Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630793 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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.
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-26 22:41 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 08:14 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-27 09:28 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 10:14 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 14:52 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 19:31 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 20:57 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 13:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 21:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 14:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 22:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:05 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:39 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 15:46 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:01 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-27 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:35 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 11:44 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 18:13 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:21 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 15:34 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:56 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 17:02 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:47 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 22:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 15:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 23:26 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-09 20:11 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-10 02:20 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-10 12:59 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-28 19:20 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 18:37 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-09 21:24 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:37 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 13:42 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-09 16:44 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-09 17:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-09 14:49 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:59 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-04-28 13:15 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2017-04-28 12:28 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-07 23:55 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:03 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:05 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-26 16:36 -0700
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 23:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. |
| Message-ID | <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan> |
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:59:06 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/18/17, 1:52 PM, in article op.yywr80kbjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>> Nope. Every time I've compared like for like power, the macs >>>> have been about double the price. I even know someone who loved >>>> macs and hated windows, but converted to windows solely because >>>> of Apple's over inflated prices. >>> >>> apple's prices are very competitive, often lower than other similar >>> products. >>> >>> for instance, an imac 5k costs about the same as a dell 5k *display* >>> alone, which still needs a computer. >> >> Bullshit. Apple has always been double the price of a PC. > > I do not have recent comparisons, but older ones do not support your > position. I included EVERY comparison shown to me that met the criteria > listed: > > <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. I just tried going to Apple's site and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me where I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. -- Circumvent (n.), an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 18:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260420171829143596%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #630793 |
In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, > Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. not for the same specs, you didn't. a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k that includes a computer. > I just tried going to Apple's site > and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me where > I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. apple.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 00:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630796 |
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. > > not for the same specs, you didn't. Yes I did. > a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k > that includes a computer. Let's stick to the computers to begin with shall we? >> I just tried going to Apple's site >> and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me where >> I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. > > apple.com That's where I was, they use vague terms like "quad core i5 processor". Typical of Apple, they don't want to give away too much. There are many quad core i5 processors, of vastly differing specs and prices. -- U2's on-tour sound system weighs 30 tons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 18:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52698E8.A1F4F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630806 |
On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >> >> not for the same specs, you didn't. > > Yes I did. Interesting how you cannot share these specs. >> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k >> that includes a computer. > > Let's stick to the computers to begin with shall we? You mean the ones you cannot compare specs. OK. >>> I just tried going to Apple's site >>> and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me >>> where >>> I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. >> >> apple.com > > That's where I was, they use vague terms like "quad core i5 processor". > Typical of Apple, they don't want to give away too much. There are many quad > core i5 processors, of vastly differing specs and prices. Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzcwsceljs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630822 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:35:20 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >>> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >>> >>> not for the same specs, you didn't. >> >> Yes I did. > > Interesting how you cannot share these specs. Why would I have noted them down? All I needed at the time was an answer as to what was cheaper. >>> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k >>> that includes a computer. >> >> Let's stick to the computers to begin with shall we? > > You mean the ones you cannot compare specs. OK. See below. >>>> I just tried going to Apple's site >>>> and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me >>>> where >>>> I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. >>> >>> apple.com >> >> That's where I was, they use vague terms like "quad core i5 processor". >> Typical of Apple, they don't want to give away too much. There are many quad >> core i5 processors, of vastly differing specs and prices. > > Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? Most companies make it easy to see what you're buying, Apple don't. This is the path I took: https://www.apple.com Ignore the huge images flashing past in my face, and click "Mac" on the top menu. Then click "Imac" in the menu that appears below it. Scroll past reams of advertising and click "Compare Imac models" at the bottom of the page. For some reason I'm now presented with laptops when I wanted a desktop. Scroll down a few pages to the first desktop (Imac 21.5 inch). All it lists here is a choice of two vague processors (1.6GHz dual-core or 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor) To get more information, I try comparing it to the one on it's right. Same vague processor information given. Let's try "learn more". Nope, more reams of advertising. At this point I gave up. -- There is a big controversy on the Jewish view of when life begins. In Jewish tradition, the foetus is not considered viable until it graduates from law school.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527653A.A1FED%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630878 |
On 4/27/17, 6:51 AM, in article op.yzcwsceljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:35:20 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >>>> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>>>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >>>> >>>> not for the same specs, you didn't. >>> >>> Yes I did. >> >> Interesting how you cannot share these specs. > > Why would I have noted them down? All I needed at the time was an answer as > to what was cheaper. So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells, not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim. OK. ... >> Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? > > Most companies make it easy to see what you're buying, Apple don't. This is > the path I took: > https://www.apple.com > Ignore the huge images flashing past in my face, and click "Mac" on the top > menu. > Then click "Imac" in the menu that appears below it. > Scroll past reams of advertising and click "Compare Imac models" at the bottom > of the page. > For some reason I'm now presented with laptops when I wanted a desktop. > Scroll down a few pages to the first desktop (Imac 21.5 inch). > All it lists here is a choice of two vague processors (1.6GHz dual-core or > 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor) > To get more information, I try comparing it to the one on it's right. > Same vague processor information given. > Let's try "learn more". Nope, more reams of advertising. > At this point I gave up. With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the CPU specs you want. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 19:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzc9uitnjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630890 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:07:06 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 6:51 AM, in article op.yzcwsceljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:35:20 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/17, 4:28 PM, in article op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:29:14 +0100, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <op.yzbpu01gjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword >>>>> <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, >>>>>> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. >>>>> >>>>> not for the same specs, you didn't. >>>> >>>> Yes I did. >>> >>> Interesting how you cannot share these specs. >> >> Why would I have noted them down? All I needed at the time was an answer as >> to what was cheaper. > > So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells, > not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim. > > OK. You find me an Apple computer for sale with actual specs so I know what motherboard and processor and memory and so forth are in it, the exact models, then I'll do a comparison. Without that info a comparison is not possible. When I did the comparison at my work, I most likely used the detailed specs given by our local Apple supplier. >>> Which Mac can you not find the specifics for? >> >> Most companies make it easy to see what you're buying, Apple don't. This is >> the path I took: >> https://www.apple.com >> Ignore the huge images flashing past in my face, and click "Mac" on the top >> menu. >> Then click "Imac" in the menu that appears below it. >> Scroll past reams of advertising and click "Compare Imac models" at the bottom >> of the page. >> For some reason I'm now presented with laptops when I wanted a desktop. >> Scroll down a few pages to the first desktop (Imac 21.5 inch). >> All it lists here is a choice of two vague processors (1.6GHz dual-core or >> 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor) >> To get more information, I try comparing it to the one on it's right. >> Same vague processor information given. >> Let's try "learn more". Nope, more reams of advertising. >> At this point I gave up. > > With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the > CPU specs you want. Pick anything you like, something mid range if you want so we're not dealing with budget stuff or extreme gaming stuff where prices can vary a lot. I cetainly can't be bothered navigating their godawful website. It's full of adverts with no information. -- An old Irish farmer's dog goes missing and he's inconsolable. His wife says "Why don't you put an advert in the paper?" He does, but two weeks later the dog is still missing. "What did you put in the paper?" his wife asks. "Here boy" he replies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5278D6A.A2066%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630915 |
On 4/27/17, 11:33 AM, in article op.yzc9uitnjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
...
>> So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells,
>> not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim.
>>
>> OK.
>
> You find me an Apple computer for sale with actual specs so I know what
> motherboard and processor and memory and so forth are in it, the exact models,
> then I'll do a comparison. Without that info a comparison is not possible.
Either you know how to find those specs yourself or you lied when you said
you already made such a comparison.
> When I did the comparison at my work, I most likely used the detailed specs
> given by our local Apple supplier.
