Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #144523 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-26 15:36 -0800 |
| Last post | 2024-11-28 14:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 15:36 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-26 18:56 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 16:01 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-26 19:15 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 16:19 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-26 19:49 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-26 18:17 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 08:27 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 09:53 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 14:13 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 11:29 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 14:45 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:12 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:15 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:44 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:49 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 16:21 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 16:02 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 19:14 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:00 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 16:26 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 16:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 20:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 10:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-28 10:36 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 10:44 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-28 14:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 14:36 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-28 15:58 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:08 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:03 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 13:56 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:10 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 16:21 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:08 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 22:24 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:38 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 23:03 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 20:33 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 00:24 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 09:37 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 13:46 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-03 15:06 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 17:07 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-03 20:57 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 21:05 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 19:04 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 20:07 -0700
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 21:42 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 22:43 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 21:44 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-04 10:34 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-04 00:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-29 12:50 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 17:29 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 07:02 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 14:20 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 14:35 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-30 14:57 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 19:29 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-01 20:23 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-03 09:39 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-03 13:49 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-04 16:30 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-04 19:24 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-05 11:11 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 09:35 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 18:56 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 18:05 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 22:20 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 19:26 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 22:33 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 22:52 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 18:19 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 18:04 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-05 21:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-05 22:32 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-05 20:35 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-06 07:35 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 09:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-06 16:38 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 19:25 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 19:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 17:39 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 22:48 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-07 14:06 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 09:28 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-06 13:48 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-06 10:58 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:31 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-27 16:31 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:01 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:27 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:52 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2024-11-27 22:10 +0000
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 17:31 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2024-11-27 23:07 +0000
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 18:19 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 13:58 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:13 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 16:21 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 19:53 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:09 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 22:27 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 19:35 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-29 12:50 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 17:26 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 06:59 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> - 2024-11-30 04:34 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2024-11-30 09:54 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-11-30 14:22 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 13:52 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2024-11-27 19:58 +1300
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 08:31 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2024-11-28 09:23 +1300
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 15:46 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 12:49 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 16:23 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 16:07 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-27 20:16 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-27 19:22 -0800
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 10:03 -0500
Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-11-28 14:05 -0800
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 19:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vigakc$21500$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144711 |
