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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 16:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52680EB.A1F3D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630796 |
On 4/26/17, 3:29 PM, in article 260420171829143596%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"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.
>
> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k
> that includes a computer.
I just challenged him to show the comparison. He never will.
>> 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
It is oh so hard to find!
<http://youtu.be/K2DP-eAyvxQ>
Also MacTracker has lots of info.
--
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 14:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzcwtzq0js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630811 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:52:59 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/26/17, 3:29 PM, in article 260420171829143596%nospam@nospam.invalid, > "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. >> >> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k >> that includes a computer. > > I just challenged him to show the comparison. He never will. > >>> 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 > > It is oh so hard to find! > > <http://youtu.be/K2DP-eAyvxQ> > > Also MacTracker has lots of info. That gives the Ghz, not the model of i5. There are many many i5s. -- "Naff" is actually an old gay slang for useless, from its original meaning of 'heterosexual' i.e. Not Available For Fucking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52769CF.A2003%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630879 |
On 4/27/17, 6:52 AM, in article op.yzcwtzq0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:52:59 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/26/17, 3:29 PM, in article 260420171829143596%nospam@nospam.invalid, >> "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. >>> >>> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k >>> that includes a computer. >> >> I just challenged him to show the comparison. He never will. >> >>>> 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 >> >> It is oh so hard to find! >> >> <http://youtu.be/K2DP-eAyvxQ> >> >> Also MacTracker has lots of info. > > That gives the Ghz, not the model of i5. There are many many i5s. Let's see: The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD Graphics 6000. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5250U. The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5575R. The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and the Core i5-5675R, but their primary difference is the socket. The other two use BGA so I think it is same to assume Apple is using the Core i5-5675R. Apple gives all the actual specs but does not list the specific model... but it is not hard to find if, for some unknown reason, it actually matters to you to know not just what the computer you are getting has in it but what name Intel has designated it. -- 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 19:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzc9p9dxjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630895 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:26:39 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 6:52 AM, in article op.yzcwtzq0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:52:59 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/26/17, 3:29 PM, in article 260420171829143596%nospam@nospam.invalid, >>> "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. >>>> >>>> a dell 5k display alone (no computer) costs about as much as an imac 5k >>>> that includes a computer. >>> >>> I just challenged him to show the comparison. He never will. >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> It is oh so hard to find! >>> >>> <http://youtu.be/K2DP-eAyvxQ> >>> >>> Also MacTracker has lots of info. >> >> That gives the Ghz, not the model of i5. There are many many i5s. > > Let's see: > > The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD Graphics 6000. > As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5250U. > > The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel Iris Pro > Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5575R. > > The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel Iris Pro > Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and the Core i5-5675R, > but their primary difference is the socket. The other two use BGA so I think > it is same to assume Apple is using the Core i5-5675R. > > Apple gives all the actual specs but does not list the specific model... but > it is not hard to find if, for some unknown reason, it actually matters to > you to know not just what the computer you are getting has in it but what > name Intel has designated it. I have an i5-3570K in my 3 year old desktop. I know that the i5 range goes from about half that speed to about double that speed. Not giving the exact model of the i5 in the Imac specs is absurd. Are Apple doing what they usually do and dumbing things down for their low intelligence market? Or perhaps they just like conning people by leaving things out and just writing he GHz. -- If you own a £3,000 machine gun and a £5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes, you may be a Muslim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5278C08.A2060%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630914 |