You can get the specs however you want. Meanwhile, though admittedly
outdated, I am happy to point to comparisons made by outside sources:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices>
The idea that Macs are more considerably expensive than comparable machines
does not fit the data. With that said, it *is* true you have fewer options
on what to add or not add: if you, for example, do not want both wireless
and wired network connections, or do not want he IR input, etc. you cannot
opt out. So in that way you might be able to get a system that meets the
specs YOU want which is considerably cheaper than what Apple offers.
There is still the question as to the tasks you want to use the machine for.
Which will serve you better and why? And what resources do you have to get
it -- financial and older software, etc.
Even just personal preference comes into play... so use what you like that
fits your needs. I personally use macOS, Windows, and Linux.
...
>> With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the
>> CPU specs you want.
>
> Pick anything you like, something mid range if you want so we're not dealing
> with budget stuff or extreme gaming stuff where prices can vary a lot. I
> cetainly can't be bothered navigating their godawful website. It's full of
> adverts with no information.
So you have no specific Mac you cannot find the CPU specs you want on it.
OK.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 21:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzddw5a2js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630921 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:58:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 11:33 AM, in article op.yzc9uitnjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>> So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells, >>> not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim. >>> >>> OK. >> >> You find me an Apple computer for sale with actual specs so I know what >> motherboard and processor and memory and so forth are in it, the exact models, >> then I'll do a comparison. Without that info a comparison is not possible. > > Either you know how to find those specs yourself or you lied when you said > you already made such a comparison. It's written in the next line. Don't interrupt. >> When I did the comparison at my work, I most likely used the detailed specs >> given by our local Apple supplier. > > You can get the specs however you want. Meanwhile, though admittedly > outdated, I am happy to point to comparisons made by outside sources: The specs should be on the Apple webpage. Simply not good enough. > <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> I'm still waiting for a pricelist with proper specs from you. > The idea that Macs are more considerably expensive than comparable machines > does not fit the data. With that said, it *is* true you have fewer options > on what to add or not add: if you, for example, do not want both wireless > and wired network connections, or do not want he IR input, etc. you cannot > opt out. So in that way you might be able to get a system that meets the > specs YOU want which is considerably cheaper than what Apple offers. > > There is still the question as to the tasks you want to use the machine for. > Which will serve you better and why? And what resources do you have to get > it -- financial and older software, etc. > > Even just personal preference comes into play... so use what you like that > fits your needs. I personally use macOS, Windows, and Linux. > > ... >>> With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the >>> CPU specs you want. >> >> Pick anything you like, something mid range if you want so we're not dealing >> with budget stuff or extreme gaming stuff where prices can vary a lot. I >> cetainly can't be bothered navigating their godawful website. It's full of >> adverts with no information. > > So you have no specific Mac you cannot find the CPU specs you want on it. > OK. I don't mind what Mac it is, I just want to compare like with like to see if you're correct about them no longer being double the price. For that I need to know exactly what CPU, SSD, RAM, etc is in it so I can compare it to a PC supplier. Apple hide this information on their website. -- Peter is now listening to "Guo Yi & Guo Yue - Mongolian Horse"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527A039.A208A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630929 |
