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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 20:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <enf464Flnk8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #632694 |
On 5/9/2017 6:26 PM, James Wilkinson Sword 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'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. What took you so long? Snit has once again pissed off another person. Snit has been playing this trolling game for over a decade and the result is almost always the same. You got roped into his snit circus and finally realized that you will never win a debate with snit because he will keep misquoting you, asking you for the same proof you have already provided many times previously and snipping the context while at the same time moving the goal posts. The new, recent posters to COLA, like yourself, are finally realizing that having a decent discussion with snit is impossible. The COLA regulars have shunned snit and for good reason. Hopefully you keep snit binned and that the others posting in various cross-posted groups bin snit as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 02:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <q9j5hc1sn5al7ggfel9tqnnpga88l2j25e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #632715 |
On Tue, 9 May 2017 20:11:46 -0400, Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> wrote: >On 5/9/2017 6:26 PM, James Wilkinson Sword 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'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. > >What took you so long? >Snit has once again pissed off another person. > >Snit has been playing this trolling game for over a decade and the >result is almost always the same. You got roped into his snit circus and >finally realized that you will never win a debate with snit because he >will keep misquoting you, asking you for the same proof you have already >provided many times previously and snipping the context while at the >same time moving the goal posts. > >The new, recent posters to COLA, like yourself, are finally realizing >that having a decent discussion with snit is impossible. The COLA >regulars have shunned snit and for good reason. Hopefully you keep snit >binned and that the others posting in various cross-posted groups bin >snit as well. This snit guy really pushed your buttons eh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 12:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oeurjg$ehv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632765 |
Beezel Bub (the lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser) babbled: > This snit guy really pushed your buttons eh? Another Snit sock to put into the killfile
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 19:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7QMA.79941$PI.56012@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #631132 |
On 2017-04-28 16:34, Rene Lamontagne wrote: [...] > Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in > place? > > Rene Rene, you crack me up! You should write for 22 Minutes. -- 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 | Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 18:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe0jhl$3lp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631168 |
On 4/28/2017 6:20 PM, Wolf K wrote: > On 2017-04-28 16:34, Rene Lamontagne wrote: > [...] >> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >> place? >> >> Rene > > Rene, you crack me up! > > You should write for 22 Minutes. > Well They piss me off after a while, I would Delete the thread or KF them but then I wouldn't have anything to swear at or read as that would shrink this NG by about 57.22222 %, Not a hell of a lot to do here some days at 83 years and it is a form of entertainment although pretty pathetic. :-) Regards, Rene.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 21:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzm0tcqjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631172 |
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:37:24 +0100, Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote: > On 4/28/2017 6:20 PM, Wolf K wrote: >> On 2017-04-28 16:34, Rene Lamontagne wrote: >> [...] >>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>> place? >>> >>> Rene >> >> Rene, you crack me up! >> >> You should write for 22 Minutes. >> > > Well They piss me off after a while, I would Delete the thread or KF > them but then I wouldn't have anything to swear at or read as that would > shrink this NG by about 57.22222 %, Not a hell of a lot to do here some > days at 83 years and it is a form of entertainment although pretty > pathetic. :-) So you admit to being a troll then. -- Thank you velly much. I'm not Wan King the chef, I'm Fu King the owner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 21:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzzmymbfjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631132 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 21:34:37 +0100, Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> wrote: > 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? No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can be twice as fast as each other. -- Cold showers/baths/swimming: 1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes. 2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body. 3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold. 4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories. 5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves. 6) Save energy. 7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5377534.A441A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632625 |
On 5/9/17, 1:24 PM, in article op.yzzmymbfjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> 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? >> > No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can be > twice as fast as each other. But you have yet to say what info you need to know the speed other than what Apple gives you. Your one whine is the Intel designation which does NOT tell you ANYTHING about speed on its own. Nothing. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 16:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090520171637202492%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #632625 |
