Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #240220 > unrolled thread

Re: Apple has more record earnings

Started byNobody <nobody@invalid.com>
First post2014-04-25 19:42 -0500
Last post2014-04-26 04:12 -0500
Articles 20 on this page of 135 — 22 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

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.

Contents

  Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-25 19:42 -0500
    Re: Apple has more record earnings 	flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 20:45 -0400
    Re: Apple has more record earnings Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 17:48 -0700
      Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-25 18:02 -0700
      Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 00:42 -0500
        Re: Apple has more record earnings Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-25 22:56 -0700
          Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 01:11 -0500
          Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 11:00 -0500
            Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 09:49 -0700
            Re: Apple has more record earnings Sinister Midget <fardblossom@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 20:09 +0000
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 13:17 -0700
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-26 15:38 -0500
            Re: Apple has more record earnings Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 13:12 -0700
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 13:16 -0700
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-26 16:26 -0400
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-26 15:39 -0500
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-26 17:50 -0400
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 13:58 -0700
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-26 17:52 -0400
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 23:59 +0200
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-27 01:01 +0200
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-26 21:19 -0400
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 07:34 -0500
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-26 19:19 -0600
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 17:11 -0500
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 17:07 -0500
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-26 17:36 -0500
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-27 01:00 +0200
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 17:26 -0700
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 19:44 -0500
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 18:06 -0700
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2014-04-27 09:52 +0100
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-26 21:20 -0400
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 18:26 -0700
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings "Cola Zealot" <Cola_Zealot@fuckoff.com> - 2014-04-27 22:21 +0200
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 13:23 -0700
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-26 16:00 -0700
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 19:29 -0500
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 17:43 -0700
        Re: Apple has more record earnings -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-04-27 18:45 -0700
    Re: Apple has more record earnings Richard Starkey <nobody@ringo.jpunix.net> - 2014-04-26 02:44 -0400
      Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 08:15 -0500
        Re: Apple has more record earnings William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2014-04-26 14:21 +0100
          Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 10:24 -0500
            Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 09:50 -0700
          Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 09:47 -0700
          Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-26 13:11 -0400
            Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 10:24 -0700
            Re: Apple has more record earnings Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 23:53 +0200
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-27 00:07 +0200
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-26 17:35 -0500
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-27 00:57 +0200
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-26 19:56 -0500
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 18:06 -0700
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 01:24 +0000
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 18:26 -0700
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-26 21:27 -0400
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 18:37 -0700
                          To get -your- job done, buy a PC.  Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2014-04-26 19:07 -0700
                            Re: To get -your- job done, buy a PC.  Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 19:11 -0700
                              Re: To get -your- job done, buy a PC. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-04-26 20:26 -0700
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-27 11:19 -0400
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-27 17:46 +0200
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 09:30 -0700
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-27 12:46 -0400
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-27 13:39 -0500
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings "Cola Zealot" <Cola_Zealot@fuckoff.com> - 2014-04-27 22:30 +0200
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 13:35 -0700
                            Re: Apple has more record earnings Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2014-04-27 14:41 -0700
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 15:51 +0200
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 16:00 +0200
                            Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 12:20 -0400
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 11:21 -0600
                                Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 13:33 -0400
                                  Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 12:08 -0600
                                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 21:03 +0200
                                      Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 13:27 -0600
                                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 17:35 -0400
                                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-28 14:49 -0700
                                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 23:53 +0200
                                          Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 18:11 -0400
                                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 17:28 -0400
                            Re: Apple has more record earnings William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2014-04-28 22:47 +0100
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 18:04 -0400
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-27 13:37 -0500
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 12:33 -0700
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-27 19:39 -0400
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 09:14 +0200
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-04-28 05:46 -0400
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-04-28 03:37 -0700
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 13:00 +0200
                            Re: Apple has more record earnings DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-28 08:22 -0400
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-28 14:37 +0200
                                Re: Apple has more record earnings -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-04-28 09:25 -0700
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2014-04-28 08:22 -0400
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-04-28 13:00 -0500
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-04-28 12:08 -0700
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2014-04-28 18:05 -0500
                            Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 19:42 -0400
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-28 16:52 -0700
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2014-04-28 15:49 +0200
                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 12:11 -0400
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 11:26 -0600
                            Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 13:37 -0400
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-04-28 10:58 -0700
                                Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 17:19 -0400
                                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-28 14:31 -0700
                                  Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 16:14 -0600
                                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 18:28 -0400
                                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-29 00:37 +0200
                                        Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 18:44 -0400
                                          Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-29 01:09 +0200
                                            Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 19:52 -0400
                                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2014-04-29 00:26 +0200
                                    Re: Apple has more record earnings chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-29 06:54 -0500
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 12:11 -0600
                                Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 17:32 -0400
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-28 12:52 -0700
                            Re: Apple has more record earnings -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-04-28 14:05 -0700
                              Re: Apple has more record earnings GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2014-04-28 15:11 -0600
                          Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-28 12:51 -0700
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2014-04-27 18:56 -0700
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 20:40 -0700
                      Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-28 08:51 -0400
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 17:31 -0700
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-27 11:13 -0400
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 09:29 -0700
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 17:33 -0700
              Re: Apple has more record earnings Silver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2014-04-27 11:06 -0400
                Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 09:24 -0700
                  Re: Apple has more record earnings Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-27 13:41 -0500
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-27 12:33 -0700
                    Re: Apple has more record earnings chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-28 07:59 -0500
        Re: Apple has more record earnings Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2014-04-26 09:50 -0700
    Re: Apple has more record earnings Jack Ryan <mixmaster@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2014-04-26 04:12 -0500