On 4/27/17, 1:01 PM, in article op.yzddw5a2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:58:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/27/17, 11:33 AM, in article op.yzc9uitnjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >> ... >>>> So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells, >>>> not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim. >>>> >>>> OK. >>> >>> You find me an Apple computer for sale with actual specs so I know what >>> motherboard and processor and memory and so forth are in it, the exact >>> models, >>> then I'll do a comparison. Without that info a comparison is not possible. >> >> Either you know how to find those specs yourself or you lied when you said >> you already made such a comparison. > > It's written in the next line. Don't interrupt. > >>> When I did the comparison at my work, I most likely used the detailed specs >>> given by our local Apple supplier. >> >> You can get the specs however you want. Meanwhile, though admittedly >> outdated, I am happy to point to comparisons made by outside sources: > > The specs should be on the Apple webpage. Simply not good enough. As I showed, they are. The speed. The GPU. Everything you asked about in terms of SPECS are there. But you are looking for reasons to whine. So be it. >> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> > > I'm still waiting for a pricelist with proper specs from you. You are the one who said Mac were twice the cost. I have shown you that the evidence goes contrary to your claim but, admittedly, the evidence is old. So maybe you have newer evidence that shows it has changed. But no reason to think so. This leaves us with the conclusion that you fabricated a story about Macs being twice the price of comparable machines, and when faced with your complete lack of evidence you asked me to help you get MORE specs than I already have. Nope. I am not going to help you even more to play your make-believe game of Macs being twice the price of similar PCs. Instead I am just calling you out: you made up the claim. You lied and were busted. Fine. Now we can move on to the next topic. >> The idea that Macs are more considerably expensive than comparable machines >> does not fit the data. With that said, it *is* true you have fewer options >> on what to add or not add: if you, for example, do not want both wireless >> and wired network connections, or do not want he IR input, etc. you cannot >> opt out. So in that way you might be able to get a system that meets the >> specs YOU want which is considerably cheaper than what Apple offers. >> >> There is still the question as to the tasks you want to use the machine for. >> Which will serve you better and why? And what resources do you have to get >> it -- financial and older software, etc. >> >> Even just personal preference comes into play... so use what you like that >> fits your needs. I personally use macOS, Windows, and Linux. >> >> ... >>>> With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the >>>> CPU specs you want. >>> >>> Pick anything you like, something mid range if you want so we're not dealing >>> with budget stuff or extreme gaming stuff where prices can vary a lot. I >>> cetainly can't be bothered navigating their godawful website. It's full of >>> adverts with no information. >> >> So you have no specific Mac you cannot find the CPU specs you want on it. >> OK. > > I don't mind what Mac it is, I just want to compare like with like to see if > you're correct about them no longer being double the price. No evidence they ever were -- remember, you made up that claim and showed no evidence. Now you are just whining that Apple is not holding your hand enough to give you a number few care about and they instead give you specs about actual things that impact the speed of the machine. Even with that I offered to help you find specs and you did not care enough to say even what machine you are having a hard time finding the specs for. > For that I need to know exactly what CPU, SSD, RAM, etc is in it so I can > compare it to a PC supplier. Apple hide this information on their website. As I showed you they gave the specs needed... you just want more hand holding. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 21:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdgfbxjjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630931 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:18:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 1:01 PM, in article op.yzddw5a2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:58:34 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/27/17, 11:33 AM, in article op.yzc9uitnjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>> So you have no example of Macs being twice the price of comparable Dells, >>>>> not any price comparisons made by reputable sources to back such a claim. >>>>> >>>>> OK. >>>> >>>> You find me an Apple computer for sale with actual specs so I know what >>>> motherboard and processor and memory and so forth are in it, the exact >>>> models, >>>> then I'll do a comparison. Without that info a comparison is not possible. >>> >>> Either you know how to find those specs yourself or you lied when you said >>> you already made such a comparison. >> >> It's written in the next line. Don't interrupt. >> >>>> When I did the comparison at my work, I most likely used the detailed specs >>>> given by our local Apple supplier. >>> >>> You can get the specs however you want. Meanwhile, though admittedly >>> outdated, I am happy to point to comparisons made by outside sources: >> >> The specs should be on the Apple webpage. Simply not good enough. > > As I showed, they are. The speed. The GPU. Everything you asked about in > terms of SPECS are there. But you are looking for reasons to whine. So be > it. The speed is not the specs