Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible system, >>>>>> Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it comes up
short inevitably because it will never keep the pace with M$
itself. GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix-like
systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share: having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though. Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows. Or Linux.
This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story. The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact. They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the legal patent process.
Look at automobiles for an example: GM can't manufacture a Mustang
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute. Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro.
I would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there, the
differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as great, as
between Winblows and macOS.
Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so the
Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software. It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close. However, merely having majority marketshare in
of itself is not sufficient: it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage.
It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right. The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be
no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context. Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere who'd
come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
On 2/23/26 4:07 PM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it
comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace
with M$ itself. GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix- >>>>>>> like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share: having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though. Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows. Or Linux. >>>> This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story. The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact. They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to not
be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Look at automobiles for an example: GM can't manufacture a MustangI would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there,
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute. Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro. >>>
the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as
great, as between Winblows and macOS.
Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?
No, but it's kind of splitting hairs to worry about that degree of comparison, in this context. The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their popularity by price gouging, which unlike
with Apple is highly improbable.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so
the Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software. It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?
That is not even remotely a valid comparison.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said thatIt's not quite an illegal monopoly, right. The issue when the feds
Windows comes close. However, merely having majority marketshare in >>>> of itself is not sufficient: it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage. >>>
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such as
a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't stop anyone from installing another browser. However, to the extent they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating them, but they
were willing to back down from that.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be >>>>> no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context. Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is Chrome
OS a full desktop OS. I've always seen Chromebooks as an appliance-
grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even buy one for a
10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish them that way.
Nobody stopped any company from creating a tightly integrated phone,
computer and tablet ecosystem with operating systems taking
advantage of each devices unique features. So far Apple is the only
company that has succeeded in the marketplace. Google is the closest
behind. Linux is nowhere close.
On 2/23/26 4:07 PM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a
monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it
comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace
with M$ itself. GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other Unix- >>>>>>> like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share: having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't
illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though. Apple has created a closed
platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows. Or Linux. >>>> This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story. The Mac fans are not easily turned to another choice.
If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact. They are
a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to not
be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Look at automobiles for an example: GM can't manufacture a MustangI would suggest that while there is a comparison to be made there,
because that IP is owned by Ford, but their Firebird/Camaro is a
close substitute. Likewise, Ford can't manufacture a Firebird/Camaro. >>>
the differences between the GM and Ford models are not nearly as
great, as between Winblows and macOS.
Will the alternator from a Mustang work as-is in a Firebird?
No, but it's kind of splitting hairs to worry about that degree of comparison, in this context.
The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly improbable.
Windows not only has that definition in effect, but the one of
having majority of the market.
Not so for the first part, since if Apple is Ford, they're GM, so
the Mustang is their "close substitute" alternative.
Not really, because the reason people choose Winblows is the library
of software. It's what keeps it on top, percentage of users-wise.
macOS is only a viable alternative if one is satisfied with its apps.
So does using Imperial dimensions instead of Metric create a monopoly
which preferentially treats domestic automobiles over Japan/Europe?
That is not even remotely a valid comparison.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said thatIt's not quite an illegal monopoly, right. The issue when the feds
Windows comes close. However, merely having majority marketshare in >>>> of itself is not sufficient: it also needs to be demonstrated that
having that majority has given them significant pricing power leverage. >>>
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such as
a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't stop anyone from installing another browser. However, to the extent they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating them, but they
were willing to back down from that.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally be >>>>> no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context. Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not a
likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is Chrome
OS a full desktop OS. I've always seen Chromebooks as an appliance-
grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even buy one for a
10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish them that way.
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a >>>>>>>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it >>>>>>>> comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace >>>>>>>> with M$ itself. GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other
Unix- like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share: having very large share (often over 50%) is
generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't >>>>>>> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for
undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though. Apple has created a closed >>>>>> platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software,
that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows. Or
Linux. This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story. The Mac fans are not easily turned to another
choice. If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact.
