XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2025-11-24 11:41, Joel W. Crump wrote:   
   > On 11/24/25 2:33 PM, Alan wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>> [Apple] already sell[s] low- end computers for a high price.   
   >>>>>>>>> The cost of a real device from Apple is extortion.  Something   
   >>>>>>>>> even lower end will not get many buyers.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Put up some performance numbers to back up that claim...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Ah, but Alan, that isn't the problem.  The Mac mini with 16 GB   
   >>>>>>> RAM and 256 GB SSD will still blow away my China-produced mini PC   
   >>>>>>> on "performance numbers", having the Apple Silicon CPU, but my   
   >>>>>>> inexpensive mini PC has twice as big an SSD - that's ridiculous.   
   >>>>>>> Why is 512 not the first option?  Why is it $200 extra?  Apple   
   >>>>>>> sucks dick, face it.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The "problem" is that you keep making claims you can't back up, so   
   >>>>>> you pivot to some other claim.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I did back it up, though, I *have* 512 GB storage, on my $190 mini   
   >>>>> PC, that came with Win11 Pro, *WHY* the hell is 256 the default on   
   >>>>> a Mac?!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Your attention span is terrible.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Your claim was:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 'The reason it won't be successful is because they already sell low-   
   >>>> end computers for a high price'   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So put up some numbers to show that Macs are "low-end".   
   >>>   
   >>> 256 GB.   
   >>   
   >> That's it?   
   >>   
   >> That's all you've got?   
   >   
   >   
   > If Apple were serious about selling hardware competitively, 512 GB would   
   > be the minimum option, not a $200 extra splurge.   
   >   
      
   Oh, no!   
      
   One hardware specification doesn't mean your drunken (and high) standard   
   of "acceptable"!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)