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

Groups > sci.physics > #630976 > unrolled thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

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.

Contents

  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-27 23:51 +0100
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 16:06 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 00:57 +0100
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-27 17:23 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 14:12 +0100
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 09:47 -0700
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 17:51 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 11:07 -0700
                  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 19:37 +0100
                    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:19 -0700
                      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 20:44 +0100
                        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 12:56 -0700
                          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:18 +0100
                            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:19 -0700

#630976 — Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:20:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/15/17, 9:10 AM, in article 150420171210307864%nospam@nospam.invalid,
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <D516B493.9F112%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS.  Anybody even
>>>> mildly technical wanted it.  It's the only way to tell if the machine has
>>>> crashed or is busy.
>>>
>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with hard
>>> drives)
>>
>> no they don't.
>
> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, FINALLY)
> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).

Oh come on, don't Macs use SSDs?  Nobody uses mechanical hard disks anymore apart from if you need huge storage.

-- 
He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#630982

On 4/27/17, 3:51 PM, in article op.yzdlsepojs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:20:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/15/17, 9:10 AM, in article 150420171210307864%nospam@nospam.invalid,
>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <D516B493.9F112%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS.  Anybody
>>>>> even
>>>>> mildly technical wanted it.  It's the only way to tell if the machine has
>>>>> crashed or is busy.
>>>> 
>>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with
>>>> hard
>>>> drives)
>>> 
>>> no they don't.
>> 
>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, FINALLY)
>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).
> 
> Oh come on, don't Macs use SSDs?  Nobody uses mechanical hard disks anymore
> apart from if you need huge storage.

The iMacs still come, standard, with not just a hard disk but a damned slow
one. SSDs are still too expensive for the type storage you see on desktops,
1TB and above but they should at least come with Fusion drives. And really a
5400 rpm on a desktop at that price range is insane.

-- 
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]

#630984

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:06:21 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/27/17, 3:51 PM, in article op.yzdlsepojs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 18:20:07 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/15/17, 9:10 AM, in article 150420171210307864%nospam@nospam.invalid,
>>> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <D516B493.9F112%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The last is solved by "disk light" - an extension for Mac OS.  Anybody
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> mildly technical wanted it.  It's the only way to tell if the machine has
>>>>>> crashed or is busy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Crashed or is busy? OK, Macs have horrid disk access speeds (those with
>>>>> hard
>>>>> drives)
>>>>
>>>> no they don't.
>>>
>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, FINALLY)
>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).
>>
>> Oh come on, don't Macs use SSDs?  Nobody uses mechanical hard disks anymore
>> apart from if you need huge storage.
>
> The iMacs still come, standard, with not just a hard disk but a damned slow
> one. SSDs are still too expensive for the type storage you see on desktops,
> 1TB and above but they should at least come with Fusion drives. And really a
> 5400 rpm on a desktop at that price range is insane.

1TB of SSD is quite feasible in price.  I have a 3TB mirrored hard disk, but the OS and anything regularly used is on SSD.

-- 
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours -- Stephen Roberts	

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

#630990

On 4/27/17, 4:57 PM, in article op.yzdot4iqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

>>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, FINALLY)
>>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).
>>> 
>>> Oh come on, don't Macs use SSDs?  Nobody uses mechanical hard disks anymore
>>> apart from if you need huge storage.
>> 
>> The iMacs still come, standard, with not just a hard disk but a damned slow
>> one. SSDs are still too expensive for the type storage you see on desktops,
>> 1TB and above but they should at least come with Fusion drives. And really a
>> 5400 rpm on a desktop at that price range is insane.
> 
> 1TB of SSD is quite feasible in price.

Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
hard drive of that size.

...