of the CPU. You clearly know nothing about CPUs. >>> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> >> >> I'm still waiting for a pricelist with proper specs from you. > > You are the one who said Mac were twice the cost. I have shown you that the > evidence goes contrary to your claim but, admittedly, the evidence is old. > So maybe you have newer evidence that shows it has changed. > > But no reason to think so. > > This leaves us with the conclusion that you fabricated a story about Macs > being twice the price of comparable machines, and when faced with your > complete lack of evidence you asked me to help you get MORE specs than I > already have. > > Nope. I am not going to help you even more to play your make-believe game of > Macs being twice the price of similar PCs. Instead I am just calling you > out: you made up the claim. You lied and were busted. > > Fine. Now we can move on to the next topic. Bullshit. I compared Dell computers with Apple computers using the supplier we had 5 years ago. The Apples were twice the price. Perhaps Apple are cheaper now, but you've yet to show me where I can find actual Apple specs to make a fair comparison. A "3 GHz CPU" is NOT a spec. >>> The idea that Macs are more considerably expensive than comparable machines >>> does not fit the data. With that said, it *is* true you have fewer options >>> on what to add or not add: if you, for example, do not want both wireless >>> and wired network connections, or do not want he IR input, etc. you cannot >>> opt out. So in that way you might be able to get a system that meets the >>> specs YOU want which is considerably cheaper than what Apple offers. >>> >>> There is still the question as to the tasks you want to use the machine for. >>> Which will serve you better and why? And what resources do you have to get >>> it -- financial and older software, etc. >>> >>> Even just personal preference comes into play... so use what you like that >>> fits your needs. I personally use macOS, Windows, and Linux. >>> >>> ... >>>>> With which Macs? If you let me know I will likely be able to give you the >>>>> CPU specs you want. >>>> >>>> Pick anything you like, something mid range if you want so we're not dealing >>>> with budget stuff or extreme gaming stuff where prices can vary a lot. I >>>> cetainly can't be bothered navigating their godawful website. It's full of >>>> adverts with no information. >>> >>> So you have no specific Mac you cannot find the CPU specs you want on it. >>> OK. >> >> I don't mind what Mac it is, I just want to compare like with like to see if >> you're correct about them no longer being double the price. > > No evidence they ever were -- remember, you made up that claim and showed no > evidence. I don't work there anymore, I don't have access to their pricelist. > Now you are just whining that Apple is not holding your hand > enough to give you a number few care about and they instead give you specs > about actual things that impact the speed of the machine. EVERY OTHER COMPANY gives detailed specs of EXACTLY what parts they use in their computers, or they wouldn't be able to sell any. For some reason Apple users are gullible enough to buy things without knowing what's under the hood. > Even with that I offered to help you find specs and you did not care enough > to say even what machine you are having a hard time finding the specs for. I let you choose any machine. It doesn't matter what it is, all I'm trying to do is a fair comparison. >> For that I need to know exactly what CPU, SSD, RAM, etc is in it so I can >> compare it to a PC supplier. Apple hide this information on their website. > > As I showed you they gave the specs needed... you just want more hand > holding. No, they did not state which of the 30 or so i5 processors they use. -- What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers? Mechanical engineers build weapons and civil engineers build targets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527AB45.A20A9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630936 |
On 4/27/17, 1:55 PM, in article op.yzdgfbxjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> The specs should be on the Apple webpage. Simply not good enough. >> >> As I showed, they are. The speed. The GPU. Everything you asked about in >> terms of SPECS are there. But you are looking for reasons to whine. So be >> it. > > The speed is not the specs of the CPU. You clearly know nothing about CPUs. You have yet to state what spec you even want. But, again, you are just making up claims contrary to known data (specifically dealing with Mac pricing) and looking for reasons to whine (Apple did not hold your hand and give you an Intel product number you have yet to show any value of). >>>> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> >>> >>> I'm still waiting for a pricelist with proper specs from you. >> >> You are the one who said Mac were twice the cost. I have shown you that the >> evidence goes contrary to your claim but, admittedly, the evidence is old. >> So maybe you have newer evidence that shows it has changed. >> >> But no reason to think so. >> >> This leaves us with