XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-09 17:45, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/9/26 8:33 PM, Alan wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>> why is the upgrade $200?  What about a 512 GB SSD obviates that cost?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nothing has to.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> PEOPLE BUY SYSTEMS!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The question they ask (the rational people) is:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Do I get a whole SYSTEM that works for me at the price I'm am being   
   >>>> offered?"   
   >>>   
   >>> What is rational about giving away $200 to a corporation?   
   >>   
   >> That you get an ENTIRE system that works better (for YOU) than the   
   >> alternative.   
   >   
   >   
   > But the $200 isn't for the entire system.  It's specifically to change   
   > from 256 GB to 512 GB.  Your answer is avoiding the point, that it's   
   > more than any conceivable estimate, profit included, would warrant.   
      
   That's exactly the POINT.   
      
   The question a rational person asks is:   
      
   "Is the whole system (with 512GB) worth it to me at that cost?"   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>> AppleCare if you pay extra?  Nonstandard interface ports that   
   >>>>>>>>>>> they claim are better 'cause they say so?  What a joke.  What   
   >>>>>>>>>>> a total cult.  And you're the ringleader.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> What "non-standard" ports has Apple ever used, since ADB   
   >>>>>>>>>> (Apple Desktop Bus)?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> You know, I actually have to concede something here.  The EU   
   >>>>>>>>> forced them to make iPhone jacks USB-C, which was a downgrade   
   >>>>>>>>> to make them compatible with other manufacturers' chargers.   
   >>>>>>>>> So, in that respect, I actually think Apple was superior,   
   >>>>>>>>> albeit for the function of charging the device, not using it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Apple introduced most of the ports that advanced the personal   
   >>>>>>>> computer standard.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> When IBM-style PCs had only parallel ports, Apple introduced   
   >>>>>>>> Macs with SCSI that allowed up to 7 devices to be attached to   
   >>>>>>>> one port.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> When the IBM-style PC was using ISA slots, Apple introduced Macs   
   >>>>>>>> that used a far superior open standard called NuBus.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> USB: an open standard first widely available on the original iMac.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Firewire: an open standard far faster than USB at the time.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Thunderbolt: an open standard far faster than USB at its   
   >>>>>>>> introduction.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Etc.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I would mostly not challenge those points.  I would point out   
   >>>>>>> that the proprietary nature of some of these features supports   
   >>>>>>> the idea that Apple trends nonstandard, though.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Of those, the only proprietary one was ADB.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Everything else was an open standard.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So your second sentence proceeds from a false premise.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Heh, no, dude, they pretended they were open standards.  In   
   >>>>> practice, they were Apple proprietary.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No...dude:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They were open standards. And ALL of them were obviously,   
   >>>> objectively better than the standards that happened to chosen for   
   >>>> IBM-style PCs.   
   >>>   
   >>> Do you see any real numbers of other manufacturers adopting Thunderbolt?   
   >>   
   >> How is that relevant to the fact that they are all open standards   
   >> (caveat ADB).   
   >   
   >   
   > USB qualifies, obviously, FireWire maybe, but from there it gets super   
   > obscure.   
      
   Nope. You not knowing about things doesn't make them "obscure".   
      
   NuBus was a huge step over ISA.   
      
   Thunderbolt was developed by Intel and Apple in collaboration, and Sony   
   made use of it as well as Apple...   
      
   ...and Acer...   
      
   ...and HP...   
      
   ...Lenovo...   
      
   ...Asus...   
      
   ...and, of course, Intel's own PCs.   
      
   And that's just the initial version of Thunderbolt.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> So asked to name an application you actually use that's better   
   >>>>>>>> than the macOS equivalent...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ...you surrendered.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Got it.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I don't see why I need to name specific apps to make the point.   
   >>>>>>> It's not a surrender.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Then name an app.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Just ONE app that you actually use.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Audacious.  It's even better than Winamp is on Winblows, IMO.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And available for macOS:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Terminal: brew install audacious.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So your argument is that this app is better than itself?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Next!   
   >>>   
   >>> Ah, but you had to use the terminal.  So now every goofy nerd using a   
   >>> Mac is familiar with that, as you, the exception who actually knows   
   >>> shit, are?  Heh.   
   >   
   >> So what?   
   >>   
   >> The issue was how the software WORKS.   
   >   
   >   
   > I don't dispute that you can do some significant things with macOS as a   
   > Unix flavor.  But it would be cumbersome, to me, when I could just use   
   > Linux to begin with.   
   You were challenged to produce an app you used that is better than any   
   macOS equivalent.   
      
   So far, you've utterly failed.   
      
   But that comes very naturally to you, doesn't it?   
      
   :-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)