-- 
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]

#631066

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:23:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/27/17, 4:57 PM, in article op.yzdot4iqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon, FINALLY)
>>>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).
>>>>
>>>> Oh come on, don't Macs use SSDs?  Nobody uses mechanical hard disks anymore
>>>> apart from if you need huge storage.
>>>
>>> The iMacs still come, standard, with not just a hard disk but a damned slow
>>> one. SSDs are still too expensive for the type storage you see on desktops,
>>> 1TB and above but they should at least come with Fusion drives. And really a
>>> 5400 rpm on a desktop at that price range is insane.
>>
>> 1TB of SSD is quite feasible in price.
>
> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
> hard drive of that size.

I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a feasible price.  Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a bit extra.  1TB of SSD is about £220.  1TB of hard disk is about £45.  So only £175 for a HUGE speed increase.

-- 
Smith & Wesson -- the original point and click interface.

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

#631084

On 4/28/17, 6:12 AM, in article op.yzepmds6js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:23:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/27/17, 4:57 PM, in article op.yzdot4iqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon,
>>>>>> FINALLY)
>>>>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh come on, don't Macs use SSDs?  Nobody uses mechanical hard disks
>>>>> anymore apart from if you need huge storage.
>>>>> 
>>>> The iMacs still come, standard, with not just a hard disk but a damned slow
>>>> one. SSDs are still too expensive for the type storage you see on desktops,
>>>> 1TB and above but they should at least come with Fusion drives. And really
>>>> >>>> a 5400 rpm on a desktop at that price range is insane.
>>> 
>>> 1TB of SSD is quite feasible in price.
>> 
>> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
>> hard drive of that size.
> 
> I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a feasible
> price.  Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a bit extra.  1TB
> of SSD is about £220.  1TB of hard disk is about £45.  So only £175 for a HUGE
> speed increase.

It is close to 5x the price. I am not denying the benefit but there is quite
a difference there.

-- 
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]

#631086

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 17:47:52 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/28/17, 6:12 AM, in article op.yzepmds6js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:23:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/17, 4:57 PM, in article op.yzdot4iqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon,
>>>>>>> FINALLY)
>>>>>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh come on, don't Macs use SSDs?  Nobody uses mechanical hard disks
>>>>>> anymore apart from if you need huge storage.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The iMacs still come, standard, with not just a hard disk but a damned slow
>>>>> one. SSDs are still too expensive for the type storage you see on desktops,
>>>>> 1TB and above but they should at least come with Fusion drives. And really
>>>>> >>>> a 5400 rpm on a desktop at that price range is insane.
>>>>
>>>> 1TB of SSD is quite feasible in price.
>>>
>>> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
>>> hard drive of that size.
>>
>> I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a feasible
>> price.  Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a bit extra.  1TB
>> of SSD is about £220.  1TB of hard disk is about £45.  So only £175 for a HUGE
>> speed increase.
>
> It is close to 5x the price. I am not denying the benefit but there is quite
> a difference there.

5x is a big difference if it was the total price, but it's only one component.  You need to look at the cost compared to the whole machine.  And consider that a cheaper machine would have a smaller SSD so wouldn't be so much price difference.

I don't know anyone who would buy a new machine nowadays with no SSD in it, it's like night and day.  You're just slowing down the rest of the computer by a HUGE factor.  You're better paying more to get an SSD and having a slower something else like the CPU to make the total price the same.  Same goes for people who scrimp on RAM size.

-- 
The best way to insulate your home is with a big pile of fridge-foam aerosol cans:
Just fill the entire house with foam and tunnel to the bits you need to get to, pack rat style.

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

#631100

On 4/28/17, 9:51 AM, in article op.yzezrwg0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

>>>> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
>>>> hard drive of that size.
>>> 
>>> I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a feasible
>>> price.  Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a bit extra.
>>> 1TB
>>> of SSD is about £220.  1TB of hard disk is about £45.  So only £175 for a
>>> HUGE
>>> speed increase.
>> 
>> It is close to 5x the price. I am not denying the benefit but there is quite
>> a difference there.
> 
> 5x is a big difference if it was the total price, but it's only one component.

It is the total price of the component we are talking about. But, sure, as I
have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a better file system
for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With APFS they are
finally getting the better file system -- but even with that it is new and I
am sure still needs maturing.
 
