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 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 18:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631088 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 18:08:24 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > 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. So even worse then, I still have no idea which CPU is in it so I can compare the speed of the mac to anything else. GHz is NOT a clear indicator of speed as you can see from the chart I linked to. > Yeah, great example. > > Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday. There aren't any, you STILL have not provided a link where it shows what processor is in it. FFS use your control panel to look at what's in yours if you have a fairly new one. > 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 you had to do research to find out which CPU MIGHT be in it. Apple are conning you and you're falling for it hook line and sinker, just like every other dumbass mac user. Would you buy a car without knowing any specs? Dealer says "it's got a big engine in it" - would that be enough for you? > So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the complete list > that matches the specs Apple shows you. -- I took an IQ test and the results were negative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D528D21B.A2220%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631089 |
On 4/28/17, 10:13 AM, in article op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>> 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. > > So even worse then, I still have no idea which CPU is in it so I can compare > the speed of the mac to anything else. GHz is NOT a clear indicator of speed > as you can see from the chart I linked to. Did someone say otherwise? If so, whom? >> Yeah, great example. >> >> Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday. > > There aren't any, you STILL have not provided a link where it shows what > processor is in it. FFS use your control panel to look at what's in yours if > you have a fairly new one. I did yesterday and quoted it for you multiple times. And I do, again, below with yet another system. I think you need to take a step back, learn a little about the processors and about what the specs are, and then come back. At this point I have lead you to the water time and time again but you refuse to drink. Nothing else I can do to get you to quench your thirst. >> 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 you had to do research to find out which CPU MIGHT be in it. Of course I had to do "research" and look at Apple's page to get those specs! It is not like I have it memorized for all of their machines! But, for crying out loud, does Dell come to your house and tell you the specs when you mention a machine? NO! You have to go to their site, too! > Apple are conning you and you're falling for it hook line and sinker, just > like every other dumbass mac user. Would you buy a car without knowing any > specs? Dealer says "it's got a big engine in it" - would that be enough for > you? Hint: when a URL starts with "https://apple.com" it is Apple's site. >> So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the complete list >> that matches the specs Apple shows you. Gee, NO other CPUs from you. None. Meaning if you know what Apple shows you then you know all you need to know. It is not as if you look at those specs and then find another machine listed with the same specs it will have a different CPU. What more are you hoping to get? What more does having the Intel name give you? So far you have offered NOTHING. Not even saying there might not be some rare cases... but you cannot think of ANY. -- 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 21:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yze9hzopjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631099 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:03:55 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/17, 10:13 AM, in article op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> 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. >> >> So even worse then, I still have no idea which CPU is in it so I can compare >> the speed of the mac to anything else. GHz is NOT a clear indicator of speed >> as you can see from the chart I linked to. > > Did someone say otherwise? If so, whom? Apple, by only giving you the GHz. >>> Yeah, great example. >>> >>> Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday. >> >> There aren't any, you STILL have not provided a link where it shows what >> processor is in it. FFS use your control panel to look at what's in yours if >> you have a fairly new one. > > I did yesterday and quoted it for you multiple times. And I do, again, below > with yet another system. Not the precise model of the CPU, eg 3570K. > I think you need to take a step back, learn a little about the processors > and about what the specs are, and then come back. At this point I have lead > you to the water time and time again but you refuse to drink. Nothing else I > can do to get you to quench your thirst. When I buy a PC, I can go to a few manufacturers, see what components they have, compare the speeds of each, and choose who I want to buy from. Apple gives insufficient data to compare. >>> 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 you had to do research to find out which CPU MIGHT be in it. > > Of course I had to do "research" and look at Apple's page to get those > specs! It is not like I have it memorized for all of their machines! But, > for crying out loud, does Dell come to your house and tell you the specs > when you mention a machine? NO! You have to go to their site, too! I go to their site and they tell me precisely what CPU they use. I don't have to guess like you're doing. >> Apple are conning you and you're falling for it hook line and sinker, just >> like every