a A/B comparison since I
don't have any Apple devices but I am not dissatisfied with the Android >>>> experience. Maybe I'm a redneck with poor tastes.
Nah, you're just someone with common sense, Android gets shit done,
So does iOS.
That's why people keep buying it.
I mean, it can, but Samsung's devices are more efficient.
iOS has to have the signature Apple motif, who could care less?
What are you even talking about?
Apple is weird by weird people.
It's corporate crapware, at the end of the day, fools believe they're
getting something "nicer", smart people would like me go for
something like the Galaxy S where you just have a robust, functioning
setup, iPhones will accomplish most of the same things, maybe even
some extra things, I just hate them.
In what ways is Android more "robust" or "functioning" than an iOS
device.
The Samsung UI.In what...
On 2025-12-22 07:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/21/25 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-19 12:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/19/25 3:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:05:40 -0500, -hh wrote:
The benefit is (of course) a better customer UI experience, but for >>>>>> someone who doesn't appreciate the differences, that won't matter.
I would question the 'better' UX. I can't do a A/B comparison since I >>>>> don't have any Apple devices but I am not dissatisfied with the
Android
experience. Maybe I'm a redneck with poor tastes.
Nah, you're just someone with common sense, Android gets shit done,
So does iOS.
That's why people keep buying it.
I mean, it can, but Samsung's devices are more efficient.
In what specific way?
iOS has to have the signature Apple motif, who could care less?
What are you even talking about?
Apple is weird by weird people.
So you keep saying...
...without ever once describing what is actually supposed to be weird.
It's corporate crapware, at the end of the day, fools believe
they're getting something "nicer", smart people would like me go for
something like the Galaxy S where you just have a robust,
functioning setup, iPhones will accomplish most of the same things,
maybe even some extra things, I just hate them.
In what ways is Android more "robust" or "functioning" than an iOS
device.
The Samsung UI.
In what...
SPECIFIC
...ways?
In what ways is Android more "robust" or "functioning" than an iOS
device.
The Samsung UI.
In what...
SPECIFIC
...ways?
Apple's UI is quirky.
In what ways is Android more "robust" or "functioning" than an iOS
device.
The Samsung UI.
In what...
SPECIFIC
...ways?
Apple's UI is quirky.
Apple's UI is every bit as functional as Android's, just different.
You have _chosen_ not to learn to use it, nothing more. You simply
don't know what you're missing because you prefer to be blinkered.
On 12/22/25 4:29 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-22 07:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/21/25 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-12-19 12:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/19/25 3:31 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 10:05:40 -0500, -hh wrote:
The benefit is (of course) a better customer UI experience, but for >>>>>>> someone who doesn't appreciate the differences, that won't matter. >>>>>>I would question the 'better' UX. I can't do a A/B comparison since I >>>>>> don't have any Apple devices but I am not dissatisfied with the
Android
experience. Maybe I'm a redneck with poor tastes.
Nah, you're just someone with common sense, Android gets shit done,
So does iOS.
That's why people keep buying it.
I mean, it can, but Samsung's devices are more efficient.
In what specific way?
The app navigation button.
iOS has to have the signature Apple motif, who could care less?
What are you even talking about?
Apple is weird by weird people.
So you keep saying...
...without ever once describing what is actually supposed to be weird.
Lack of app navigation button, requirement to do a maneuver.
It's corporate crapware, at the end of the day, fools believe
they're getting something "nicer", smart people would like me go
for something like the Galaxy S where you just have a robust,
functioning setup, iPhones will accomplish most of the same things, >>>>> maybe even some extra things, I just hate them.
In what ways is Android more "robust" or "functioning" than an iOS
device.
The Samsung UI.
In what...
SPECIFIC
...ways?
Apple's UI is quirky.That doesn't meet the definition of "specific", now does it?
On 12/22/25 5:11 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
In what ways is Android more "robust" or "functioning" than an iOS >>>>>> device.
The Samsung UI.
In what...
SPECIFIC
...ways?
Apple's UI is quirky.
Apple's UI is every bit as functional as Android's, just different.
You have _chosen_ not to learn to use it, nothing more. You simply
don't know what you're missing because you prefer to be blinkered.
Actually, it's objective observation of the two platforms. Apple isn't
for hardcore people. It's much like with macOS. I'm not better than
you because I like Linux and Android, but I am cooler and better put together.
I am cooler and better put together.
I am cooler and better put together.
Really? You really think that? Just look at you...
On 12/22/25 5:45 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
I am cooler and better put together.
Really? You really think that? Just look at you...
I'm not using Apple crapware.
On 12/22/25 5:45 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
I am cooler and better put together.
Really? You really think that? Just look at you...
I'm not using Apple crapware.
On 2025-12-22 18:02, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 12/22/25 5:45 PM, Sn!pe wrote:
I am cooler and better put together.
Really? You really think that? Just look at you...
I'm not using Apple crapware.
Do you not know what a "circular argument" is?
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,090 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 07:46:07 |
| Calls: | 13,942 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 187,032 |
| D/L today: |
4,132 files (1,246M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,459,960 |