XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: crude@sausa.ge   
      
   On 2025-12-16 7:09 p.m., -hh wrote:   
   > On 12/15/25 20:15, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   >> On 2025-12-15 5:54 p.m., -hh wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> What do current benchmarks show you between two comparable machines   
   >>>> at the same price?   
   >>>   
   >>> Don't know, as I'm not currently in the market for new hardware.   
   >>> What's your current PC do and when was it put into service?   
   >>   
   >> Zephyrus G14 2021 with AMD R9 5900HS CPU and RTX3060 GPU. It's a 2021   
   >> model. The new 2TB NVMe is a Samsung 990 EVO.   
   >   
   > Looks like its been a $2K-$3K laptop, +$200 more for the new NVMe.   
      
   I recall paying $1,899 plus tax Canadian in June 2021.   
   >> The Pro was only $10 more but it used more power and I wouldn't have   
   >> been able to use its full speed anyway since my laptop's interface is   
   >> a PCIe 3.0 x4.   
   >   
   > Either would benchmark well below what I'd already mentioned.  Nothing   
   > wrong with that if you don't believe you'll need the performance, either   
   > initially or within the system's expected X year lifespan.   
      
   There is a good chance that the storage in Macs, by default, performed   
   better than my Zephyrus G14 did by default. With a RAID0, I would expect   
   that. However, both Apple computers and those of competitors perform on   
   par nowadays in their default configurations.   
     >>>> I doubt providing less bang for the buck is part of what the Apple   
   >>>> stockholders want the company to offer. Higher profit margins, for   
   >>>> sure, but not an inevitable backlash from customers who eventually   
   >>>> realize that they're being ripped off.   
   >>>   
   >>> Apple has been 'pricey' since the Apple ][ shipped 45+ years ago,   
   >>> which suggests a different value paradigm than what you're assuming.   
   >>   
   >> Jobs wanted to give people the impression that their machines were   
   >> premium by charging more.   
   >   
   > So?  All well-run corporations want to (& strive to) create moats, and   
   > this is one of many time-tested practices for product differentiation.   
      
   I'm not saying that it wasn't successful. In fact, it might have been   
   responsible for serious business people seeing Apple as the only   
   alternative to IBM rather than Commodore or Atari. However, it gives a   
   false impression that what Apple offered/offers is superior to what the   
   competition gives you.   
      
   Still, for my money today, I'd probably just go with an Apple because   
   the way the machines interoperate and how easy it is to get a warranty,   
   recycle your machine and get a repair is quite attractive. It feels like   
   the company's really got it together whereas with every other company,   
   it feels like the head doesn't know what the ass is doing. I wouldn't   
   play too many games on it, but I suppose that matters less and less now.   
      
   >> In the end, their machines weren't actually capable of anything more   
   >> than the competition, though I believe that the Apple ][ felt more   
   >> robust than machines from Atari and Commodore. Of course, I wasn't old   
   >> enough to even own one at the time, so I'm basing myself on what other   
   >> people have said.   
   >   
   > Clearly, you never had to use a Timex-Sinclair keyboard! ;-)  Apple has   
   > been more solidly built, and they also have a better dealership network   
   > for providing customer support (which isn't free), long before they   
   > started their own retail stores.   
      
   I have to admit that I would have found that attractive if I were a   
   computer user in the 80s and the Apple ][ and/or Mac were available for   
   purchase. OF course, living through the 80s, the only computer I really   
   thought was awesome was the Amiga.   
      
   >>>> Admittedly, I have yet to use an ARM-equipped machine with Windows   
   >>>> 11. I imagine it can't be that great if Dell is opting for Core 7   
   >>>> Ultra rather than more Snapdragon X laptops.   
   >>>   
   >>> Which means that those customers will therefore gravitate to Apple,   
   >>> despite yon "less bang for the buck" insinuations.  Since they're   
   >>> voting with their wallet, their vote is quite credible.   
   >>   
   >> I doubt that most people who buy Macs or PCs even have an idea of what   
   >> kind of processor it is equipped with.   
   >   
   > Depends on one's level of geekery.   
      
   Well, I can tell you that back when my Dell died in 2010 and I had to   
   shop for a replacement, I had no idea what the heck an i3 was. I just   
   knew that the Core 2 Duo Apple was offering was very outdated.   
      
   >>>> With batteries, that might be the result of the offending part being   
   >>>> glued to other components. My own laptop allows me to replace my   
   >>>> battery fairly easily if I choose to do so, but I notice that quite   
   >>>> a few manufacturers are imitating Apple because of the thinness   
   >>>> obsession and gluing or soldering components.   
   >>>   
   >>> Which means that it isn't an "only Apple" thing.  And come to think   
   >>> of it, the battery in the most recent Mac laptop that I've retired   
   >>> was still unswollen and ~okay condition at the seven (7) year mark.   
   >>> Doesn't   this observation also run counter to "less bang for the   
   >>> buck" claims?   
   >>   
   >> Lithium-ion will swell no matter what. If it didn't happen with the   
   >> Apple laptop, I can only wonder what the origin of their lithium is   
   >> and why the batteries in Razer laptops seem to swell much faster.   
   >   
   > Material aging properties like this are why the Engineering plans ahead   
   > for in the design.  Shortsighted and cheap-ass outfits who cut corners   
   > will invariably get burned by that decision later on.   
   >   
   > I've participated in some Li-Ion powerpack development; the last one   
   > that I was closely involved with was originally delivered in 2010 and as   
   > of the last time that I personally saw it in Summer 2022, it was still   
   > doing fine:  that's 12 years & counting.   
   That's why I'm thinking that some companies get a higher quality metal   
   than others. Alan is suggesting that it's the chemistry and I'll accept   
   that, but Apple doesn't make its own batteries as far as I know and buy   
   them from someone else. The question, for me, is who does Razer buy from   
   for theirs to blow up within two years and who is Apple buying from?   
      
   --   
   CrudeSausage   
   John 14:6   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)