other dumbass mac user. Would you buy a car without knowing any >> specs? Dealer says "it's got a big engine in it" - would that be enough for >> you? > > Hint: when a URL starts with "https://apple.com" it is Apple's site. Did I say otherwise? >>> So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the complete list >>> that matches the specs Apple shows you. > > Gee, NO other CPUs from you. None. Meaning if you know what Apple shows you > then you know all you need to know. It is not as if you look at those specs > and then find another machine listed with the same specs it will have a > different CPU. > > What more are you hoping to get? What more does having the Intel name give > you? So far you have offered NOTHING. Not even saying there might not be > some rare cases... but you cannot think of ANY. All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, I cannot tell if it's a good deal. -- Said the Duchess of Windsor at tea, "Young man, do you fart when you pee?" I replied with some wit "Do you belch when you shit?" I think that was one up to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 15:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe08qt$ai$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631131 |
On 4/28/2017 3:21 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote: > On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:03:55 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 4/28/17, 10:13 AM, in article op.yze0splfjs98qf@red.lan, "James >> Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> 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. >>> >>> So even worse then, I still have no idea which CPU is in it so I can >>> compare >>> the speed of the mac to anything else. GHz is NOT a clear indicator >>> of speed >>> as you can see from the chart I linked to. >> >> Did someone say otherwise? If so, whom? > > Apple, by only giving you the GHz. > >>>> Yeah, great example. >>>> >>>> Look at the FULL specs, like I explained yesterday. >>> >>> There aren't any, you STILL have not provided a link where it shows what >>> processor is in it. FFS use your control panel to look at what's in >>> yours if >>> you have a fairly new one. >> >> I did yesterday and quoted it for you multiple times. And I do, again, >> below >> with yet another system. > > Not the precise model of the CPU, eg 3570K. > >> I think you need to take a step back, learn a little about the processors >> and about what the specs are, and then come back. At this point I have >> lead >> you to the water time and time again but you refuse to drink. Nothing >> else I >> can do to get you to quench your thirst. > > When I buy a PC, I can go to a few manufacturers, see what components > they have, compare the speeds of each, and choose who I want to buy > from. Apple gives insufficient data to compare. > >>>> 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 you had to do research to find out which CPU MIGHT be in it. >> >> Of course I had to do "research" and look at Apple's page to get those >> specs! It is not like I have it memorized for all of their machines! But, >> for crying out loud, does Dell come to your house and tell you the specs >> when you mention a machine? NO! You have to go to their site, too! > > I go to their site and they tell me precisely what CPU they use. I > don't have to guess like you're doing. > >>> Apple are conning you and you're falling for it hook line and sinker, >>> just >>> like every other dumbass mac user. Would you buy a car without >>> knowing any >>> specs? Dealer says "it's got a big engine in it" - would that be >>> enough for >>> you? >> >> Hint: when a URL starts with "https://apple.com" it is Apple's site. > > Did I say otherwise? > >>>> So what other one were you thinking it might be? Give me the >>>> complete list >>>> that matches the specs Apple shows you. >> >> Gee, NO other CPUs from you. None. Meaning if you know what Apple >> shows you >> then you know all you need to know. It is not as if you look at those >> specs >> and then find another machine listed with the same specs it will have a >> different CPU. >> >> What more are you hoping to get? What more does having the Intel name >> give >> you? So far you have offered NOTHING. Not even saying there might not be >> some rare cases... but you cannot think of ANY. > > All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, > I cannot tell if it's a good deal. > Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in place? Rene
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D529024A.A22CA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631132 |
On 4/28/17, 1:34 PM, in article oe08qt$ai$1@dont-email.me, "Rene Lamontagne"
<rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> Gee, NO other CPUs from you. None. Meaning if you know what Apple shows you
>>> then you know all you need to know. It is not as if you look at those specs
>>> and then find another machine listed with the same specs it will have a
>>> different CPU.
>>>
>>> What more are you hoping to get? What more does having the Intel name give
>>> you? So far you have offered NOTHING. Not even saying there might not be
>>> some rare cases... but you cannot think of ANY.
>>>
>> All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, I
>> cannot tell if it's a good deal.
>>
>
> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in place?
>
> Rene
:)
His game is to pretend that knowing a chip is a Core i5-6360U tells him
significant information that he does not know by seeing that the computer
has:
-----
* 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz,
with 4MB shared L3 cache
* Intel Iris Graphics 540
-----
But he cannot say WHAT information he is lacking. I have even tossed him a
bone and let him know there are some cases where there are multiple socket
options (though it is easy to know which Apple is using if you care) and he
did not even suggest that mattered to him.