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

#240724

FromSilver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c>
Date2014-04-28 18:11 -0400
Message-ID<ljmjne$caf$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240721
On 2014-04-28 5:53 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Feature wise both DirectX and OpenGL seem to be on a par, some features are
> better in DirectX and others are better in OpenGL. Neither one has much of
> any advantage over the other.
>
> *But* OpenGL has the advantage of being supported on more platforms,
> including Android, iOS and OSX. This could tip the support in OpenGLs
> direction

The last time I checked, OpenGL actually supports a few more features 
than DirectX does. I read an article about it a few months ago. To be 
honest, it might have been the following post: 
http://rastergrid.com/blog/2011/10/opengl-vs-directx-the-war-is-far-from-over/ 
. Notice that OpenGL 4.x seems to have a gigantic advantage over DirectX.

However, like you said, the very fact that OpenGL is supported on any 
imaginable platform whereas DirectX is exclusive to Windows and the XBOX 
should make the choice very easy for developers. Meanwhile, DirectX is 
still being chosen probably for the sole reason that "Windows uses it" 
in direct relation to its popularity.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240712

FromSilver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c>
Date2014-04-28 17:28 -0400
Message-ID<ljmh5p$od8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240686
On 2014-04-28 2:08 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> On 4/28/2014 11:33 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>> On 2014-04-28 1:21 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>>> As of 2010, Hadron is correct. The same game running natively in Ubuntu
>>>> vs native Windows is likely to run better if it's an OpenGL game.
>>>> However, when using Wine, a GNU/Linux user will indeed expect worse
>>>> performance than in Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a post on Ubuntu's forums about it. It's fairly detailed:
>>>> http://askubuntu.com/questions/163903/gaming-performance-difference-between-windows-and-ubuntu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And another from Phoronix:
>>>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=wine_win7_2010&num=1
>>>>
>>>> However, it should be noted that many of the newer games are coming
>>>> straight to GNU/Linux so the advantage of Windows in this area might be
>>>> disappearing. Performance-wise, OpenGL games run somewhat better under
>>>> GNU/Linux so if the companies, smartly, decide to develop for that
>>>> instead of DirectX, GNU/Linux is likely to become the #1 choice in a few
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>> The OpenGL choice would help it be able to run across a few linux
>>> distros.  But the DirectX for windows  always has been a bit faster than
>>> GL on windows.  Problem with directx is that is isn't that easy to
>>> program.
>>
>> I actually don't understand why DirectX is used considering OpenGL seems
>> to be superior in every way IN ADDITION to being available on all
>> platforms ensuring that a release can be made available without
>> discrimination or delay for all operating systems. I can only assume
>> that DirectX is used either because it's what the programmers the game
>> companies hire learned or because Microsoft is somehow encouraging its use.
>>
> I think it is just Microsofts aversion to OpenGL.  It is provided but it
> is version 1.2.  DirectX does run faster a bit than OpenGL, but not by much.