On 11/30/24 2:57 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>>> TL;DR: your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time >>>> means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put >>>> your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like >>>> it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about >>>> as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert' >>>> chose for you. >>> >>> In other words, the Mac would be half a second faster on a typical >>> operation, at most, who the hell cares, ... >> >> If you really didn't care about responsiveness, then you'd still be >> using your 2010 PC. Strike one. >> >> You'd also not have bragged about how Linux was faster than Windows on >> your 2021 PC. Strike two. >> >> Nor have claimed its a "high end" system, trying (but failing) to claim >> performance parity with the 'overpriced' Mac Studio. Strike three. > > > Strike three on you for three lies. Nope: its all been documented within this thread by posts you made. BTW, there's also a follow-up question to something that you said a few posts earlier on this subthread fork. Here's the extract: Joel>>>> >>>> It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external >>>> drive sucks as a continuous solution. Alan>>> Why? Joel>> >> If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I >> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive. Alan> > 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different > words. > > 2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are > dual-booting. My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs internal/external, etc. For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums, and having at least one be remote site located. FYI, 'remote site' is to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in. So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup copy to a remote site? The main simple options today are either to: a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage, or b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote. A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP: bandwidth speed limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere. For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally installed drive for each transfer to remote. How frequently will depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 20:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pr2qkj1aqnm291jk8ikkgq1ah7gp6pugi9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144713 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >Joel>>>> > >>>> It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external > >>>> drive sucks as a continuous solution. > >Alan>>> Why? > >Joel>> > >> If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I > >> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive. > >Alan> > > 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different > > words. > > > > 2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are > > dual-booting. > >My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs >are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these >are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs >internal/external, etc. > >For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of >having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums, >and having at least one be remote site located. FYI, 'remote site' is >to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying >everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in. > >So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup >copy to a remote site? The main simple options today are either to: > >a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage, >or >b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote. > > >A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP: bandwidth speed >limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere. > >For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an >external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut >down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally >installed drive for each transfer to remote. How frequently will >depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly. In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. My machine isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts. It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to install it comfortably, or if I wanted to have a second modern drive for some other reason. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 09:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vinfp6$7c23$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144720 |
On 2024-12-01 17:23, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> Joel>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external >>>>>> drive sucks as a continuous solution. >> >> Alan>>> Why? >> >> Joel>> >>>> If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I >>>> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive. >> >> Alan> >>> 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different >>> words. >>> >>> 2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are >>> dual-booting. >> >> My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs >> are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these >> are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs >> internal/external, etc. >> >> For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of >> having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums, >> and having at least one be remote site located. FYI, 'remote site' is >> to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying >> everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in. >> >> So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup >> copy to a remote site? The main simple options today are either to: >> >> a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage, >> or >> b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote. >> >> >> A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP: bandwidth speed >> limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere. >> >> For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an >> external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut >> down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally >> installed drive for each transfer to remote. How frequently will >> depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly. > > > In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to > a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. My machine > isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts. > It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to > install it comfortably, or if I wanted to have a second modern drive > for some other reason. > Why are you focused on dual booting as the only reason to have more than one drive?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-03 13:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iikukjlcsjincbal0o07iqmag92fa4sqh7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144828 |
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >> since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to >> a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. My machine >> isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts. >> It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to >> install it comfortably, or if I wanted to have a second modern drive >> for some other reason. > >Why are you focused on dual booting as the only reason to have more than >one drive? I wrote above that it might be other reasons, but it's a reason that matters when you don't want to share one drive between OSes. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <viqhl5$139l2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144720 |