In article <op.yzzmymbfjs98qf@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? > > No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can be > twice as fast as each other. not of the same type, they can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D53777DE.A4426%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632631 |
On 5/9/17, 1:37 PM, in article 090520171637202492%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <op.yzzmymbfjs98qf@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? >> >> No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can be >> twice as fast as each other. > > not of the same type, they can't. Two i5s of the same MHz might have different GPUs, but Apple lists that. Really he is just mad Apple is not holding his hand enough. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090520171644137256%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #632632 |
In article <D53777DE.A4426%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in > >>> place? > >> > >> No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can > >> be > >> twice as fast as each other. > > > > not of the same type, they can't. > > Two i5s of the same MHz might have different GPUs, but Apple lists that. even so, one won't be twice as fast as the other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D537805C.A4435%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632634 |
On 5/9/17, 1:44 PM, in article 090520171644137256%nospam@nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <D53777DE.A4426%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>>>> place? >>>> >>>> No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can >>>> be >>>> twice as fast as each other. >>> >>> not of the same type, they can't. >> >> Two i5s of the same MHz might have different GPUs, but Apple lists that. > > even so, one won't be twice as fast as the other. True... but I can understand wanting to know what GPU comes with it. Which Apple lists very clearly. -- 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 | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 17:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5KqQA.156785$kI.77523@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #632634 |
On 2017-05-09 16:44, nospam wrote: > In article <D53777DE.A4426%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit > <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>>>> place? >>>> >>>> No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can >>>> be >>>> twice as fast as each other. >>> >>> not of the same type, they can't. >> >> Two i5s of the same MHz might have different GPUs, but Apple lists that. > > even so, one won't be twice as fast as the other. I think JWS meant that two CPUs are twice as fast as one, i.e., have twice the throughput of one. Which AFAIK isn't true either. -- 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 | 2017-05-09 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5378764.A4455%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632675 |
On 5/9/17, 2:43 PM, in article 5KqQA.156785$kI.77523@fx43.iad, "Wolf K" <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> wrote: > On 2017-05-09 16:44, nospam wrote: >> In article <D53777DE.A4426%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Would it help also if you knew what size screws hold the disk drives in >>>>>> place? >>>>> >>>>> No, because they don't affect the speed, yet two CPUs of the same GHz can >>>>> be >>>>> twice as fast as each other. >>>> >>>> not of the same type, they can't. >>> >>> Two i5s of the same MHz might have different GPUs, but Apple lists that. >> >> even so, one won't be twice as fast as the other. > > I think JWS meant that two CPUs are twice as fast as one, i.e., have > twice the throughput of one. Which AFAIK isn't true either. At this point it is clear he just wants to play victim. He said his goal was to be able to benchmark Macs vs. other machines, which is no harder for Macs than for others, but he has opted to whine instead of learn how. So be 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 | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 14:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D529015F.A22C8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631131 |
On 4/28/17, 1:21 PM, in article op.yze9hzopjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> 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. As shown to you repeatedly this is not even close to the case. >>>> 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. > You have yet to say what that offers you that Apple does not directly give you. We are down to you just whining that you want a number that tells you NOTHING about the system that Apple does not have directly and clearly listed. You want them to hold your hand to get a chip number that offers no value you can list. >> 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. Incorrect. >>>> 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. I would *much* more want to know it is a 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, with 4MB shared L3 cache and an Intel Iris Graphics 540 than to know it is a Core i5-6360U. But, really, either one is telling you the same thing... just with the latter you have to do research to know more to compare it to other CPUs. >>> 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? Yes: you denied that what I showed you from a URL that started that way was from Apple and said I had to do "research" to find that content. >>>> 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. I have given you the information you need to move past your challenges here, how you use that information is up to 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]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 23:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.yzv4tsh4js98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631137 |
