XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.computer.workshop   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-02-10 12:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 2/10/26 3:03 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Avoid the $200 question, again, OK.   
      
   I've addressed it over and over, but if you want to ask an actual   
   question again, please go ahead.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?   
   >   
   >   
   > They should do whatever they want.   
      
   But if they choose a better standard, you'll call it "proprietary"...   
      
   ...even though it is not.   
      
   Got it.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > Nope.  USB has ubiquity.   
      
   It does NOW.   
      
   Did it "have ubiquity" when Apple chose it for the iMac?   
      
   No.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)