XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 12/16/25 19:48, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Which is fine; I just did a quick google without listing features, so it   
   could have had a newer GPU/etc.  That's a price point where one should   
   get pretty respectable capabilities (snarky side eye at ChromeBooks :-)   
      
      
   >>> 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'd suspect/expect that the Macs which were using the RAID0 performance   
   approach 3-4 years ago are still doing that today, and those that didn't   
   still aren't.  The minimally bumped basic MBP business machine that I   
   picked up last year doesn't need higher performance and is an example of   
   the latter:  it benches at just ~3K read/write, much less than the older   
   personal machine that I prioritize performance for media work.   
      
   FWIW, here's an example of a still very raw test dump I did last month   
   on a personal project:   
      
      
      
   ...this version's been de-rezz'ed down to just 1080p and lost its IQ.   
   That's part of the next part to figure out.   
      
      
   >   >>>> 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.   
      
   By whatever means, they have been one of the very few survivors, and did   
   so without a abuse-of-monopoly type of overtone.  I think a lot of their   
   staying power has come from the iPhone era, specifically during its   
   introduction while RIM's Blackberry was so dominant in Corporate   
   America:  what ended up happening was that the C-Suite executives   
   preferred to use the iPhone over the BB and instead of asking their IT   
   Dept if they could "pretty please" consider adding the iPhone, IT was   
   flat out ordered to do it.   
      
   Likewise, when it came to competition from Android in the office, when   
   employees were allowed to choose (and didn't have to pay), the   
   preference was pretty compelling.  I can recall an old COLA conversation   
   on the Android-vs-iOS wars where I posted this pic from our office   
   showing the delivery of new smartphones for the office:   
      
      
      
   I'd have to go see what the old COLA post said to be 100% accurate, but   
   my recollection is there was something like just 1 or 2 Androids in that   
   pile of ~20, with the rest all iPhones...a pretty brutal ratio.   
      
      > 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.   
      
      
   Plus that echos the "life is like a BS sandwich" joke I mentioned:   
   sometimes its just worth paying for convenience so that one doesn't have   
   to deal with the minutia.   
      
   > I wouldn't   
   > play too many games on it, but I suppose that matters less and less now.   
      
   Understood & agreed; I suspect that a lot of the "Power User" PC club   
   has historically been younger guys who still have good eyes and reaction   
   times who want to play GPU-intensive games at home.  As one migrates   
   away from playing "twich" games, one learns that something like   
   Civilization 5 doesn't really need a huge GPU/etc.   
      
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   The Amiga was a good attempt at a GUI centric OS that was competing   
   against Apple and had its fans.  I don't recall why why it flamed out.   
      
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)