On 12/1/24 8:23 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> Joel>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external >>>>>> drive sucks as a continuous solution. >> >> Alan>>> Why? >> >> Joel>> >>>> If I want two drives, I want them both internal. However, since I >>>> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive. >> >> Alan> >>> 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different >>> words. >>> >>> 2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are >>> dual-booting. >> >> My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs >> are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these >> are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs >> internal/external, etc. >> >> For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of >> having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums, >> and having at least one be remote site located. FYI, 'remote site' is >> to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying >> everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in. >> >> So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup >> copy to a remote site? The main simple options today are either to: >> >> a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage, >> or >> b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote. >> >> >> A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP: bandwidth speed >> limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere. >> >> For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an >> external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut >> down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally >> installed drive for each transfer to remote. How frequently will >> depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly. > > > In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to > a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. Where "isn't totally terrible" is stuff that's 30%-300% faster than your supposedly 'high end' system. > My machine > isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts. > It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to > install it comfortably, ... If one wants to run Windows, just do it in a VM. BTDT. > ... or if I wanted to have a second modern drive > for some other reason. Which will just need to be on an 'external PCIe' instead of internal. Or use network attached storage. If you don't want to buy a NAS, see if your OS allows for sharing directories and use an old PC as a host. And if you think its visually unappealing, put it in another room. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-04 19:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sar1ljdekeh3nqqsucjdimj1675aln1a83@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144912 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to >> a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. > >Where "isn't totally terrible" is stuff that's 30%-300% faster than your >supposedly 'high end' system. Was the iMac or Mac mini of 2021 so much faster than mine? >> My machine >> isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts. >> It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to >> install it comfortably, ... > >If one wants to run Windows, just do it in a VM. BTDT. I could use Wine under Linux or an Intel Mac, but the Parallels solution is great for Apple Silicon, why not, you've paid so much for a MacBook Pro or pimped out other hardware from them, you can certainly boot a VM of Winblows. >> ... or if I wanted to have a second modern drive >> for some other reason. > >Which will just need to be on an 'external PCIe' instead of internal. > >Or use network attached storage. If you don't want to buy a NAS, see if >your OS allows for sharing directories and use an old PC as a host. And >if you think its visually unappealing, put it in another room. I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 11:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <visjbn$1mraa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144917 |
On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>> In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to >>> a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. >> >> Where "isn't totally terrible" is stuff that's 30%-300% faster than your >> supposedly 'high end' system. > > > Was the iMac or Mac mini of 2021 so much faster than mine? I already posted the benchmarks. Couldn't you understand them? >>> My machine >>> isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts. >>> It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to >>> install it comfortably, ... >> >> If one wants to run Windows, just do it in a VM. BTDT. > > I could use Wine under Linux or an Intel Mac, but the Parallels > solution is great for Apple Silicon, why not, you've paid so much for > a MacBook Pro or pimped out other hardware from them, you can > certainly boot a VM of Winblows. When you've already trivialized the $200 cost of an Windows license and a $100 video card, the cost of buying some software is in the same lane. >>> ... or if I wanted to have a second modern drive >>> for some other reason. >> >> Which will just need to be on an 'external PCIe' instead of internal. >> >> Or use network attached storage. If you don't want to buy a NAS, see if >> your OS allows for sharing directories and use an old PC as a host. And >> if you think its visually unappealing, put it in another room. > > I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not > really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real > motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 09:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <viso8o$1oa45$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144947 |
On 2024-12-05 08:11, -hh wrote: > On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> >>>> In fairness, since a Mac system is unlikely to dual-boot, compared to >>>> a PC, the hardware from Apple isn't totally terrible. >>> >>> Where "isn't totally terrible" is stuff that's 30%-300% faster than your >>> supposedly 'high end' system. >> >> >> Was the iMac or Mac mini of 2021 so much faster than mine? > > I already posted the benchmarks. Couldn't you understand them? > > >>>> My machine >>>> isn't really different, it just divides the SoC into different parts. >>>> It's just that if I had some need for Windows, I would be able to >>>> install it comfortably, ... >>> >>> If one wants to run Windows, just do it in a VM. BTDT. >> >> I could use Wine under Linux or an Intel Mac, but the Parallels >> solution is great for Apple Silicon, why not, you've paid so much for >> a MacBook Pro or pimped out other hardware from them, you can >> certainly boot a VM of Winblows. > > When you've already trivialized the $200 cost of an Windows license and > a $100 video card, the cost of buying some software is in the same lane. > > >>>> ... or if I wanted to have a second modern drive >>>> for some other reason. >>> >>> Which will just need to be on an 'external PCIe' instead of internal. >>> >>> Or use network attached storage. If you don't want to buy a NAS, see if >>> your OS allows for sharing directories and use an old PC as a host. And >>> if you think its visually unappealing, put it in another room. >> >> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. > > But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, > and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an > external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. > Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". What??? You're not designing your computer for "bragging rights"??? 😜
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 18:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9af4lj1i1205lljlo51bqvs2uq4mlbf91f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144949 |
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >On 2024-12-05 08:11, -hh wrote: >> On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote: >>> >>> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >>> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. >> >> But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >> and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >> external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". >What??? > >You're not designing your computer for "bragging rights"??? > >? Typical nerd reaction, oh you're so clever with money, meanwhile I've done just fine, all the arguments are bogus. I've made out very well with my computer. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 18:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vitm4j$1v05a$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144962 |
