Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

From	Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech
Subject	Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.
Date	2017-04-28 14:25 -0700
Message-ID	<D529015F.A22C8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <op.yzeirppejs98qf@red.lan> <D528C518.A2203%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan> <D528D21B.A2220%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yze9hzopjs98qf@red.lan>

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/28/17, 1:21 PM, in article op.yze9hzopjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:03:55 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/28/17, 10:13 AM, in article op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>> Of a laptop.  I'm interested in desktops.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And it still doesn't say what processor is in it.  All it admits is it's a
>>>>> "2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" - which could be several of these with
>>>>> completely different performances:
>>>>> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
>>>> 
>>>> Let's see: looking at your options there I see ZERO 2.0 GHz i5s. ZERO.
>>> 
>>> So even worse then, I still have no idea which CPU is in it so I can compare
>>> the speed of the mac to anything else.  GHz is NOT a clear indicator of
>>> speed
>>> as you can see from the chart I linked to.
>> 
>> Did someone say otherwise? If so, whom?
> 
> Apple, by only giving you the GHz.

As shown to you repeatedly this is not even close to the case.

>>>> Yeah, great example.
>>>> 
>>>> Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday.
>>>> 
>>> There aren't any, you STILL have not provided a link where it shows what
>>> processor is in it.  FFS use your control panel to look at what's in yours
>>> if you have a fairly new one.
>>> 
>> I did yesterday and quoted it for you multiple times. And I do, again, below
>> with yet another system.
>> 
> Not the precise model of the CPU, eg 3570K.
> 
You have yet to say what that offers you that Apple does not directly give
you. We are down to you just whining that you want a number that tells you
NOTHING about the system that Apple does not have directly and clearly
listed. You want them to hold your hand to get a chip number that offers no
value you can list.

>> I think you need to take a step back, learn a little about the processors
>> and about what the specs are, and then come back. At this point I have lead
>> you to the water time and time again but you refuse to drink. Nothing else I
>> can do to get you to quench your thirst.
> 
> When I buy a PC, I can go to a few manufacturers, see what components they
> have, compare the speeds of each, and choose who I want to buy from.  Apple
> gives insufficient data to compare.

Incorrect.

>>>> If you actually LOOK at
>>>> the specs Apple gives you they give you all you need. I showed you three
>>>> examples yesterday (iMacs). Now you are asking about a MacBook Pro. Sigh.
>>>> You need a LOT of hand holding.
>>>> 
>>>> Here are the MacBook Pros  <https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/>
>>>> 
>>>> It lists:
>>>>     -----
>>>>     * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz,
>>>>       with 4MB shared L3 cache
>>>>     * Intel Iris Graphics 540
>>>>     -----
>>>> 
>>>> What more do you need to know? How many Intel options are there like that?
>>>> As far as I know that limits it to the Core i5-6360U.
>>> 
>>> So you had to do research to find out which CPU MIGHT be in it.
>> 
>> Of course I had to do "research" and look at Apple's page to get those
>> specs! It is not like I have it memorized for all of their machines! But,
>> for crying out loud, does Dell come to your house and tell you the specs
>> when you mention a machine? NO! You have to go to their site, too!
> 
> I go to their site and they tell me precisely what CPU they use.  I don't have
> to guess like you're doing.

I would *much* more want to know it is a 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5,
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, with 4MB shared L3 cache and an Intel Iris
Graphics 540 than to know it is a Core i5-6360U. But, really, either one is
telling you the same thing... just with the latter you have to do research
to know more to compare it to other CPUs.

>>> Apple are conning you and you're falling for it hook line and sinker, just
>>> like every other dumbass mac user.  Would you buy a car without knowing any
>>> specs?  Dealer says "it's got a big engine in it" - would that be enough for
>>> you?
>> 
>> Hint: when a URL starts with "https://apple.com" it is Apple's site.
> 
> Did I say otherwise?

Yes: you denied that what I showed you from a URL that started that way was
from Apple and said I had to do "research" to find that content.

>>>> So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the complete list
>>>> that matches the specs Apple shows you.
>> 
>> Gee, NO other CPUs from you. None. Meaning if you know what Apple shows you
>> then you know all you need to know. It is not as if you look at those specs
>> and then find another machine listed with the same specs it will have a
>> different CPU.
>> 
>> What more are you hoping to get? What more does having the Intel name give
>> you? So far you have offered NOTHING. Not even saying there might not be
>> some rare cases... but you cannot think of ANY.
> 
> All I want is to know what parts they are using.  If I don't know that, I
> cannot tell if it's a good deal.

I have given you the information you need to move past your challenges here,
how you use that information is up to you.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2017-04-26 21:57 -0400
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:01 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:18 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:55 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:05 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:11 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:20 -0700
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Alogsa <alogsa.cursos@alogsalogistica.com> - 2017-04-29 09:43 +0000
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:41 -0400
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:14 -0500
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 09:28 -0400
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 10:14 -0400
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. mail.m2n Anonymous <mix@mail.m2n.works> - 2017-04-27 23:03 +0800
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:11 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2017-04-27 12:00 -0400
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0700
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. mail.m2n Anonymous <mix@mail.m2n.works> - 2017-04-28 03:18 +0800
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:52 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:52 +0100
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:26 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:31 +0100
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:52 -0700
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 20:57 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:29 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:59 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:07 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:55 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:00 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:05 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:17 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:39 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:46 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:01 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 20:13 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:35 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:44 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:08 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 18:13 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:03 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 15:34 -0500
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:29 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 19:20 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 18:37 -0500
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:25 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-04-28 13:15 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 12:28 -0500
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:56 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Anonymous <mix@mail.killinit.pw> - 2017-04-28 18:40 +0300
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 17:19 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 21:41 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 19:02 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 22:58 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 20:13 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 23:21 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 20:23 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 00:12 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 21:25 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 09:20 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 09:30 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 09:56 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 09:22 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 09:24 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 14:57 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:09 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-28 14:22 -0500
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:25 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 09:26 -0700
  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700

csiph-web