They are a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to
not be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd
be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really matter is
whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view they are,
price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough* to warrant
me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played the game
cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get overcharged,
since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Seems like your opinion is "everything is always a monopoly".
Problem with that for software is that even though the computer
platforms are unique, they still have hundreds(+) of software companies writing Apps for those platforms, often supporting multiple "unique" operating systems - - one example being Adobe (Acrobat, Photoshop, etc).
The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly
improbable.
You're way too focused on cost & your perception of what you claim is
price gouging. Costs versus production scale are quite nonlinear at
both ends: a asymptotic (to variable costs) limit at the high end, and
a very steep hook up (fixed costs divided by zero) at the low end.
FWIW, your position sounds much more like personal envy, than actually
being a compelling principled argument on illegal monopoly power.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close. However, merely having majority marketshare
in of itself is not sufficient: it also needs to be demonstrated
that having that majority has given them significant pricing power
leverage.
It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right. The issue when the feds
went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such
as a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't
stop anyone from installing another browser. However, to the extent
they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on
the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating
them, but they were willing to back down from that.
Willing to back down = because it was illegal use of monopoly power.
If it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally
be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement?
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple a
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context. Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly
that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not
a likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is
Chrome OS a full desktop OS. I've always seen Chromebooks as an
appliance- grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even
buy one for a 10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't punish
them that way.
No, for it goes back to the "close substitutes" standard: each time
that someone checks their email on a smartphone, or browses the web or whatever .. is proof that those devices are substitutes for a desktop.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:33:07 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:
Nobody stopped any company from creating a tightly integrated phone,
computer and tablet ecosystem with operating systems taking
advantage of each devices unique features. So far Apple is the only
company that has succeeded in the marketplace. Google is the closest
behind. Linux is nowhere close.
Google builds its platform on Linux.
Both Google and Apple have products in all three of the market
segments you mention, but Linux is also widely present elsewhere, even
if you count consumer-only products (e.g. the Steam Deck).
You claim Apple’s product line is “tightly integrated”, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a Macintosh.
On 2/24/2026 6:55 AM, -hh wrote:
Windows is a monopoly but so is macOS, any proprietary OS is a >>>>>>>>> monopoly because it's impossible to 100% make a compatible
system, Wine has done a good job of trying to do that, but it >>>>>>>>> comes up short inevitably because it will never keep the pace >>>>>>>>> with M$ itself. GNU/ Linux, OTOH, is compatible with other >>>>>>>>> Unix- like systems.
Unfortunately, that isn't the definition of a monopoly.
Monopolies:
* Exclusive Control: company controls a good or service in a
specific market, typically with no close substitutes.
* Market Power (similar to "deep moat"): has significantly
influence market prices, & limiting competitor entry.
* Market Share: having very large share (often over 50%) is >>>>>>>> generally considered to have monopoly power.
Of these, Windows comes the closest, but being a monopoly isn't >>>>>>>> illegal in of itself: it is to exploit that monopoly power for >>>>>>>> undue gain.
The first example fits Apple, though. Apple has created a closed >>>>>>> platform despite its dependence on the Unix core, where you
literally have to buy hardware they produce to use the software, >>>>>>> that is definitely a type of monopoly, because the fans are so
loathe to make any other choice.
Not so, because those customers can still choose Windows. Or
Linux. This is where the "close substitute" standard applies.
And yet the success of Apple, despite their price gouging, tells
another story. The Mac fans are not easily turned to another
choice. If anything, Apple continues to gain market share, in fact. >>>>> They are a small monopoly, but definitely a type of one.
The business term you're looking for is called "deep moat".
<https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp>
Note that one way that an enterprise creates a moat is through the
legal patent process.
With software, the proprietary platforms are too unique, even
considering how abstractly similar they are to the other choices, to
not be considered a monopoly, but that doesn't necessarily mean
they'd be illegal, because at the end of the day, what would really
matter is whether Apple is exploiting their monopoly - in my view
they are, price gouging specifically, but it's not egregious *enough*
to warrant me regulating them, it borders on that, but they've played
the game cleverly enough that I would just let the Mac fans get
overcharged, since at the end of the day it's their choice to be.