Heck, I was expecting him to do a better job on his whining and then I would
point him to everymac.com, but he did not even get to that point. Shhhhh...
don't tell him my plans. :)
--
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 | 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzmz1qyjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631138 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:29:30 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/17, 1:34 PM, in article oe08qt$ai$1@dont-email.me, "Rene Lamontagne" > <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote: > >>>> Gee, NO other CPUs from you. None. Meaning if you know what Apple shows you >>>> then you know all you need to know. It is not as if you look at those specs >>>> and then find another machine listed with the same specs it will have a >>>> different CPU. >>>> >>>> What more are you hoping to get? What more does having the Intel name give >>>> you? So far you have offered NOTHING. Not even saying there might not be >>>> some rare cases... but you cannot think of ANY. >>>> >>> All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, I >>> cannot tell if it's a good deal. >>> >> >> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in place? >> >> Rene > > :) > > His game is to pretend that knowing a chip is a Core i5-6360U tells him > significant information that he does not know by seeing that the computer > has: > > ----- > * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, > with 4MB shared L3 cache > * Intel Iris Graphics 540 > ----- > > But he cannot say WHAT information he is lacking. More than one 3.1GHz CPU about. If I can se the EXACT model, I can easily look at how much the VERY SAME chip costs in a computer by another supplier. -- Peter is listening to "Hollywood Undead - Turn Out The Lights"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D53775BD.A441B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632627 |
On 5/9/17, 1:25 PM, in article op.yzzmz1qyjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, I >>>> cannot tell if it's a good deal. >>>> >>> >>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>> place? >>> >>> Rene >> >> :) >> >> His game is to pretend that knowing a chip is a Core i5-6360U tells him >> significant information that he does not know by seeing that the computer >> has: >> >> ----- >> * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, >> with 4MB shared L3 cache >> * Intel Iris Graphics 540 >> ----- >> >> But he cannot say WHAT information he is lacking. > > More than one 3.1GHz CPU about. Not in contention. But other than an Intel designation you cannot say what information you want, and that Intel designation, by itself, tells you NOTHING about the speed. > If I can se the EXACT model, I can easily look at how much the VERY SAME chip > costs in a computer by another supplier. Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? -- 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 | 2017-05-09 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzof9s1js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632630 |
On Tue, 09 May 2017 21:33:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/9/17, 1:25 PM, in article op.yzzmz1qyjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, I >>>>> cannot tell if it's a good deal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>>> place? >>>> >>>> Rene >>> >>> :) >>> >>> His game is to pretend that knowing a chip is a Core i5-6360U tells him >>> significant information that he does not know by seeing that the computer >>> has: >>> >>> ----- >>> * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, >>> with 4MB shared L3 cache >>> * Intel Iris Graphics 540 >>> ----- >>> >>> But he cannot say WHAT information he is lacking. >> >> More than one 3.1GHz CPU about. > > Not in contention. But other than an Intel designation you cannot say what > information you want, and that Intel designation, by itself, tells you > NOTHING about the speed. > >> If I can se the EXACT model, I can easily look at how much the VERY SAME chip >> costs in a computer by another supplier. > > Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... > that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY > counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? Why should I have to work out what chip they use? EVERY OTHER COMPUTER MANUFACTURER states the Intel model. I can then compare that PC with another PC by another retailer to check prices. I can look up CPU speeds in CPU review etc. Can't do that with Apple as I don't know what chip is in it. -- The way to a man's heart is through the left ventricle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 17:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090520171702172295%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #632637 |
In article <op.yzzof9s1js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > > > >> If I can se the EXACT model, I can easily look at how much the VERY SAME > >> chip > >> costs in a computer by another supplier. > > > > Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... > > that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY > > counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? > > Why should I have to work out what chip they use? EVERY OTHER COMPUTER > MANUFACTURER states the Intel model. no they don't. <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-laptop/tech-spe cs> Processor 7th Generation Intel® Core i5 or i7 microsoft says *less* than apple does. > I can then compare that PC with another > PC by another retailer to check prices. > I can look up CPU speeds in CPU review etc. you don't need to know the exact part number to do that. > Can't do that with Apple as I don't know what chip is in it. nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D53783DC.A4443%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632641 |