> You need to look at the cost compared to the whole machine.  And consider that
> a cheaper machine would have a smaller SSD so wouldn't be so much price
> difference.

I agree Apple should include better drives. It is absurd to sell an iMac
with a 5400 RPM drive in it.

> I don't know anyone who would buy a new machine nowadays with no SSD in it,
> it's like night and day.

Even a Fusion drive would make sense for most... closer to the cost of the
hard drive and most of the benefits of the SSD (though if you are like me
and use a lot of VMs and the like you will run into issues).

> You're just slowing down the rest of the computer by a HUGE factor.  You're
> better paying more to get an SSD and having a slower something else like the
> CPU to make the total price the same.  Same goes for people who scrimp on RAM
> size.

Overall I agree... I would be happier with a slower CPU and the faster
drive. 

-- 
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]

#631105

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:07:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/28/17, 9:51 AM, in article op.yzezrwg0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
>>>>> hard drive of that size.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a feasible
>>>> price.  Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a bit extra.
>>>> 1TB
>>>> of SSD is about £220.  1TB of hard disk is about £45.  So only £175 for a
>>>> HUGE
>>>> speed increase.
>>>
>>> It is close to 5x the price. I am not denying the benefit but there is quite
>>> a difference there.
>>
>> 5x is a big difference if it was the total price, but it's only one component.
>
> It is the total price of the component we are talking about.

No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an SSD.

> But, sure, as I
> have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a better file system
> for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With APFS they are
> finally getting the better file system -- but even with that it is new and I
> am sure still needs maturing.

Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS?

>> You need to look at the cost compared to the whole machine.  And consider that
>> a cheaper machine would have a smaller SSD so wouldn't be so much price
>> difference.
>
> I agree Apple should include better drives. It is absurd to sell an iMac
> with a 5400 RPM drive in it.
>
>> I don't know anyone who would buy a new machine nowadays with no SSD in it,
>> it's like night and day.
>
> Even a Fusion drive would make sense for most... closer to the cost of the
> hard drive and most of the benefits of the SSD (though if you are like me
> and use a lot of VMs and the like you will run into issues).

I have a lot of stuff stored on my computer.  I have an SSD and a hard disk.  I use the SSD for most things and the hard disk for storing huge data files.

Well it's two of each actually as they're mirrored.  I hate hard disk failures.  Also makes upgrading easy.  Simply pull out one of them (even with the computer running) and stick in a bigger one.  Wait for it to duplicate the data, then do the same with the other one.  Then instruct the driver to expand the partition to fill the now larger drives.

>> You're just slowing down the rest of the computer by a HUGE factor.  You're
>> better paying more to get an SSD and having a slower something else like the
>> CPU to make the total price the same.  Same goes for people who scrimp on RAM
>> size.
>
> Overall I agree... I would be happier with a slower CPU and the faster
> drive.

This needs to be noted in the history books, we are in agreement.

-- 
A midget fortune-teller who escapes from prison is a small medium at large.

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

#631119

On 4/28/17, 11:37 AM, in article op.yze4pbmmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:07:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/28/17, 9:51 AM, in article op.yzezrwg0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
>>>>>> hard drive of that size.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a
>>>>> feasible price.  Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a
>>>>> bit extra. 1TB of SSD is about £220.  1TB of hard disk is about £45.  So
>>>>> only £175 for a HUGE speed increase.
>>>>> 
>>>> It is close to 5x the price. I am not denying the benefit but there is
>>>> quite a difference there.
>>>> 
>>> 5x is a big difference if it was the total price, but it's only one
>>> component.
>>> 
>> It is the total price of the component we are talking about.
> 
> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an SSD.

Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there.

>> But, sure, as I have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a
>> better file system for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With
>> APFS they are finally getting the better file system -- but even with that it
>> is new and I am sure still needs maturing.
>> 
> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS?

They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one
(from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG past
time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and iOS
just migrated to it, but macOS has not.