I guess it can't hurt that gaming video cards are all promoted as 
optimized for DirectX 11 or whatever. I'm not sure what that truly 
entails but I assume that the performance increases are notable to the 
point that it actually makes sense to use DirectX over OpenGL.

Either way, I'm looking forward to the possibility that GNU/Linux will 
indeed be competitive on the gaming level with Windows. The process of 
reinstalling Windows 7 on my 2010 laptop from the recovery disks and 
doing the updates (took me all day, seriously) reminded me that 
installing a GNU/Linux distribution is a LOT less time-consuming than 
Windows and kind of made me wish that I didn't exclusively have to run 
to Microsoft for the quality that I expect.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240718

FromWilliam Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net>
Date2014-04-28 22:47 +0100
Message-ID<2tu23b-ik2.ln1@myhost.linuxnetworkbeta.net>
In reply to#240629
Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> writes:
>> 
>>> Silver Slimer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-04-26 6:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>>> Most apple machine *can't* play those games, the hardware is way too
>>>>>>> limited for that. And impossible to upgrade. YOu have to buy the
>>>>>>> machines with the config needed, you don't get any upgrade
>>>>>>> posibilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Utter bullshit Peter.  While Apple puts about zero emphasis on
>>>>>> marketing to the gamers, they can and do play many games, including
>>>>>> Windows ones, just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not as many as linux can, though
>>>> 
>>>> The reality is that OS X plays a few more games than GNU/Linux does if
>>>> we're only speaking about native ones. However, like I mentioned
>>>> earlier, GNU/Linux gets drivers directly from the manufacturer if the
>>>> user chooses to use a proprietary driver and they are updated a lot more
>>>> regularly than Mac ones are. GNU/Linux therefore gets the advantage as
>>>> far as performance goes. In fact, if the game is programmed with OpenGL
>>>> in mind, GNU/Linux gets the best performance of all three platforms.
>>>> 
>>>
>>> You can just by installing wine get about 60% - 70% of the PC games to
>>> run under linux. Several will run even faster than nativly under windows
>> 
>> Bull fucking shit.
>> 
>> You're an ignorant liar.
>> 
>
> Feel free to prove me wrong, lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry

The trolling fuckwit had better tell Steam too, who said their games ran
better & faster in Linux than in his beloved Windoze.

> You continue to prove beyond any doubt that dirt is real smart compared to 
> scum like you

-- 
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. 
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." 
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240722

FromSilver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c>
Date2014-04-28 18:04 -0400
Message-ID<ljmj90$908$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240718
On 2014-04-28 5:47 PM, William Poaster wrote:

>> Feel free to prove me wrong, lying imbecile Hadron Snit Msg-ID Larry
>
> The trolling fuckwit had better tell Steam too, who said their games ran
> better & faster in Linux than in his beloved Windoze.

I wouldn't expect a company which has an interest in releasing an 
operating system and hardware based on GNU/Linux to say otherwise. 
However, if OpenGL is what they use, I'm not entirely surprised.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240491

FromLloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com>
Date2014-04-27 13:37 -0500
Message-ID<bs513mFfvtdU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#240466
On 2014-04-27 15:19:20 +0000, Silver Slimer said:

> On 2014-04-26 6:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>>>> Most apple machine *can't* play those games, the hardware is way too
>>>> limited for that. And impossible to upgrade. YOu have to buy the machines
>>>> with the config needed, you don't get any upgrade posibilities.
>>> 
>>> Utter bullshit Peter.  While Apple puts about zero emphasis on
>>> marketing to the gamers, they can and do play many games, including
>>> Windows ones, just fine.
>> 
>> Not as many as linux can, though
> 
> The reality is that OS X plays a few more games than GNU/Linux does if 
> we're only speaking about native ones. However, like I mentioned 
> earlier, GNU/Linux gets drivers directly from the manufacturer if the 
> user chooses to use a proprietary driver and they are updated a lot 
> more regularly than Mac ones are. GNU/Linux therefore gets the 
> advantage as far as performance goes. In fact, if the game is 
> programmed with OpenGL in mind, GNU/Linux gets the best performance of 
> all three platforms.