the conclusion that you fabricated a story about Macs >> being twice the price of comparable machines, and when faced with your >> complete lack of evidence you asked me to help you get MORE specs than I >> already have. >> >> Nope. I am not going to help you even more to play your make-believe game of >> Macs being twice the price of similar PCs. Instead I am just calling you >> out: you made up the claim. You lied and were busted. >> >> Fine. Now we can move on to the next topic. > > Bullshit. Well. Ok. You cannot move on to the next topic. I was wrong about that. Silly me. You will continue to push your trolling about Mac prices and your whining about Intel designations you are having a hard time finding (or showing any real value of). Those are the topics you have gotten stuck on. Those are what you are looking for attention for. See, let us look at your comments below and list which of those two trolling games you are focusing on for each: A) Your unsupported price nonsense B) Your whining about Intel designations you show no value of > I compared Dell computers with Apple computers using the supplier > we had 5 years ago. The Apples were twice the price. A. > Perhaps Apple are cheaper now, but you've yet to show me where I can find > actual Apple specs to make a fair comparison. A "3 GHz CPU" is NOT a spec. B. ... >>> I don't mind what Mac it is, I just want to compare like with like to see if >>> you're correct about them no longer being double the price. >> >> No evidence they ever were -- remember, you made up that claim and showed no >> evidence. > > I don't work there anymore, I don't have access to their pricelist. A. >> Now you are just whining that Apple is not holding your hand >> enough to give you a number few care about and they instead give you specs >> about actual things that impact the speed of the machine. > > EVERY OTHER COMPANY gives detailed specs of EXACTLY what parts they use in > their computers, or they wouldn't be able to sell any. For some reason Apple > users are gullible enough to buy things without knowing what's under the hood. B. >> Even with that I offered to help you find specs and you did not care enough >> to say even what machine you are having a hard time finding the specs for. > > I let you choose any machine. It doesn't matter what it is, all I'm trying to > do is a fair comparison. B. >>> For that I need to know exactly what CPU, SSD, RAM, etc is in it so I can >>> compare it to a PC supplier. Apple hide this information on their website. >> >> As I showed you they gave the specs needed... you just want more hand >> holding. > > No, they did not state which of the 30 or so i5 processors they use. B. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 22:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdg4szkjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630941 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:05:57 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 1:55 PM, in article op.yzdgfbxjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> The specs should be on the Apple webpage. Simply not good enough. >>> >>> As I showed, they are. The speed. The GPU. Everything you asked about in >>> terms of SPECS are there. But you are looking for reasons to whine. So be >>> it. >> >> The speed is not the specs of the CPU. You clearly know nothing about CPUs. > > You have yet to state what spec you even want. I'm making it easier for you by letting you find ANY Apple computer with some specs so I can compare the hardware to a PC. If you like, you can use one of your own Apples, provided you bought it recently. > But, again, you are just > making up claims contrary to known data (specifically dealing with Mac > pricing) and looking for reasons to whine (Apple did not hold your hand and > give you an Intel product number you have yet to show any value of). Without details, a comparison cannot be made. >>>>> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> >>>> >>>> I'm still waiting for a pricelist with proper specs from you. >>> >>> You are the one who said Mac were twice the cost. I have shown you that the >>> evidence goes contrary to your claim but, admittedly, the evidence is old. >>> So maybe you have newer evidence that shows it has changed. >>> >>> But no reason to think so. >>> >>> This leaves us with the conclusion that you fabricated a story about Macs >>> being twice the price of comparable machines, and when faced with your >>> complete lack of evidence you asked me to help you get MORE specs than I >>> already have. >>> >>> Nope. I am not going to help you even more to play your make-believe game of >>> Macs being twice the price of similar PCs. Instead I am just calling you >>> out: you made up the claim. You lied and were busted. >>> >>> Fine. Now we can move on to the next topic. >> >> Bullshit. > > Well. Ok. You cannot move on to the next topic. I was wrong about that. > Silly me. You will continue to push your trolling about Mac prices and your > whining about Intel designations you are having a hard time finding (or > showing any real value of). [evasion of the topic in hand deleted] -- Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527AEB3.A20C3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630943 |