On 4/27/17, 11:31 AM, in article op.yzc9p9dxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>>> It is oh so hard to find! >>>> >>>> <http://youtu.be/K2DP-eAyvxQ> >>>> >>>> Also MacTracker has lots of info. >>> >>> That gives the Ghz, not the model of i5. There are many many i5s. >> >> Let's see: >> >> The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD Graphics 6000. >> As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5250U. >> >> The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel Iris Pro >> Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5575R. >> >> The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel Iris Pro >> Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and the Core i5-5675R, >> but their primary difference is the socket. The other two use BGA so I think >> it is same to assume Apple is using the Core i5-5675R. >> >> Apple gives all the actual specs but does not list the specific model... but > >> it is not hard to find if, for some unknown reason, it actually matters to >> you to know not just what the computer you are getting has in it but what >> name Intel has designated it. > > I have an i5-3570K in my 3 year old desktop. Mazel tov! > I know that the i5 range goes from about half that speed to about double that > speed. Not giving the exact model of the i5 in the Imac specs is absurd. Given that they tell you the specs most would want, what is your concern? Do you just want to know the number for your own level of comfort? > Are Apple doing what they usually do and dumbing things down for their low > intelligence market? Or perhaps they just like conning people by leaving > things out and just writing he GHz. They give more than that, as I discuss, above. In fact, you have not mentioned a spec they leave out that you care about, nor have you shown any price comparison to back your claim of twice the price. Bottom line: you are looking for things to whine about and making things up when you cannot find real issues. Fine. As long as we have that understanding of what your game is I am likely to play along for a bit more. -- 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 20:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzddqcs3js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630919 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 19:52:40 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 11:31 AM, in article op.yzc9p9dxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>>> It is oh so hard to find! >>>>> >>>>> <http://youtu.be/K2DP-eAyvxQ> >>>>> >>>>> Also MacTracker has lots of info. >>>> >>>> That gives the Ghz, not the model of i5. There are many many i5s. >>> >>> Let's see: >>> >>> The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD Graphics 6000. >>> As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5250U. >>> >>> The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel Iris Pro >>> Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core i5-5575R. >>> >>> The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel Iris Pro >>> Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and the Core i5-5675R, >>> but their primary difference is the socket. The other two use BGA so I think >>> it is same to assume Apple is using the Core i5-5675R. >>> >>> Apple gives all the actual specs but does not list the specific model... but >> >>> it is not hard to find if, for some unknown reason, it actually matters to >>> you to know not just what the computer you are getting has in it but what >>> name Intel has designated it. >> >> I have an i5-3570K in my 3 year old desktop. > > Mazel tov! > >> I know that the i5 range goes from about half that speed to about double that >> speed. Not giving the exact model of the i5 in the Imac specs is absurd. > > Given that they tell you the specs most would want, what is your concern? Do > you just want to know the number for your own level of comfort? So I know how powerful it is. It could be twice as fast as my desktop, or half as fast. That's a big range! It's like saying "this car has a 2 litre engine" - not enough information to tell how fast it is. >> Are Apple doing what they usually do and dumbing things down for their low >> intelligence market? Or perhaps they just like conning people by leaving >> things out and just writing he GHz. > > They give more than that, as I discuss, above. In fact, you have not > mentioned a spec they leave out that you care about, nor have you shown any > price comparison to back your claim of twice the price. > > Bottom line: you are looking for things to whine about and making things up > when you cannot find real issues. Fine. As long as we have that > understanding of what your game is I am likely to play along for a bit more. No, you're accepting a vague processor speed, then looking up a list of i5s to find which one it probably is. Apple need to simply state what processor is in it. Every single other computer manufacturer does so. I would guess they do it to avoid comparisons being possible. -- If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be "meetings."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527A2C3.A2094%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630927 |
