XPost: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: crude@sausa.ge   
      
   On 2026-01-04 21:41, Alan wrote:   
   > On 2026-01-04 18:33, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >> On 2026-01-04 19:29, Alan wrote:   
   >>> On 2026-01-03 18:15, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >>>>>> they can depend on to obfuscate their drawbacks and exaggerate   
   >>>>>> their better features, making it seem like the investment in a Mac   
   >>>>>> isn't overpaying Apple but in fact an upgrade over its   
   >>>>>> competition, a proposition easily refuted by actually using the   
   >>>>>> three platforms enough to see how mediocre Apple's crapware really   
   >>>>>> is.   
   >>>>> And yet you can never actually articulate something that either   
   >>>>> Linux or Windows does better.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Servers and supercomputers for Linux, gaming for Windows.   
   >>>   
   >>> First: not what people care about for a PERSONAL computer.   
   >>   
   >> You asked what Linux does better (still available to quote above) and   
   >> I told you.   
   >   
   > In the context of what APPLE provides, yes.   
   >   
   > Do you see the difference?   
      
   Theoretically, if Apple were to decide to produce a server product   
   again, I'm sure that the line of processors would do the job and the   
   product would be quite impressive. Nevertheless, it would inevitably   
   cost more and provide little to no benefit over the lower-cost, more   
   easily maintained Linux servers. I think Apple realized that it's not a   
   market they can easily penetrate.   
      
   >>> Second: "more" is not "better".   
   >>   
   >> Being able to play every game under the sun and with excellent   
   >> performance is a lot more important to a gamer than knowing that two   
   >> or three titles Apple selected run fine on Apple's hardware. So yes,   
   >> _more_ games and _more_ frames are indeed better, Linux is a better   
   >> option that MacOS for gamers who don't want to use Windows, but   
   >> Windows is still king for now.   
   > It isn't BETTER from a computing standpoint.   
   >   
   > But if you want to make that your standard, then Linux is clearly MUCH   
   > "worse" than Apple...   
   >   
   > ...because Apple provides far more of the software packages that people   
   > want to use.   
   >   
   > Same standard, you agree, right?   
   >   
   > (Man, you are bad at this!)   
   >   
   > (BTW, that was all AMUSEMENT. :-) )   
      
   You're moving goal posts. You're talking about what MacOS's competition   
   does better and I mentioned gaming which, whether you like it or not, is   
   still something people do on their _desktops_ and _laptops_, a segment   
   Apple caters to. As it is, Linux has already conquered the portable   
   gaming market as companies see the benefit of using the Linux-based   
   SteamOS on portable devices rather than Windows. Still with Steam and   
   Proton, Linux will allow you to play 90% or more of what's available for   
   Windows with a small performance penalty on NVIDIA GPUs and better   
   performance on AMD GPUs. MacOS's compatibility with the large number of   
   titles already available for Windows is nowhere near 90%. In most cases,   
   Apple users have to hope that someone is nice enough to port a game.   
      
   So not only can Linux do everything the Mac can but it can also:   
      
   1) Run servers and provide a complete set of tools for remote access and   
   maintenance.   
   2) Play about 90% of all games ever released.   
      
   Both of those at _no_ extra charge and on hardware that costs half of   
   what Apple charges.   
      
   --   
   CrudeSausage   
   John 14:6   
   Pop_OS!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)