On 4/27/17, 2:11 PM, in article op.yzdg4szkjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: You will continue to push your trolling about Mac prices and your whining about Intel designations you are having a hard time finding (or showing any real value of). Those are the topics you have gotten stuck on. Those are what you are looking for attention for. See, let us look at your comments below and list which of those two trolling games you are focusing on for each: A) Your unsupported price nonsense B) Your whining about Intel designations you show no value of >>> The speed is not the specs of the CPU. You clearly know nothing about CPUs. >> >> You have yet to state what spec you even want. > > I'm making it easier for you by letting you find ANY Apple computer with some > specs so I can compare the hardware to a PC. B. I showed you the specs for the current iMacs *and* explained how I figured it out (it was easy). Did not really offer anything to help me decide which one I might buy (if I was in the market). > If you like, you can use one of your own Apples, provided you bought it > recently. B. >> But, again, you are just >> making up claims contrary to known data (specifically dealing with Mac >> pricing) and looking for reasons to whine (Apple did not hold your hand and >> give you an Intel product number you have yet to show any value of). > > Without details, a comparison cannot be made. B. ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 22:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <260420172241009367%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #630806 |
In article <op.yzbsto0wjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> When I worked at a school about 3 years ago, I priced comparable machines, > >> Macs were twice as expensive as Dells. > > > > not for the same specs, you didn't. > > Yes I did. you might think you did, but you didn't. if you matched specs, the prices would be similar. > > a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k > > that includes a computer. > > Let's stick to the computers to begin with shall we? computers need displays. you can't compare the price of a computer without a display with one that includes one (and an exceptionally good one at that). > >> I just tried going to Apple's site > >> and they don't even state what processor is in their machines. Show me > >> where > >> I can get actual specs of an Apple, then I'll continue the conversation. > > > > apple.com > > That's where I was, they use vague terms like "quad core i5 processor". > Typical of Apple, they don't want to give away too much. There are many quad > core i5 processors, of vastly differing specs and prices. nothing vague about their specs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sar3gcpt4euvo8ie9td85gm86rrnheitpn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #630831 |
nospam wrote: >computers need displays. They dont need 5k displays. This is where lack of choices can bite you. >you can't compare the price of a computer without a display with one >that includes one (and an exceptionally good one at that). Not so good if you don't like a glossy, mirror-like screen. Again, there is a lack of choices, from Apple. Mac fans often say "if you build this exact machine" the prices are similar. But the "generic" world has the choices to build an "equivalent" machine (maybe better in some ways, worse in others) for a lot less. -- "What's wrong with it?" - DumFSck, regarding the use of a #pragma to disable 17 different types of compiler warnings
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <270420170928170355%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #630875 |
In article <sar3gcpt4euvo8ie9td85gm86rrnheitpn@4ax.com>, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >computers need displays. > > They dont need 5k displays. This is where lack of choices can bite > you. there is no lack of choice. you can use whatever displays you want on a mac. however, if you want to use a 5k display on a pc such as the dell, you will need to have a dual video card because a single displayport can't support it. that greatly adds to the cost (and not all software handles it well either). > >you can't compare the price of a computer without a display with one > >that includes one (and an exceptionally good one at that). > > Not so good if you don't like a glossy, mirror-like screen. Again, > there is a lack of choices, from Apple. it's not glossy mirror-like. you've obviously never used it. > Mac fans often say "if you build this exact machine" the prices are > similar. But the "generic" world has the choices to build an > "equivalent" machine (maybe better in some ways, worse in others) for > a lot less. if you match specs, the price is similar. if you don't match specs, then the lesser spec system ill cost less. very simple concept. if you want a lesser spec system, by all means get one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 10:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <51nMA.55102$lS3.32584@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #630876 |