On 4/27/17, 12:57 PM, in article op.yzddqcs3js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> I have an i5-3570K in my 3 year old desktop. >>> >> Mazel tov! >> >>> I know that the i5 range goes from about half that speed to about double >>> that speed. Not giving the exact model of the i5 in the Imac specs is >>> absurd. >> >> Given that they tell you the specs most would want, what is your concern? Do >> you just want to know the number for your own level of comfort? > > So I know how powerful it is. Just looking at the specs will not tell you that, but as shown Apple gives you all the relevant specs you have mentioned that you want. You want to whine. So far I have been humoring you but as shown you just made up nonsense claims you cannot back and which are contrary to the data. You lie to get attention. Only so much attention I will keep giving you unless you actually put better effort into your trolling. > It could be twice as fast as my desktop, or half as fast. Correct: depends on the task, what desktop you have, what OS, etc. > That's a big range! Well, you may have to actually think about what you want to know if it is worth you to get a new computer. > It's like saying "this car has a 2 litre engine" - not enough information to > tell how fast it is. You can look up benchmark comparisons if you like. >>> Are Apple doing what they usually do and dumbing things down for their low >>> intelligence market? Or perhaps they just like conning people by leaving >>> things out and just writing he GHz. >> >> They give more than that, as I discuss, above. In fact, you have not >> mentioned a spec they leave out that you care about, nor have you shown any >> price comparison to back your claim of twice the price. >> >> Bottom line: you are looking for things to whine about and making things up >> when you cannot find real issues. Fine. As long as we have that >> understanding of what your game is I am likely to play along for a bit more. > > No, you're accepting a vague processor speed, then looking up a list of i5s to > find which one it probably is. I showed you the only existing one that fits the specs. And noted Apple gave me all the relevant info. Knowing the Intel designation offered no more information. > Apple need to simply state what processor is in it. I do not need my hand held as much as you. As I showed, if I care what the Intel designation is I can figure it out very easily. There are, of course, even easier methods where others have done the work I did, but I wanted to show you HOW to figure things out on your own. > Every single other computer manufacturer does so. I welcome support for that claim. But even if so, is your whine just that Apple is not holding your hand in ways you like and others do? If that means a lot to you then do not buy from Apple. I have no issue with that. Personally I care a LOT more about how well a system will work for me than if the OEM gives me data that offers me little to no benefit, but to each their own. > I would guess they do it to avoid comparisons being possible. The specs you talk about do not give you what you want. You are, at best, pretending to just be completely ignorant about computers. -- 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 21:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdglahxjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630933 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:29:39 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 12:57 PM, in article op.yzddqcs3js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> I have an i5-3570K in my 3 year old desktop. >>>> >>> Mazel tov! >>> >>>> I know that the i5 range goes from about half that speed to about double >>>> that speed. Not giving the exact model of the i5 in the Imac specs is >>>> absurd. >>> >>> Given that they tell you the specs most would want, what is your concern? Do >>> you just want to know the number for your own level of comfort? >> >> So I know how powerful it is. > > Just looking at the specs will not tell you that, It would if they listed the exact parts used. > but as shown Apple gives > you all the relevant specs you have mentioned that you want. No they don't. They do not list the i5 used. > You want to whine. So far I have been humoring you but as shown you just > made up nonsense claims you cannot back and which are contrary to the data. > You lie to get attention. Only so much attention I will keep giving you > unless you actually put better effort into your trolling. You can't be this stupid, nobody is this stupid. Would you buy a car because it has a "2 litre engine"? Or would you want to se more information first? >> It could be twice as fast as my desktop, or half as fast. > > Correct: depends on the task, what desktop you have, what OS, etc. If they said what CPU they used, you could look up precise speeds for different tasks using the Intel website. But Apple withhold this information because they're a bunch of conartists fooling gullible idiots like yourself and taking your hard earned cash. >> That's a big range! > > Well, you may have to actually think about what you want to know if it is > worth you to get a new computer. Simply which i5 is installed in the Apple. All I need is a model number. 3570K etc. >> It's like saying "this car has a 2 litre engine" - not enough information to >> tell how fast it is. > > You can look up benchmark comparisons if you like. Why should I have to? Why are Apple withholding information? -- What did God say when he made the first black man? "Damn, I burnt one."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527ABB5.A20AA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630937 |