On 5/9/17, 2:02 PM, in article 090520171702172295%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yzzof9s1js98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>> >>>> If I can se the EXACT model, I can easily look at how much the VERY SAME >>>> chip >>>> costs in a computer by another supplier. >>> >>> Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... >>> that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY >>> counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? >> >> Why should I have to work out what chip they use? EVERY OTHER COMPUTER >> MANUFACTURER states the Intel model. > > no they don't. > > <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-laptop/tech-spe > cs> > Processor 7th Generation Intel® Core i5 or i7 > > microsoft says *less* than apple does. > >> I can then compare that PC with another >> PC by another retailer to check prices. >> I can look up CPU speeds in CPU review etc. > > you don't need to know the exact part number to do that. > >> Can't do that with Apple as I don't know what chip is in it. > > nonsense. His frustration comes from his lack of ability to Google benchmark comparisons of Macs to other systems... and I have offered to help him. I suspect, though, he will still whine and blame others. -- 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 | 2017-05-09 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D537819D.A4438%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632637 |
On 5/9/17, 1:56 PM, in article op.yzzof9s1js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 May 2017 21:33:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 5/9/17, 1:25 PM, in article op.yzzmz1qyjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, I >>>>>> cannot tell if it's a good deal. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>>>> place? >>>>> >>>>> Rene >>>> >>>> :) >>>> >>>> His game is to pretend that knowing a chip is a Core i5-6360U tells him >>>> significant information that he does not know by seeing that the computer >>>> has: >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, >>>> with 4MB shared L3 cache >>>> * Intel Iris Graphics 540 >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> But he cannot say WHAT information he is lacking. >>> >>> More than one 3.1GHz CPU about. >> >> Not in contention. But other than an Intel designation you cannot say what >> information you want, and that Intel designation, by itself, tells you >> NOTHING about the speed. >> >>> If I can se the EXACT model, I can easily look at how much the VERY SAME >>> chip >>> costs in a computer by another supplier. >> >> Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... >> that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY >> counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? > > Why should I have to work out what chip they use? EVERY OTHER COMPUTER > MANUFACTURER states the Intel model. I can then compare that PC with another > PC by another retailer to check prices. I can look up CPU speeds in CPU review > etc. Can't do that with Apple as I don't know what chip is in it. Finally you get to your question: you do not know how to look up benchmark comparisons of Macs without that number. THAT is what you are missing. If you are specific with what machine you are thinking of I am happy to help. I will not only show you the comparisons but how I found them so you can do it for yourself with other machines. Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not just blaming others. -- 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 | 2017-05-09 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzqd2pnjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632656 |
On Tue, 09 May 2017 22:24:29 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/9/17, 1:56 PM, in article op.yzzof9s1js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 May 2017 21:33:49 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>> On 5/9/17, 1:25 PM, in article op.yzzmz1qyjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> All I want is to know what parts they are using. If I don't know that, I >>>>>>> cannot tell if it's a good deal. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>>>>> place? >>>>>> >>>>>> Rene >>>>> >>>>> :) >>>>> >>>>> His game is to pretend that knowing a chip is a Core i5-6360U tells him >>>>> significant information that he does not know by seeing that the computer >>>>> has: >>>>> >>>>> ----- >>>>> * 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, >>>>> with 4MB shared L3 cache >>>>> * Intel Iris Graphics 540 >>>>> ----- >>>>> >>>>> But he cannot say WHAT information he is lacking. >>>> >>>> More than one 3.1GHz CPU about. >>> >>> Not in contention. But other than an Intel designation you cannot say what >>> information you want, and that Intel designation, by itself, tells you >>> NOTHING about the speed. >>> >>>> If I can se the EXACT model, I can easily look at how much the VERY SAME >>>> chip >>>> costs in a computer by another supplier. >>> >>> Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... >>> that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY >>> counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? >> >> Why should I have to work out what chip they use? EVERY OTHER COMPUTER >> MANUFACTURER states the Intel model. I can then compare that PC with another >> PC by another retailer to check prices. I can look up CPU speeds in CPU review >> etc. Can't do that with Apple as I don't know what chip is in it. > > Finally you get to your question: Nope, told you 50 times already. > you do not know how to look up benchmark > comparisons of Macs without that number. THAT is what you are missing. No, it's what Apple are withholding. I'm not doing their work for them. EVERY OTHER SUPPLIER gives the info. > If you are specific with what machine you are thinking of I am happy to > help. I will not only show you the comparisons but how I found them so you > can do it for yourself with other machines. > > Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not > just blaming others. No, I see no need to do Apple's work for them. Why do they hide information? -- "I can't find a cause for your illness," the doctor said. "Frankly, I think it's due to drinking." "In that case," replied his blonde patient, "I'll come back when you're sober."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5378703.A4454%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632669 |