On 2024-12-05 15:56, Joel wrote: > Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >> On 2024-12-05 08:11, -hh wrote: >>> On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote: >>>> >>>> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >>>> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. >>> >>> But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >>> and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >>> external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >>> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". >> What??? >> >> You're not designing your computer for "bragging rights"??? >> >> ? > > > Typical nerd reaction, oh you're so clever with money, meanwhile I've > done just fine, all the arguments are bogus. I've made out very well > with my computer. > You're the one who's been claiming you are "elite" and your computer is "elite"... ...and that you bought certain components for "bragging rights". Those are your words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 22:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <crp4ljte5jld494k376veu33uth7ttjni4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144965 |
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >On 2024-12-05 15:56, Joel wrote: >> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>> On 2024-12-05 08:11, -hh wrote: >>>> On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>>>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >>>>> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. >>>> >>>> But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >>>> and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >>>> external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >>>> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". >>> What??? >>> >>> You're not designing your computer for "bragging rights"??? >>> >>> ? >> >> Typical nerd reaction, oh you're so clever with money, meanwhile I've >> done just fine, all the arguments are bogus. I've made out very well >> with my computer. > >You're the one who's been claiming you are "elite" and your computer is >"elite"... > >...and that you bought certain components for "bragging rights". > >Those are your words. If you could see what Linux is like on my machine, not just macOS's sleekness, not just Windows' tolerability on newish hardware, you'd brag about it too. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 19:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vitqsm$23qm6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144967 |
On 2024-12-05 19:20, Joel wrote: > Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >> On 2024-12-05 15:56, Joel wrote: >>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>> On 2024-12-05 08:11, -hh wrote: >>>>> On 12/4/24 7:24 PM, Joel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>>>>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >>>>>> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. >>>>> >>>>> But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >>>>> and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >>>>> external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >>>>> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". >>>> What??? >>>> >>>> You're not designing your computer for "bragging rights"??? >>>> >>>> ? >>> >>> Typical nerd reaction, oh you're so clever with money, meanwhile I've >>> done just fine, all the arguments are bogus. I've made out very well >>> with my computer. >> >> You're the one who's been claiming you are "elite" and your computer is >> "elite"... >> >> ...and that you bought certain components for "bragging rights". >> >> Those are your words. > > > If you could see what Linux is like on my machine, not just macOS's > sleekness, not just Windows' tolerability on newish hardware, you'd > brag about it too. > No.... ...I really wouldn't. I'm glad it works for you; truly. But a computer is a TOOL. Building a useful tool is not that much of an accomplishment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 22:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f3s4ljhp34i1cuus220b7cebtgivvm73jb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144968 |
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >a computer is a TOOL. > >Building a useful tool is not that much of an accomplishment. That's an insult to the makers of microchips and hardware, minimizes their network of support. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 22:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <viu705$26g1m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144970 |
On 2024-12-05 19:33, Joel wrote: > Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: > >> a computer is a TOOL. >> >> Building a useful tool is not that much of an accomplishment. > > > That's an insult to the makers of microchips and hardware, minimizes > their network of support. > And that is a complete deflection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 18:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <17d4ljd6ajlkjlbf2r86cflqfbjljjoup1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144947 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. > >But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. > Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". I dispute that external drives are equivalent. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 18:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vitm2i$1v05a$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144961 |
On 2024-12-05 15:19, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >>> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. >> >> But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >> and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >> external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". > > > I dispute that external drives are equivalent. Because? You think that external drives can't be accessed quickly? Do you even understand what Thunderbolt is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vitotm$23fab$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144961 |
On 12/5/24 6:19 PM, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>> I can have a second NVMe. I wanted that to be possible. I might not >>> really have the slightest use for it, but it's part of having a real >>> motherboard, I wanted the one I got for a reason. >> >> But you're not unique: I already have a second & third NVMe attached, >> and they has performance parity with your PCIe 3 open slot, plus as an >> external, it is more convenient for sneakernet, remote site backup, etc. >> Plus I actually have a workflow use case need for them, not a "wanna". > > > I dispute that external drives are equivalent. Post benchmarks on your system then. Something that looks like this test I did way back in 2015; <http://www.huntzinger.com/gallery/index.php/Misc/blackmagic-3GB-2015-07-22-OWC> Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 22:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0hr4ljhkatgq9pnje0venf0ckf2k5mpv94@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #144966 |
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: >Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the >slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'. You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-05 20:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vituve$24o7j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144969 |
On 2024-12-05 19:32, Joel wrote: > -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the >> slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'. > > > You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-06 07:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <viur39$2b258$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #144971 |
On 12/5/24 11:35 PM, Alan wrote: > On 2024-12-05 19:32, Joel wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> >>> Make sure to also include an NVMe benched on the open slot that's on the >>> slower PCIe 3 bus that you've been saying is your 'future expansion'. >> >> You act as though PCI-e 3 isn't great already. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)> Joel's acting as though Thunderbolt 3 wasn't great already: * bandwidth of a PCIe 3.0 x4 is 4 gigabytes per second = 4 GB/. * Thunderbolt 3's bandwidth is 4000 MB/s = 5 GB/s. And 2024 Macs have TB5, which means 10 GB/sec bandwidth, enabling an external SSD to perform like a 2TB internal Apple OEM SSD from a 2020 vintage Mac Studio. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web