And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I
think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger
issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in
terms of file systems.

>>> You need to look at the cost compared to the whole machine.  And consider
>>> that a cheaper machine would have a smaller SSD so wouldn't be so much price
>>> difference.
>>> 
>> I agree Apple should include better drives. It is absurd to sell an iMac with
>> a 5400 RPM drive in it.
>> 
>>> I don't know anyone who would buy a new machine nowadays with no SSD in it,
>>> it's like night and day.
>>> 
>> Even a Fusion drive would make sense for most... closer to the cost of the
>> hard drive and most of the benefits of the SSD (though if you are like me and
>> use a lot of VMs and the like you will run into issues).
> 
> I have a lot of stuff stored on my computer.  I have an SSD and a hard disk.
> I use the SSD for most things and the hard disk for storing huge data files.
> 
> Well it's two of each actually as they're mirrored.  I hate hard disk
> failures.  Also makes upgrading easy.  Simply pull out one of them (even with
> the computer running) and stick in a bigger one.  Wait for it to duplicate the
> data, then do the same with the other one.  Then instruct the driver to expand
> the partition to fill the now larger drives.

I use Time Machine as a backup. My wife's hard drive died -- so I created a
second account on one of my kid's machine and just migrated her account.
Then she got a MacBook Air with a smaller SSD and I migrated her account to
there, but left out some items because of the smaller drive.

All worked very well.

As far me I have been migrating my account from one computer to the next
since before OS X even existed. Should likely do a clean install one of
these years.

>>> You're just slowing down the rest of the computer by a HUGE factor.  You're
>>> better paying more to get an SSD and having a slower something else like the
>>> CPU to make the total price the same.  Same goes for people who scrimp on
>>> RAM size.
>>> 
>> Overall I agree... I would be happier with a slower CPU and the faster drive.
>> 
> This needs to be noted in the history books, we are in agreement.

:)

You will not find me defending Apple for the sake of doing so. Where they do
well I note it. Where they screw up I note it. I have no dog in this race.

-- 
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]

#631124

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:19:18 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/28/17, 11:37 AM, in article op.yze4pbmmjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:07:00 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/17, 9:51 AM, in article op.yzezrwg0js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Would love to see a link showing one for a price not too much more than a
>>>>>>> hard drive of that size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say it was the same price as a hard disk, I said it was a
>>>>>> feasible price.  Since it's a hell of a lot faster, it's worth paying a
>>>>>> bit extra. 1TB of SSD is about £220.  1TB of hard disk is about £45.  So
>>>>>> only £175 for a HUGE speed increase.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is close to 5x the price. I am not denying the benefit but there is
>>>>> quite a difference there.
>>>>>
>>>> 5x is a big difference if it was the total price, but it's only one
>>>> component.
>>>>
>>> It is the total price of the component we are talking about.
>>
>> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an SSD.
>
> Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there.

I thought you said they didn't do SSDs.

>>> But, sure, as I have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a
>>> better file system for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With
>>> APFS they are finally getting the better file system -- but even with that it
>>> is new and I am sure still needs maturing.
>>>
>> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS?
>
> They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one
> (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG past
> time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and iOS
> just migrated to it, but macOS has not.

So like FAT to FAT32?  Egad!

> And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I
> think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger
> issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in
> terms of file systems.

It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers.  Which is a main reason why I go with PCs.  Choice, competition.