But the reality is that if pc gaming is important to you, you get the 
machine that will do it the best.  Hint, that isn't Linux, nor is it 
OSX.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240499

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2014-04-27 12:33 -0700
Message-ID<CF82A99C.35D5F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#240491
On 4/27/14, 11:37 AM, in article bs513mFfvtdU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd  E
Parsons" <lloydp21@live.com> wrote:

> On 2014-04-27 15:19:20 +0000, Silver Slimer said:
> 
>> On 2014-04-26 6:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Most apple machine *can't* play those games, the hardware is way too
>>>>> limited for that. And impossible to upgrade. YOu have to buy the machines
>>>>> with the config needed, you don't get any upgrade posibilities.
>>>> 
>>>> Utter bullshit Peter.  While Apple puts about zero emphasis on
>>>> marketing to the gamers, they can and do play many games, including
>>>> Windows ones, just fine.
>>> 
>>> Not as many as linux can, though
>> 
>> The reality is that OS X plays a few more games than GNU/Linux does if
>> we're only speaking about native ones. However, like I mentioned
>> earlier, GNU/Linux gets drivers directly from the manufacturer if the
>> user chooses to use a proprietary driver and they are updated a lot
>> more regularly than Mac ones are. GNU/Linux therefore gets the
>> advantage as far as performance goes. In fact, if the game is
>> programmed with OpenGL in mind, GNU/Linux gets the best performance of
>> all three platforms.
> 
> But the reality is that if pc gaming is important to you, you get the
> machine that will do it the best.  Hint, that isn't Linux, nor is it
> OSX.

Exactly.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240560

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2014-04-27 19:39 -0400
Message-ID<ljk4fo$5uf$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240410
On 04/26/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:

>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware and
>> designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>
> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?


Don't play JED-dumb here.

Which Apple computer are you referring to?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240582

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2014-04-28 09:14 +0200
Message-ID<ljkv3o$boo$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240560
DFS wrote:

> On 04/26/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware and
>>> designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>>
>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
> 
> 
> Don't play JED-dumb here.
> 
> Which Apple computer are you referring to?

Most

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240585

FromChris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
Date2014-04-28 05:46 -0400
Message-ID<ljl827$28l$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240582
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 04/26/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware and
>>>> designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>>>
>>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
>> 
>> Don't play JED-dumb here.
>> 
>> Which Apple computer are you referring to?
>
> Most

Who is DFS, to make fun of someone for being *dumb*?

-- 
It is impossible to experience one's death objectively and still carry a tune.
		-- Woody Allen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240591

From-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Date2014-04-28 03:37 -0700
Message-ID<d71e68b4-2dd7-409b-af8b-0fdea1e4293b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#240582
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
> > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
> >>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware and
> >>> designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
> 
> >> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
> 
> > Don't play JED-dumb here.
> > Which Apple computer are you referring to?
> 
> Most

Being vague is playing JED-dumb.

In any case, here's the first one to strike off of the list:

<http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173695-apples-new-overpriced-10000-mac-pro-is-2000-cheaper-than-the-equivalent-windows-pc>

Apple's is 20% cheaper than a DIY PC.  


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240593

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2014-04-28 13:00 +0200
Message-ID<ljlccc$tos$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240591
-hh wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>> > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> >> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>> >>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware
>> >>> and designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>> 
>> >> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
>> 
>> > Don't play JED-dumb here.
>> > Which Apple computer are you referring to?
>> 
>> Most
> 
> Being vague is playing JED-dumb.
> 
> In any case, here's the first one to strike off of the list:

It is rather the only one

> <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173695-apples-new-overpriced-10000-mac-pro-is-2000-cheaper-than-the-equivalent-windows-pc>
> 
> Apple's is 20% cheaper than a DIY PC.
> 

That is probably the only one which does not cost more. And it is only true 
if you try to mimick the MacPro. You can get comparable performing machines 
for much less

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240600

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2014-04-28 08:22 -0400
Message-ID<ljlh6o$ua3$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240593
On 04/28/2014 07:00 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware
>>>>>> and designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>>>
>>>>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
>>>
>>>> Don't play JED-dumb here.
>>>> Which Apple computer are you referring to?
>>>
>>> Most
>>
>> Being vague is playing JED-dumb.
>>
>> In any case, here's the first one to strike off of the list:
>
> It is rather the only one
>
>> <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173695-apples-new-overpriced-10000-mac-pro-is-2000-cheaper-than-the-equivalent-windows-pc>
>>
>> Apple's is 20% cheaper than a DIY PC.
>>
>
> That is probably the only one which does not cost more. And it is only true
> if you try to mimick the MacPro. You can get comparable performing machines
> for much less