On 2017-04-27 09:28, nospam wrote: > In article <sar3gcpt4euvo8ie9td85gm86rrnheitpn@4ax.com>, chrisv > <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> >>> computers need displays. >> >> They dont need 5k displays. This is where lack of choices can bite >> you. > > there is no lack of choice. you can use whatever displays you want on a > mac. > > however, if you want to use a 5k display on a pc such as the dell, you > will need to have a dual video card because a single displayport can't > support it. that greatly adds to the cost (and not all software handles > it well either). > >>> you can't compare the price of a computer without a display with one >>> that includes one (and an exceptionally good one at that). >> >> Not so good if you don't like a glossy, mirror-like screen. Again, >> there is a lack of choices, from Apple. > > it's not glossy mirror-like. you've obviously never used it. > >> Mac fans often say "if you build this exact machine" the prices are >> similar. But the "generic" world has the choices to build an >> "equivalent" machine (maybe better in some ways, worse in others) for >> a lot less. > > if you match specs, the price is similar. if you don't match specs, > then the lesser spec system ill cost less. very simple concept. > > if you want a lesser spec system, by all means get one. There was a time when similar specced machines (CPU, RAM, FSB) cost more from Apple than from Dell, etc. That's changed, ever since plain vanilla laptops became more than good enough for most people's purposes. For the average user, price governs, so Apple has adjusted its prices into the same range as the competition with similar specs and performance. As always, Apple tries to lead the pack with convenience features. But convenience lies in the habits of the user. The cool factor is converging: at a casual first glance, a Surface Book Pro looks very much like a MacBook Air. High end machine are a different story. I saw a "gamer" laptop advertised the other day at almost $5000. Basically a box squeezed into a large laptop form factor, 21" screen. I suspect extremely noisy fans (but the gamer will be using headphones, so no big deal). More a portable all-in-one PC than a laptop. -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5277453.A2029%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630880 |
On 4/27/17, 7:14 AM, in article 51nMA.55102$lS3.32584@fx16.iad, "Wolf K"
<wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> Mac fans often say "if you build this exact machine" the prices are
>>> similar. But the "generic" world has the choices to build an
>>> "equivalent" machine (maybe better in some ways, worse in others) for
>>> a lot less.
>>
>> if you match specs, the price is similar. if you don't match specs,
>> then the lesser spec system ill cost less. very simple concept.
>>
>> if you want a lesser spec system, by all means get one.
>
> There was a time when similar specced machines (CPU, RAM, FSB) cost more
> from Apple than from Dell, etc.
Even that is questionable. I used to track comparisons -- and included any I
found or others pointed me to that fit the listed criteria. Apple did well:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices/>
The prices Apple provided were a lot more attractive than the page I show
them on! :)
> That's changed, ever since plain vanilla laptops became more than good enough
> for most people's purposes. For the average user, price governs, so Apple has
> adjusted its prices into the same range as the competition with similar specs
> and performance. As always, Apple tries to lead the pack with convenience
> features. But convenience lies in the habits of the user. The cool factor is
> converging: at a casual first glance, a Surface Book Pro looks very much like
> a MacBook Air.
>
> High end machine are a different story. I saw a "gamer" laptop advertised the
> other day at almost $5000. Basically a box squeezed into a large laptop form
> factor, 21" screen. I suspect extremely noisy fans (but the gamer will be
> using headphones, so no big deal). More a portable all-in-one PC than a
> laptop.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5277478.A202A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630875 |
On 4/27/17, 6:14 AM, in article sar3gcpt4euvo8ie9td85gm86rrnheitpn@4ax.com, "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > nospam wrote: > >> computers need displays. > > They dont need 5k displays. This is where lack of choices can bite > you. > >> you can't compare the price of a computer without a display with one >> that includes one (and an exceptionally good one at that). > > Not so good if you don't like a glossy, mirror-like screen. Again, > there is a lack of choices, from Apple. > > Mac fans often say "if you build this exact machine" the prices are > similar. But the "generic" world has the choices to build an > "equivalent" machine (maybe better in some ways, worse in others) for > a lot less. Apple does not offer as many choices as all other OEMs combined. Wow. Thanks for the heads up! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web