>>>> You need to look at the cost compared to the whole machine.  And consider
>>>> that a cheaper machine would have a smaller SSD so wouldn't be so much price
>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>> I agree Apple should include better drives. It is absurd to sell an iMac with
>>> a 5400 RPM drive in it.
>>>
>>>> I don't know anyone who would buy a new machine nowadays with no SSD in it,
>>>> it's like night and day.
>>>>
>>> Even a Fusion drive would make sense for most... closer to the cost of the
>>> hard drive and most of the benefits of the SSD (though if you are like me and
>>> use a lot of VMs and the like you will run into issues).
>>
>> I have a lot of stuff stored on my computer.  I have an SSD and a hard disk.
>> I use the SSD for most things and the hard disk for storing huge data files.
>>
>> Well it's two of each actually as they're mirrored.  I hate hard disk
>> failures.  Also makes upgrading easy.  Simply pull out one of them (even with
>> the computer running) and stick in a bigger one.  Wait for it to duplicate the
>> data, then do the same with the other one.  Then instruct the driver to expand
>> the partition to fill the now larger drives.
>
> I use Time Machine as a backup. My wife's hard drive died -- so I created a
> second account on one of my kid's machine and just migrated her account.
> Then she got a MacBook Air with a smaller SSD and I migrated her account to
> there, but left out some items because of the smaller drive.
>
> All worked very well.
>
> As far me I have been migrating my account from one computer to the next
> since before OS X even existed. Should likely do a clean install one of
> these years.

I didn't freshly install for about 17 years.  Just kept upgrading the OS from Windows 95 on a 486 all the way to Windows 8 on an i5 and swapping one component at a time, whichever was the bottleneck.

-- 
What did God say when he made the first black man? "Damn, I burnt one."

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

#631125

On 4/28/17, 12:44 PM, in article op.yze7r1pejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

... 
>>> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an
>>> SSD.
>>> 
>> Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there.
> 
> I thought you said they didn't do SSDs.

Not by default but they are there as an option.

>>>> But, sure, as I have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a
>>>> better file system for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With
>>>> APFS they are finally getting the better file system -- but even with that
>>>> it
>>>> is new and I am sure still needs maturing.
>>>> 
>>> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS?
>> 
>> They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one
>> (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG past
>> time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and iOS
>> just migrated to it, but macOS has not.
> 
> So like FAT to FAT32?  Egad!

Well, without the use of 8.3 in the background, sorta. :)

>> And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I
>> think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger
>> issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in
>> terms of file systems.
> 
> It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers.  Which is a main reason why
> I go with PCs.  Choice, competition.

I see Apple as one of those choices... and they generally serve me better.
They offer the tools that let me do more for less money.


... 
>> I use Time Machine as a backup. My wife's hard drive died -- so I created a
>> second account on one of my kid's machine and just migrated her account.
>> Then she got a MacBook Air with a smaller SSD and I migrated her account to
>> there, but left out some items because of the smaller drive.
>> 
>> All worked very well.
>> 
>> As far me I have been migrating my account from one computer to the next
>> since before OS X even existed. Should likely do a clean install one of
>> these years.
> 
> I didn't freshly install for about 17 years.  Just kept upgrading the OS from
> Windows 95 on a 486 all the way to Windows 8 on an i5 and swapping one
> component at a time, whichever was the bottleneck.

I do wish Apple made it easier to swap components... no doubt that is a
weakness with their systems.

-- 
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]

#631130

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:56:38 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/28/17, 12:44 PM, in article op.yze7r1pejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an
>>>> SSD.
>>>>
>>> Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there.
>>
>> I thought you said they didn't do SSDs.
>
> Not by default but they are there as an option.

They're living in the past.  They should at least have the OS on a small SSD.  I used to build custom computers and the default was an SSD for the OS and major applications, and a hard disk for large data.

>>>>> But, sure, as I have said I wish Apple would move to better drives. And a
>>>>> better file system for that matter. I have been saying that for years. With
>>>>> APFS they are finally getting the better file system -- but even with that
>>>>> it
>>>>> is new and I am sure still needs maturing.
>>>>>
>>>> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS?
>>>
>>> They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one
>>> (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG past
>>> time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and iOS
>>> just migrated to it, but macOS has not.
>>
>> So like FAT to FAT32?  Egad!
>
> Well, without the use of 8.3 in the background, sorta. :)

Did they get rid of those blasted forks?

