XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-09 23:43, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/9/26 10:51 PM, Alan wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>> 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?"   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The answer a rational person has is "no", though.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And once again, you resort to denigration of those who disagree with   
   >>>> you.   
   >>>   
   >>> Not so.  They do agree with me, they're just willing to pay it   
   >>> because they want a Mac that much.  They have no choice.  Price gouging.   
   >>   
   >> The absolutely DO have a choice. There are few if any tasks you can do   
   >> on a Mac that you can't do on a Windows PC.   
   >>   
   >> Ergo, they have a choice.   
   >   
   >   
   > That's a good try, but we're talking about people who loathe Microsoft   
   > Windows.  They prefer Apple, for some reason.  They need more than 256   
   > GB.  Let's get that money!   
      
   Stop just making shit up. Unlike you (apparently), most people don't   
   "loath" or "hate" operating systems.   
      
   As my brother said once: "they're just beige toasters".   
      
   Meaning, these are tools that people use and they (for the vast   
   majority) make rational choices about what tools work for THEM.   
      
   And when they decide to buy a Mac (which will, in all likelihood, be   
   more expensive than the Windows PC or Linux PC they could have   
   purchased), they do so understanding that the extra money is worth it...   
      
   ...to THEM.   
      
   They know they have a choice to buy less expensive personal computing   
   equipment and they freely CHOOSE.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> For Apple.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> For anyone who chose to use it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ISA required configuration jumpers: NuBus was self-configuring.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> IS was 16-bit and up to 16MB/s: NuBus was 32-bit and up to 40MB/s.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Must I really go on?   
   >>>   
   >>> You could name another major manufacturer which actually used it.   
   >>   
   >> How would that change that:   
   >>   
   >> 1. It was a standard and NOT proprietary, and   
   >>   
   >> 2. That it was superior to ISA?   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > If a standard is only adopted by one company, how is it different from   
   > proprietary, practically speaking?   
      
   Answer my question.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Well, I admit, I didn't really know a lot about all of those   
   >>>>> brands' junk products, since I'm not an OEM-Windows drone.  So, I   
   >>>>> will take your word and concede.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It didn't stop you from running your "mouth" about things you now   
   >>>> concede you knew fuck-all about in the first place.   
   >>>   
   >>> I actually wasn't all that wrong, if the other manufacturers using it   
   >>> were limited to those brands, PC OEMs can be very proprietary in   
   >>> their designs, particularly of laptops.   
   >>   
   >> You literally just conceded your ignorance.   
   >   
   >   
   > I was ignorant, yes, but still on the right track.  These were features   
   > not unique to Apple's products, but nevertheless proprietary relative to   
   > the larger industry.   
   >   
      
   There is no such thing as "proprietary relative to the larger industry."   
      
   That's a thing you just made up.   
      
   >   
   >>>>>> 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?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> :-)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I didn't fail, though, because running Audacious on a Mac doesn't   
   >>>>> make it a "macOS" app, it's still a Unix app.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Your basic argument is (and I'll quote you here):   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Linux is a better system to run Unix software than macOS, and I   
   >>>> prefer the average app developed for the Unix platform to the   
   >>>> average macOS app."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I've just shown you that macOS works as well as Linux for the app   
   >>>> YOU chose to highlight.   
   >>>   
   >>> And I'm duly impressed, but it wouldn't mean that all such apps are   
   >>> as easy to install, at the end of the day I would find using a Mac as   
   >>> a Unix system to be ass-backward logic, if I don't want Apple-centric   
   >>> software much and do want Unix software, Linux is a far better,   
   >>> easier, and flexible/affordable platform.'   
   >   
   >> And yet when challenged to provide your best example...   
   >>   
   >> ...you utterly failed.   
   >   
   >   
   > But the point is that I don't need macOS to run Unix apps.  Linux gives   
   > me that freely not only in the OS being free, but being free to install   
   > on any hardware.  Fuck Apple's "walled garden".   
   The point was that you claimed that the software for macOS was inferior...   
      
   ...and you've completely failed to show that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)