Prove it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240605

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2014-04-28 14:37 +0200
Message-ID<ljli1o$65a$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240600
DFS wrote:

> On 04/28/2014 07:00 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware
>>>>>>> and designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>>>>
>>>>>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the
>>>>>> same"?
>>>>
>>>>> Don't play JED-dumb here.
>>>>> Which Apple computer are you referring to?
>>>>
>>>> Most
>>>
>>> Being vague is playing JED-dumb.
>>>
>>> In any case, here's the first one to strike off of the list:
>>
>> It is rather the only one
>>
>>> <http://www.extremetech.com/computing/173695-apples-new-overpriced-10000-mac-pro-is-2000-cheaper-than-the-equivalent-windows-pc>
>>>
>>> Apple's is 20% cheaper than a DIY PC.
>>>
>>
>> That is probably the only one which does not cost more. And it is only
>> true if you try to mimick the MacPro. You can get comparable performing
>> machines for much less
> 
> 
> Prove it.

No. Has been done often enough.
It is not my problem if you can't google

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240649

From-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Date2014-04-28 09:25 -0700
Message-ID<9d522600-9e48-42e7-ab57-fb0e9fb2160e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#240605
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
> > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >> -hh wrote:
> >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>>> DFS wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >>>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware
> >>>>>>> and designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
> 
> >>>>>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the
> >>>>>> same"?
>
> >>>>> Don't play JED-dumb here.
> >>>>> Which Apple computer are you referring to?
> >>>>
> >>>> Most
> >>>
> >>> Being vague is playing JED-dumb.
> >>> In any case, here's the first one to strike off of the list:
> >>> [top Mac Pro is $2,000 cheaper than DIY]
> >>> Apple's is 20% cheaper than a DIY PC.
> >>
> >> It is rather the only one
> >> That is probably the only one which does not cost more. 

Except that the original claim was that they cost twice as much;
to change that to "cost more" is a goalpost move.

> >> And it is only true if you try to mimick the MacPro.

A useless statement, because matching hardware specs is
precisely how one does such comparisons.  Even so, the 
article also pointed out that the DIY comparison still 
wasn't up to hardware equivalency:

  "Despite costing $2,000 more than the Mac Pro, the
   DIY PC isn't even as good: It has 32GB of RAM instead
   of 64GB (non-registered 16GB DIMMs don't seem to exist),
   and the PC doesn't have Thunderbolt support." 


> >> You can get comparable performing machines for much less
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> No. Has been done often enough.

Not within the past decade, and even then, the only way
that anyone has ever illustrated "costs twice as much" 
differences is by NOT building a comparable performing machine.


> It is not my problem if you can't google

Ad Hominem personal attack fallacy attempt, where Peter is
trying to avoid admitting that PCs with comparatively 
equal hardware specs (including SWAP) at half of Apple's 
price simply do not exist:

5/13 27" iMac:  DIY 20% cheaper, OEM (HP):  30% more expensive

<http://wolfcrow.com/blog/mac-vs-pc-a-price-comparison/>   20%

10/13:  21" iMac:  OEM (Dell):  11% cheaper
<http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/apple-in-the-enterprise/imac-vs-a-comparable-windows-box-the-tco-lowdown/>

Moving to laptops:

Macbook Air  11" (15% more, but deemed "better value" vs Surface Pro 2)
<http://blog.laptopmag.com/macbook-air-vs-surface-pro-2>

And more models, incl 13", at up to 20% less to 7% more:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/211930/macair_tested2.html>

15" Macbook Pro vs Dell XPS15:  17% price difference.

<http://www.techradar.com/us/news/mobile-computing/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-late-2013-vs-dell-xps-15-late-2013--1193211>

...so far, absolutely zero cases found of the claimed "2x more".  