>>> And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I
>>> think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger
>>> issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in
>>> terms of file systems.
>>
>> It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers.  Which is a main reason why
>> I go with PCs.  Choice, competition.
>
> I see Apple as one of those choices... and they generally serve me better.
> They offer the tools that let me do more for less money.

They are not a choice of many.  They are a single choice for making a mac.  I consider that unwise.  It's a monopoly.

>>> I use Time Machine as a backup. My wife's hard drive died -- so I created a
>>> second account on one of my kid's machine and just migrated her account.
>>> Then she got a MacBook Air with a smaller SSD and I migrated her account to
>>> there, but left out some items because of the smaller drive.
>>>
>>> All worked very well.
>>>
>>> As far me I have been migrating my account from one computer to the next
>>> since before OS X even existed. Should likely do a clean install one of
>>> these years.
>>
>> I didn't freshly install for about 17 years.  Just kept upgrading the OS from
>> Windows 95 on a 486 all the way to Windows 8 on an i5 and swapping one
>> component at a time, whichever was the bottleneck.
>
> I do wish Apple made it easier to swap components... no doubt that is a
> weakness with their systems.

It's their crazy form over function designs.  Makes it harder to change things that don't quite fit.  Still, a hacksaw can help.

-- 
What's meaner than a pit bull with AIDS?
The guy that gave it to him.

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

#631136

On 4/28/17, 1:18 PM, in article op.yze9dcf2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 20:56:38 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/28/17, 12:44 PM, in article op.yze7r1pejs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>> No, we're considering someone buying a whole computer with or without an
>>>>> SSD.
>>>>> 
>>>> Well, you can get SSD and Fusion drives on Macs. So no issue there.
>>> 
>>> I thought you said they didn't do SSDs.
>> 
>> Not by default but they are there as an option.
> 
> They're living in the past.  They should at least have the OS on a small SSD.
> I used to build custom computers and the default was an SSD for the OS and
> major applications, and a hard disk for large data.

I would just go with a Fusion drive on the low end and then SSD as an
upgrade option. The default of a hard drive -- and a SLOW one at that -- is
insane.

Been a while since I bought a Mac so I just checked to see if that was still
what they did. It is.

  <https://www.apple.com/imac/specs/>
    -----
    1TB (5400-rpm) hard drive
    Configurable up to 1TB Fusion Drive or 256GB of flash storage (SSD)
    -----

The cost to go from the hard drive to the Fusion Drive is $100. I think it
used to be worse.

...
>>>>> Didn't Apple change around the same time as Windows went from FAT to NTFS?
>>>>> 
>>>> They updated their old file system, but it was still tied to the old one
>>>> (from HFS to HFS+... and they have made some other changes). It is LONG
>>>> past time they moved to a better one. They are currently in the process and
>>>> iOS just migrated to it, but macOS has not.
>>> 
>>> So like FAT to FAT32?  Egad!
>> 
>> Well, without the use of 8.3 in the background, sorta. :)
> 
> Did they get rid of those blasted forks?

Supported but optional (and not used much). APFS (the new file system)
supports "extended object attributes" -- which includes backwards support
for forks if you still use them but allows for much more robust meta-data
(not that I know the full details of it).

>>>> And you will not see me apologizing for Apple being behind here. Not that I
>>>> think it is the worst thing in the world (the slow drives are a bigger
>>>> issue) I think they have been FAR too slow to get to where they are now in
>>>> terms of file systems.
>>>> 
>>> It's one company versus 100s of PC manufacturers.  Which is a main reason
>>> why I go with PCs.  Choice, competition.
>>> 
>> I see Apple as one of those choices... and they generally serve me better.
>> They offer the tools that let me do more for less money.
>> 
> They are not a choice of many.  They are a single choice for making a mac.  I
> consider that unwise.  It's a monopoly.

They are a choice for a desktop computer (or laptop, etc.). And for me they
offer the best capabilities at the lowest price. If someone beats them on
that, though, I would happily move (and I do use Windows and Linux, too).

...


-- 
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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web