Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #411964
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.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 21:21 +0100 |
| Organization | ~ |
| Message-ID | <op.yze9hzopjs98qf@red.lan> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <D527DC7A.A2127%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yzeirppejs98qf@red.lan> <D528C518.A2203%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan> <D528D21B.A2220%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
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. >>> 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. > 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. >>> 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. >> 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? >>> 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. -- Said the Duchess of Windsor at tea, "Young man, do you fart when you pee?" I replied with some wit "Do you belch when you shit?" I think that was one up to me.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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. 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. 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. "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