On 4/27/17, 1:59 PM, in article op.yzdglahxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... As noted: 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 >>> So I know how powerful it is. >> >> Just looking at the specs will not tell you that, > > It would if they listed the exact parts used. B. >> but as shown Apple gives >> you all the relevant specs you have mentioned that you want. > > No they don't. They do not list the i5 used. B. >> You want to whine. So far I have been humoring you but as shown you just >> made up nonsense claims you cannot back and which are contrary to the data. >> You lie to get attention. Only so much attention I will keep giving you >> unless you actually put better effort into your trolling. > > You can't be this stupid, nobody is this stupid. Would you buy a car because > it has a "2 litre engine"? Or would you want to se more information first? B. >>> It could be twice as fast as my desktop, or half as fast. >> >> Correct: depends on the task, what desktop you have, what OS, etc. > > If they said what CPU they used, you could look up precise speeds for > different tasks using the Intel website. But Apple withhold this information > because they're a bunch of conartists fooling gullible idiots like yourself > and taking your hard earned cash. B. I will also add that, no, just knowing the CPU will not tell you about the speed of getting a task done. >>> That's a big range! >> >> Well, you may have to actually think about what you want to know if it is >> worth you to get a new computer. > > Simply which i5 is installed in the Apple. All I need is a model number. > 3570K etc. B. >>> It's like saying "this car has a 2 litre engine" - not enough information to >>> tell how fast it is. >> >> You can look up benchmark comparisons if you like. > > Why should I have to? Why are Apple withholding information? 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 22:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdi6jf4js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630942 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:07:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 1:59 PM, in article op.yzdglahxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... > > As noted: 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). I asked you to show me ONE Mac, ANY Mac currently on sale, with the specs so I can compare. You have failed to do so. -- We've had a hot, dry summer this year. It was so hot that one of my neighbors said his wife even thawed out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527B803.A20D0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630965 |
On 4/27/17, 2:55 PM, in article op.yzdi6jf4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:07:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 4/27/17, 1:59 PM, in article op.yzdglahxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> As noted: 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). > > I asked you to show me ONE Mac, ANY Mac currently on sale, with the specs so I > can compare. You have failed to do so. Well, first you made up stories of Macs costing 2x what PCs do. That turned out to be unsupportable and contrary to evidence. The you whined Apple did not show you specs on their CPUs and I showed you they did and, if for some unknown reason you even wanted to know the Intel designation you could easy figure it out just from what is on that one page. Now you are saying I did not show you those specs... because, well, you just want more attention AND you are completely and utterly unable to support your claims. But, hey, you are getting attention, right! -- 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 23:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdjntdkjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630966 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:00:19 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 2:55 PM, in article op.yzdi6jf4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:07:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/27/17, 1:59 PM, in article op.yzdglahxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> As noted: 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). >> >> I asked you to show me ONE Mac, ANY Mac currently on sale, with the specs so I >> can compare. You have failed to do so. > > Well, first you made up stories of Macs costing 2x what PCs do. No, I did a comparison using two suppliers we used. I do not have access to those suppliers now as I no longer work there. Apple do not give enough information for a fair comparison. > That turned out to be unsupportable and contrary to evidence. There is no evidence. All I need is to know what processor Apple use. You can't find this info, so I can only assume Apple hide it. Basically you're buying an Apple with no doubt the bottom of the range of i5s in it and paying for the top of the range. PC manufacturers admit what part they're using. Apple lie and deceive. > The you whined Apple did > not show you specs on their CPUs and I showed you they did You've yet to tell me the model of CPU used in any current mac for sale. > and, if for some > unknown reason you even wanted to know the Intel designation you could easy > figure it out just from what is on that one page. Now you are saying I did > not show you those specs... because, well, you just want more attention AND > you are completely and utterly unable to support your claims. > > But, hey, you are getting attention, right! No, I just want to know the ingredients Apple use to make a machine, so I can compare the price for PRECISELY the same machine made by a PC manufacturer. A comparison cannot be made without the precise components used. Stop evading and give me a spec list. -- Alfred Hitchcock didn't have a belly button.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527BC0C.A20E7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630969 |
On 4/27/17, 3:05 PM, in article op.yzdjntdkjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:00:19 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/17, 2:55 PM, in article op.yzdi6jf4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:07:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/27/17, 1:59 PM, in article op.yzdglahxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> As noted: 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).