On 5/9/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yzzqd2pnjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... >>>> that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY >>>> counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? >>> >>> Why should I have to work out what chip they use? EVERY OTHER COMPUTER >>> MANUFACTURER states the Intel model. I can then compare that PC with >>> another >>> PC by another retailer to check prices. I can look up CPU speeds in CPU >>> review >>> etc. Can't do that with Apple as I don't know what chip is in it. >> >> Finally you get to your question: > > Nope, told you 50 times already. > >> you do not know how to look up benchmark >> comparisons of Macs without that number. THAT is what you are missing. > > No, it's what Apple are withholding. I'm not doing their work for them. > EVERY OTHER SUPPLIER gives the info. > >> If you are specific with what machine you are thinking of I am happy to >> help. I will not only show you the comparisons but how I found them so you >> can do it for yourself with other machines. >> >> Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not >> just blaming others. > > No, I see no need to do Apple's work for them. Why do they hide information? So instead of leaning how to find the benchmarks you say you want, which are no harder for Macs than other systems, you want to blame others. OK. If all you want to do is play victim there is not much I can do for you. Keep pretending to be a victim all 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 | 2017-05-09 22:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzrcryqjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632678 |
On Tue, 09 May 2017 22:47:31 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/9/17, 2:38 PM, in article op.yzzqd2pnjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> Look at the speed tied to the type of processor (i5, i7, etc,) and GPU... >>>>> that tells you the chip in every example we have seen. Do you have ANY >>>>> counterexamples or are you just whining to whine? >>>> >>>> Why should I have to work out what chip they use? EVERY OTHER COMPUTER >>>> MANUFACTURER states the Intel model. I can then compare that PC with >>>> another >>>> PC by another retailer to check prices. I can look up CPU speeds in CPU >>>> review >>>> etc. Can't do that with Apple as I don't know what chip is in it. >>> >>> Finally you get to your question: >> >> Nope, told you 50 times already. >> >>> you do not know how to look up benchmark >>> comparisons of Macs without that number. THAT is what you are missing. >> >> No, it's what Apple are withholding. I'm not doing their work for them. >> EVERY OTHER SUPPLIER gives the info. >> >>> If you are specific with what machine you are thinking of I am happy to >>> help. I will not only show you the comparisons but how I found them so you >>> can do it for yourself with other machines. >>> >>> Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not >>> just blaming others. >> >> No, I see no need to do Apple's work for them. Why do they hide information? > > So instead of leaning how to find the benchmarks you say you want, which are > no harder for Macs than other systems, you want to blame others. OK. > > If all you want to do is play victim there is not much I can do for you. > Keep pretending to be a victim all you want! It's not "no harder". You have to work out what CPU is in the mac before you buy it. PC manufacturers just tell you. Why are Apple hiding this information? -- I thought the wife would be the ideal candidate for a new TV show. Turns out I got it all wrong and the program's called Fact Hunt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 15:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5378C9F.A446B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632683 |
On 5/9/17, 2:59 PM, in article op.yzzrcryqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >>>> Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not >>>> just blaming others. >>> >>> No, I see no need to do Apple's work for them. Why do they hide >>> information? >> >> So instead of leaning how to find the benchmarks you say you want, which are >> no harder for Macs than other systems, you want to blame others. OK. >> >> If all you want to do is play victim there is not much I can do for you. >> Keep pretending to be a victim all you want! > > It's not "no harder". You have to work out what CPU is in the mac before you > buy it. PC manufacturers just tell you. Why are Apple hiding this > information? See: you prefer to play victim instead of learn to do a simple comparison between Macs and other systems. So be it. How many more victim-mentality posts are you going to make on this topic? -- 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 | 2017-05-09 23:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzsk5ybjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632686 |
On Tue, 09 May 2017 23:11:27 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/9/17, 2:59 PM, in article op.yzzrcryqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not >>>>> just blaming others. >>>> >>>> No, I see no need to do Apple's work for them. Why do they hide >>>> information? >>> >>> So instead of leaning how to find the benchmarks you say you want, which are >>> no harder for Macs than other systems, you want to blame others. OK. >>> >>> If all you want to do is play victim there is not much I can do for you. >>> Keep pretending to be a victim all you want! >> >> It's not "no harder". You have to work out what CPU is in the mac before you >> buy it. PC manufacturers just tell you. Why are Apple hiding this >> information? > > See: you prefer to play victim instead of learn to do a simple comparison > between Macs and other systems. So be it. How many more victim-mentality > posts are you going to make on this topic? It'snot a simple comparison, Apple refuse to sadmit what is in their boxes. You are an Apple fan-boi and Igive up trying to educate you. Youre' an Americans and an Aple user, that makes you doubly stupid. You probably believe in godf aswell. -- Peter is listening to "Hollywood Undead - Turn Out The Lights"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 18:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090520171827057606%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #632693 |