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:25:35 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/28/17, 1:21 PM, in article op.yze9hzopjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson > Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> 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. > > As shown to you repeatedly this is not even close to the case. They don't state the model of i5 used, they are withholding information, and therefore not to be trusted. >>>>> 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. >> > You have yet to say what that offers you that Apple does not directly give > you. We are down to you just whining that you want a number that tells you > NOTHING about the system that Apple does not have directly and clearly > listed. You want them to hold your hand to get a chip number that offers no > value you can list. I want to know what I'm buying. >>> 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. > > Incorrect. They don't say what CPU is used, every other manufacturer does. >>>>> 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. > > I would *much* more want to know it is a 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, > Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, with 4MB shared L3 cache and an Intel Iris > Graphics 540 than to know it is a Core i5-6360U. But, really, either one is > telling you the same thing... just with the latter you have to do research > to know more to compare it to other CPUs. The precise model tells you how good it is. Anything else is withholding information. Apple are con artists and you fall for it hook line and sinker. >>>> 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? > > Yes: you denied that what I showed you from a URL that started that way was > from Apple and said I had to do "research" to find that content. Apple do not reveal what parts they use. >>>>> 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. > > I have given you the information you need to move past your challenges here, > how you use that information is up to you. They do not tell you what parts are used. -- Why are all the niggers fast runners? All the slow ones are in jail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D534F8BF.A3F62%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632300 |
On 5/7/17, 3:59 PM, in article op.yzv4tsh4js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: ... >>>>> 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. >> >> As shown to you repeatedly this is not even close to the case. > > They don't state the model of i5 used, they are withholding information, and > therefore not to be trusted. When asked what information this would give you OTHER than what Apple provides you have no answer. Knowing an internal number used by Intel does not tell you anything else about the processor... and we have gone over this. If you can actually come up with a value that Intel number gives you that Apple does not please let me know. ... >> You have yet to say what that offers you that Apple does not directly give >> you. We are down to you just whining that you want a number that tells you >> NOTHING about the system that Apple does not have directly and clearly >> listed. You want them to hold your hand to get a chip number that offers no >> value you can list. > > I want to know what I'm buying. Are you buying a Mac? Of so which one? I will show you how YOU can find which Intel number corresponds to the specs Apple provides. ... >>>>>> 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. >>> >> I would *much* more want to know it is a 2.0GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, >> Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz, with 4MB shared L3 cache and an Intel Iris Graphics >> 540 than to know it is a Core i5-6360U. But, really, either one is telling >> you the same thing... just with the latter you have to do research to know >> more to compare it to other CPUs. > > The precise model tells you how good it is. Based on finding the specs for that model... which Apple tells you. So you can get the number to get the specs or you can get the specs directly. Apple gives the specs directly. You want to know an arbitrary number you can use to find the specs. Apple instead gives you the specs. You then whine they do not hold your hand and help you find a number that you cannot even say why you want. So be 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 | Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 13:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <emhbloFs61oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #631088 |
On 4/28/2017 1:08 PM, Snit 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. > > 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. And another circus ring is born.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 12:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <odvttv$p44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631090 |
On 4/28/2017 12:15 PM, Charlie wrote: > On 4/28/2017 1:08 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/28/17, 3:44 AM, in article op.yzeirppejs98qf@red.lan, "James >> Wilkinson >> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:35:54 +0100, Snit >>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/27/17, 5:13 PM, in article mOvMA.85736$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. >> >> 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. > > And another circus ring is born. > > Yeah, A real pair of true blue idiots, Makes you wonder if their heads were screwed on with left hand threads! Maybe they should try comparing bananas and abacuses, That would be about their speed. Rene
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D528D040.A221E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631090 |
On 4/28/17, 10:15 AM, in article emhbloFs61oU1@mid.individual.net, "Charlie" <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> wrote: > On 4/28/2017 1:08 PM, Snit 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#surf >>>>> ac >>>>> 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. > > And another circus ring is born. > > LOL! I not only gave him the answer but showed him how he can find it on his own. Evil of me. -- 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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web