And the two Mac Pros, both iMacs, both Airs and 15" MBP 
have been covered, which pretty much leaves only the mini 
and the small MBP to check out... but even if both of these
are found to be "2x", that's 2 out of 7, which leaves 60%
of the models contrary to Peter's "most" claim.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240599

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2014-04-28 08:22 -0400
Message-ID<ljlh5o$ua3$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240582
On 04/28/2014 03:14 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 04/26/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>
>>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware and
>>>> designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>>>
>>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
>>
>>
>> Don't play JED-dumb here.
>>
>> Which Apple computer are you referring to?
>
> Most


You're one of the laziest "advocates", Kohlmann.  Rarely if ever any 
proof or research or links to backup your claims.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240685

FromJEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet>
Date2014-04-28 13:00 -0500
Message-ID<slrnllt5q9.g0o.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
In reply to#240582
On 2014-04-28, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 04/26/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware and
>>>> designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>>>
>>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
>> 
>> 
>> Don't play JED-dumb here.

    Get rid of the laptop form factor fixation and prices get a LOT better.

    This even applies for laptops but is most pronounced in desktop systems
where everything gets cheaper and easier to deal with once you've got some
space to work with inside the PC.

>> 
>> Which Apple computer are you referring to?
>
> Most


-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240695

From-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Date2014-04-28 12:08 -0700
Message-ID<f0135385-aebc-40aa-8a32-597a0819656e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#240685
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>     Get rid of the laptop form factor fixation and prices get a LOT better.


True JED, but when one needs a laptop, a desktop is not an equivalent system.

This is the "SWAP" (Size Weight and Power) metric and it can't be so simplistically ignored, even on Personal Computers.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240740

FromNobody <nobody@invalid.com>
Date2014-04-28 18:05 -0500
Message-ID<k9B7v.187795$Ng5.155829@fx17.iad>
In reply to#240685
On 04/28/2014 01:00 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2014-04-28, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/26/2014 06:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The hardware is excellent and wintel boxes with the better hardware and
>>>>> designs cost about the same, though slightly less.
>>>>
>>>> Around 2 times as much as a comparable wintel box is "about the same"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't play JED-dumb here.
>
>      Get rid of the laptop form factor fixation and prices get a LOT better.
>
>      This even applies for laptops but is most pronounced in desktop systems
> where everything gets cheaper and easier to deal with once you've got some
> space to work with inside the PC.

Case in point:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8909245&CatId=2627

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a PC that's a better deal 
than a Mac!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240749

FromSilver Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c>
Date2014-04-28 19:42 -0400
Message-ID<ljmp1e$d5h$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#240740
On 2014-04-28 7:05 PM, Nobody wrote:

>>      This even applies for laptops but is most pronounced in desktop
>> systems
>> where everything gets cheaper and easier to deal with once you've got
>> some
>> space to work with inside the PC.
>
> Case in point:
>
> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8909245&CatId=2627
>
>
> You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a PC that's a better deal
> than a Mac!

For that price, 2GB of RAM is a total ripoff. You'd expect at least 4GB.

-- 
Silver Slimer
Wikipedia & OpenMedia Supporter

163 Reasons not to deal with Michael "Snit" Glasser, the Prescott 
Computer Guy
http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240751

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2014-04-28 16:52 -0700
Message-ID<CF8437BE.35ECA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#240749
On 4/28/14, 4:42 PM, in article ljmp1e$d5h$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:

> On 2014-04-28 7:05 PM, Nobody wrote:
> 
>>>      This even applies for laptops but is most pronounced in desktop
>>> systems
>>> where everything gets cheaper and easier to deal with once you've got
>>> some
>>> space to work with inside the PC.
>> 
>> Case in point:
>> 
>> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=89
>> 09245&CatId=2627
>> 
>> 
>> You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a PC that's a better deal
>> than a Mac!
> 
> For that price, 2GB of RAM is a total ripoff. You'd expect at least 4GB.

Still waiting for the price comparisons of complete systems which show Macs
costing more than comparable Windows PCs. You might find some - but you will
run into many counter examples before you do.


-- 
* Mint MATE: Trash, Panel, Menu:    <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint / LibreOffice:               <http://youtu.be/USU9iqppfto>
* Win 8 / Word 2013:                <http://youtu.be/z8gUL2TCcV4>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1:            <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web