In article <op.yzzsk5ybjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >> It's not "no harder". You have to work out what CPU is in the mac before > >> you > >> buy it. PC manufacturers just tell you. Why are Apple hiding this > >> information? > > > > See: you prefer to play victim instead of learn to do a simple comparison > > between Macs and other systems. So be it. How many more victim-mentality > > posts are you going to make on this topic? > > It'snot a simple comparison, Apple refuse to sadmit what is in their boxes. > You are an Apple fan-boi and Igive up trying to educate you. Youre' an > Americans and an Aple user, that makes you doubly stupid. You probably believe in godf aswell. microsoft doesn't either: <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-laptop/tech-spe cs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D537914F.A4484%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632696 |
On 5/9/17, 3:27 PM, in article 090520171827057606%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yzzsk5ybjs98qf@red.lan>, James Wilkinson Sword > <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>> It's not "no harder". You have to work out what CPU is in the mac before >>>> you >>>> buy it. PC manufacturers just tell you. Why are Apple hiding this >>>> information? >>> >>> See: you prefer to play victim instead of learn to do a simple comparison >>> between Macs and other systems. So be it. How many more victim-mentality >>> posts are you going to make on this topic? >> >> It'snot a simple comparison, Apple refuse to sadmit what is in their boxes. >> You are an Apple fan-boi and Igive up trying to educate you. Youre' an >> Americans and an Aple user, that makes you doubly stupid. You probably >> believe in godf aswell. > > microsoft doesn't either: > <https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-laptop/tech-spe > cs> But he will not whine about them... maybe because he wants Apple products more than he wants MS products? -- 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 | 2017-05-09 15:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5379055.A447C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632693 |
On 5/9/17, 3:25 PM, in article op.yzzsk5ybjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 May 2017 23:11:27 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> On 5/9/17, 2:59 PM, in article op.yzzrcryqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not >>>>>> just blaming others. >>>>> >>>>> No, I see no need to do Apple's work for them. Why do they hide >>>>> information? >>>> >>>> So instead of leaning how to find the benchmarks you say you want, which >>>> are >>>> no harder for Macs than other systems, you want to blame others. OK. >>>> >>>> If all you want to do is play victim there is not much I can do for you. >>>> Keep pretending to be a victim all you want! >>> >>> It's not "no harder". You have to work out what CPU is in the mac before >>> you >>> buy it. PC manufacturers just tell you. Why are Apple hiding this >>> information? >> >> See: you prefer to play victim instead of learn to do a simple comparison >> between Macs and other systems. So be it. How many more victim-mentality >> posts are you going to make on this topic? > > It'snot a simple comparison, Apple refuse to sadmit what is in their boxes. > You are an Apple fan-boi and Igive up trying to educate you. Youre' an > Americans and an Aple user, that makes you doubly stupid. You probably > believe in godf aswell. See: you prefer to play victim instead of learn to do a simple comparison between Macs and other systems. So be it. How many more victim-mentality posts are you going to make on this topic? -- 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 | 2017-05-09 23:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzsmbnqjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #632686 |
On Tue, 09 May 2017 23:11:27 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 5/9/17, 2:59 PM, in article op.yzzrcryqjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > >>>>> Thanks for finally admitting what skill you were lacking in this and not >>>>> just blaming others. >>>> >>>> No, I see no need to do Apple's work for them. Why do they hide >>>> information? >>> >>> So instead of leaning how to find the benchmarks you say you want, which are >>> no harder for Macs than other systems, you want to blame others. OK. >>> >>> If all you want to do is play victim there is not much I can do for you. >>> Keep pretending to be a victim all you want! >> >> It's not "no harder". You have to work out what CPU is in the mac before you >> buy it. PC manufacturers just tell you. Why are Apple hiding this >> information? > > See: you prefer to play victim instead of learn to do a simple comparison > between Macs and other systems. So be it. How many more victim-mentality > posts are you going to make on this topic? It's not a simple comparison, Apple refuse to admit what is in their boxes. You are an Apple fan-boi and I give up trying to educate you. You're an American and an Apple user, that makes you doubly stupid. You probably believe in god aswell. Consider yourself killfiled. -- Peter is listening to "Hollywood Undead - Turn Out The Lights"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web