XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-10 11:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/10/26 1:33 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Nope.  Apple is price gouging.   
      
   Your premise for that is that the people who buy Apple products have no   
   choice...   
      
   ...and they clearly do.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > It might be a standard, but it's apparently one that only Apple really   
   > utilized.  It's obviously superior tech, to answer the second question.   
      
   So it is not proprietary and you for some reason feel Apple should have   
   chosen an inferior standard?   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > It meant that in each instance of the Thunderbolt being put to use, it   
   > was a proprietary use, for that product.  It wasn't something that   
   > everyone had, like USB.   
      
   By that definition, EVERY use of EVERY interface on EVERY product is   
   "proprietary"...   
      
   ...including USB.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>> 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".   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)