>>>
>>> I asked you to show me ONE Mac, ANY Mac currently on sale, with the specs so
>>> I
>>> can compare. You have failed to do so.
>>
>> Well, first you made up stories of Macs costing 2x what PCs do.
>
> No, I did a comparison using two suppliers we used. I do not have access to
> those suppliers now as I no longer work there. Apple do not give enough
> information for a fair comparison.
>
>> That turned out to be unsupportable and contrary to evidence.
>
> There is no evidence. All I need is to know what processor Apple use. You
> can't find this info, so I can only assume Apple hide it. Basically you're
> buying an Apple with no doubt the bottom of the range of i5s in it and paying
> for the top of the range. PC manufacturers admit what part they're using.
> Apple lie and deceive.
>
>> The you whined Apple did
>> not show you specs on their CPUs and I showed you they did
>
> You've yet to tell me the model of CPU used in any current mac for sale.
>
>> and, if for some
>> unknown reason you even wanted to know the Intel designation you could easy
>> figure it out just from what is on that one page. Now you are saying I did
>> not show you those specs... because, well, you just want more attention AND
>> you are completely and utterly unable to support your claims.
>>
>> But, hey, you are getting attention, right!
>
> No, I just want to know the ingredients Apple use to make a machine, so I can
> compare the price for PRECISELY the same machine made by a PC manufacturer. A
> comparison cannot be made without the precise components used. Stop evading
> and give me a spec list.
In your story you are pretending I did not write this:
-----
Let's see:
The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD
Graphics 6000. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core
i5-5250U.
The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel
Iris Pro Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the
Core i5-5575R.
The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel
Iris Pro Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and
the Core i5-5675R, but their primary difference is the socket. The
other two use BGA so I think it is same to assume Apple is using the
Core i5-5675R.
-----
And also ignored the fact you were shown results of actual price
comparisons:
-----
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices>
-----
Sorry... you failed your creative writing assignment. The instructions were
to try to be believable.
--
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 23:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdk7kvejs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630971 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:17:32 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 3:05 PM, in article op.yzdjntdkjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:00:19 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/27/17, 2:55 PM, in article op.yzdi6jf4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:07:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/27/17, 1:59 PM, in article op.yzdglahxjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> As noted: 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). >>>> >>>> I asked you to show me ONE Mac, ANY Mac currently on sale, with the specs so >>>> I >>>> can compare. You have failed to do so. >>> >>> Well, first you made up stories of Macs costing 2x what PCs do. >> >> No, I did a comparison using two suppliers we used. I do not have access to >> those suppliers now as I no longer work there. Apple do not give enough >> information for a fair comparison. >> >>> That turned out to be unsupportable and contrary to evidence. >> >> There is no evidence. All I need is to know what processor Apple use. You >> can't find this info, so I can only assume Apple hide it. Basically you're >> buying an Apple with no doubt the bottom of the range of i5s in it and paying >> for the top of the range. PC manufacturers admit what part they're using. >> Apple lie and deceive. >> >>> The you whined Apple did >>> not show you specs on their CPUs and I showed you they did >> >> You've yet to tell me the model of CPU used in any current mac for sale. >> >>> and, if for some >>> unknown reason you even wanted to know the Intel designation you could easy >>> figure it out just from what is on that one page. Now you are saying I did >>> not show you those specs... because, well, you just want more attention AND >>> you are completely and utterly unable to support your claims. >>> >>> But, hey, you are getting attention, right! >> >> No, I just want to know the ingredients Apple use to make a machine, so I can >> compare the price for PRECISELY the same machine made by a PC manufacturer. A >> comparison cannot be made without the precise components used. Stop evading >> and give me a spec list. > > In your story you are pretending I did not write this: > ----- > Let's see: > > The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD > Graphics 6000. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core > i5-5250U. > > The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel > Iris Pro Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the > Core i5-5575R. > > The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel > Iris Pro Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and > the Core i5-5675R, but their primary difference is the socket. The > other two use BGA so I think it is same to assume Apple is using the > Core i5-5675R. > ----- So you have to do research to find out what Apple are using. That makes them con artists. They won't reveal what they use. > And also ignored the fact you were shown results of actual price > comparisons: > ----- > <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> > ----- That's a link to a forum full of people arguing, not a spec list. > Sorry... you failed your creative writing assignment. The instructions were > to try to be believable. I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what is in their computers. -- Confucius say man who speak with forked tongue satisfy two women at once.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 15:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527C2F0.A20F2%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630973 |
On 4/27/17, 3:39 PM, in article op.yzdk7kvejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> In your story you are pretending I did not write this: >> ----- >> Let's see: >> >> The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD >> Graphics 6000. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core >> i5-5250U. >> >> The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel >> Iris Pro Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the >> Core i5-5575R. >> >> The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel >> Iris Pro Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and >> the Core i5-5675R, but their primary difference is the socket. The >> other two use BGA so I think it is same to assume Apple is using the >> Core i5-5675R. >> ----- > > So you have to do research to find out what Apple are using. First, you neglected to speak about how you were dishonesty pretending I had not posted that before. Second, I did not know that info off hand so, sure, I looked at the Apple site to find the processor specs (as I showed you). > That makes them con artists. They are not the ones dishonestly pretending things, as you are, to troll. I think that makes you more of the con artist (but a really bad one). > They won't reveal what they use. That was from the info they "revealed" -- it is not as if this is a secret! >> And also ignored the fact you were shown results of actual price >> comparisons: >> ----- >> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> >> ----- > > That's a link to a forum full of people arguing, not a spec list. That is a list of price comparisons... but, hey, I would not expect you to recognize such a thing. You have been too busy making up stories about Macs costing twice as much. >> Sorry... you failed your creative writing assignment. The instructions were >> to try to be believable. > > I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what is in > their computers. I suggest you open your browser and go to apple.com instead of just waiting for people to hold your hand. Anyway, your trolling is getting repetitive... be more interesting with it or be ignored on this for a while. -- 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 | 2017-04-28 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzdl8pw4js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630974 |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 23:46:56 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 3:39 PM, in article op.yzdk7kvejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>> In your story you are pretending I did not write this: >>> ----- >>> Let's see: >>> >>> The first one is listed as a Dual Core i5 at 1.6 GHz using HD >>> Graphics 6000. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the Core >>> i5-5250U. >>> >>> The second one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 2.8 GHz using Intel >>> Iris Pro Graphics 6200. As far as I know that limits it to ONLY the >>> Core i5-5575R. >>> >>> The third one is listed as a Quad Core i5 at 3.1 GHz using Intel >>> Iris Pro Graphics 6200. This does leave open the Core i5-5675C and >>> the Core i5-5675R, but their primary difference is the socket. The >>> other two use BGA so I think it is same to assume Apple is using the >>> Core i5-5675R. >>> ----- >> >> So you have to do research to find out what Apple are using. > > First, you neglected to speak about how you were dishonesty pretending I had > not posted that before. No, I just said you haven't given the specs properly. I'm still waiting for full specs on any current Mac model. > Second, I did not know that info off hand so, sure, > I looked at the Apple site to find the processor specs (as I showed you). Which are incomplete. >> That makes them con artists. > > They are not the ones dishonestly pretending things, as you are, to troll. I > think that makes you more of the con artist (but a really bad one). They do not reveal the components to their machines, every other company does. >> They won't reveal what they use. > > That was from the info they "revealed" -- it is not as if this is a secret! Not the precise model of i5 used. >>> And also ignored the fact you were shown results of actual price >>> comparisons: >>> ----- >>> <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/prices> >>> ----- >> >> That's a link to a forum full of people arguing, not a spec list. > > That is a list of price comparisons... but, hey, I would not expect you to > recognize such a thing. You have been too busy making up stories about Macs > costing twice as much. I don't want a forum of people moaning about things, I want a site where someone is selling a Mac and actually tells you what you're buying. >>> Sorry... you failed your creative writing assignment. The instructions were >>> to try to be believable. >> >> I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what is in >> their computers. > > I suggest you open your browser and go to apple.com instead of just waiting > for people to hold your hand. I did, and shoed you what pages on their site I went to which had very vague information. > Anyway, your trolling is getting repetitive... be more interesting with it > or be ignored on this for a while. Typical, you can't handle the truth so you call it trolling. -- Are part-time bandleaders semi-conductors? Only if they've had a sex-change. Then they're trans-sisters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 20:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mOvMA.85736$ex6.17420@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #630974 |
JWS, becoming ever more incapable of admitting a mistake, wrote: > I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what is in > their computers. OK, here you are: https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ And for comparison: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-book/overview#surfaceconfiguration -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 17:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D527DC7A.A2127%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #630987 |
On 4/27/17, 5:13 PM, in article mOvMA.85736$ex6.17420@fx27.iad, "Wolf K" <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > JWS, becoming ever more incapable of admitting a mistake, wrote: > >> I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what is >> in >> their computers. > > OK, here you are: > > https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ > > And for comparison: > > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-book/overview#surfacec > onfiguration How dare you actually point to evidence! :) -- 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 | 2017-04-28 11:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzeirppejs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #630993 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:35:54 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/27/17, 5:13 PM, in article mOvMA.85736$ex6.17420@fx27.iad, "Wolf K" > <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > >> JWS, becoming ever more incapable of admitting a mistake, wrote: >> >>> I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what is >>> in >>> their computers. >> >> OK, here you are: >> >> https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/ >> >> And for comparison: >> >> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-book/overview#surfacec >> onfiguration > > How dare you actually point to evidence! :) Of a laptop. I'm interested in desktops. And it still doesn't say what processor is in it. All it admits is it's a "2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" - which could be several of these with completely different performances: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html -- How do shepherds practice safe sex? They paint an X on the back of the ones that kick!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D528C518.A2203%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631051 |
On 4/28/17, 3:44 AM, in article op.yzeirppejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:35:54 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/17, 5:13 PM, in article mOvMA.85736$ex6.17420@fx27.iad, "Wolf K"
>> <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> JWS, becoming ever more incapable of admitting a mistake, wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm still waiting for a page on the apple.com server which tells me what is
>>>> in
>>>> their computers.
>>>
>>> OK, here you are:
>>>
>>> https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/
>>>
>>> And for comparison:
>>>
>>> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-book/overview#surfac
>>> ec
>>> onfiguration
>>
>> How dare you actually point to evidence! :)
>
> Of a laptop. I'm interested in desktops.
>
> And it still doesn't say what processor is in it. All it admits is it's a
> "2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" - which could be several of these with
> completely different performances:
> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html
Let's see: looking at your options there I see ZERO 2.0 GHz i5s. ZERO.
Yeah, great example.
Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday. If you actually LOOK at
the specs Apple gives you they give you all you need. I showed you three
examples yesterday (iMacs). Now you are asking about a MacBook Pro. Sigh.
You need a LOT of hand holding.
Here are the MacBook Pros <https://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/>
It lists:
-----
* 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz,
with 4MB shared L3 cache
* Intel Iris Graphics 540
-----
What more do you need to know? How many Intel options are there like that?
As far as I know that limits it to the Core i5-6360U.
So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the complete list
that matches the specs Apple shows you.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web