Seems like your opinion is "everything is always a monopoly".
Because it's such an essential part of modern life, yes. The personal computer/smartphone is huge.
Problem with that for software is that even though the computer
platforms are unique, they still have hundreds(+) of software
companies writing Apps for those platforms, often supporting multiple
"unique" operating systems - - one example being Adobe (Acrobat,
Photoshop, etc).
Indeed, the monopoly isn't on the entirety of a functioning system,
but on the access to the hardware and basic software.
The real issue would come with one manufacturer exploiting their
popularity by price gouging, which unlike with Apple is highly
improbable.
You're way too focused on cost & your perception of what you claim is
price gouging. Costs versus production scale are quite nonlinear at
both ends: a asymptotic (to variable costs) limit at the high end,
and a very steep hook up (fixed costs divided by zero) at the low end.
FWIW, your position sounds much more like personal envy, than actually
being a compelling principled argument on illegal monopoly power.
I understand the logic of the $200 for half of a 512 GB SSD, that you're paying for more than just the part itself, you're paying for having a
Mac with big storage. But it is gouging, objectively, my entire
computer was under $200 and has 512 GB. It's a steep upgrade price,
that many people would need to choose.
The 256 GB model is offered just to have a phony base cost,
that few people would actually settle for.
For the latter part of market majority, that's why I said that
Windows comes close. However, merely having majority marketshare >>>>>> in of itself is not sufficient: it also needs to be demonstrated >>>>>> that having that majority has given them significant pricing power >>>>>> leverage.
It's not quite an illegal monopoly, right. The issue when the feds >>>>> went after them was about bundling software, especially Internet
Explorer.
Which suffices.
The reason I would disagree is that M$ for all its faults had a point
with IE being an OS component, the thought was that they made it such
as a deliberate attempt to get browser market share, but there were
legitimate features to integrate with the OS, ultimately it didn't
stop anyone from installing another browser. However, to the extent
they did tricks to make IE get set as default, they were bordering on
the kind of monopolistic exploitation that would indicate regulating
them, but they were willing to back down from that.
Willing to back down = because it was illegal use of monopoly power.
I know, but it was trivial to correct, ultimately.
Not suggesting that, but just that Linux does give M$ and Apple aIf it were not for GNU and Linus Torvalds, there would literally >>>>>>> be no other choice that wasn't commercial. This is why...
Where do the standards have any commercial-vs-nonprofit requirement? >>>>>
little cover, because there is a fairly viable alternative that is
offered in a non-proprietary context. Otherwise, it'd be a duopoly >>>>> that would probably invite regulation, though this is of course not >>>>> a likely outcome, since there would logically be someone somewhere
who'd come up with what GNU/Linux ended up being.
That's probably more Google's Android/Chrome than it is Linux.
I disagree, mobile OSes aren't comparable to desktop OSes, nor is
Chrome OS a full desktop OS. I've always seen Chromebooks as an
appliance- grade PC, worth less than nothing to me, I wouldn't even
buy one for a 10 year-old if I had one in my family, I couldn't
punish them that way.
No, for it goes back to the "close substitutes" standard: each time
that someone checks their email on a smartphone, or browses the web or
whatever .. is proof that those devices are substitutes for a desktop.
A smartphone is close to being a PC in what it can do, but not in how
the operating system functions relative to the apps. That's a
substantial difference.
On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
You claim Apple’s product line is “tightly integrated”, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.
Never said the word "perfectly".
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 07:24:51 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:
On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
You claim Apple’s product line is “tightly integrated”, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.
Never said the word "perfectly".
Maybe take out the word “tightly” as well?
I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. Apple’s Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.
Has that been fixed yet?
I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. Apple’s Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.
Because iPods never had WiFi or Bluetooth: their inputs were limited to
the 30-pin cable interface. It wasn't until the iPod's replacement, the
2007 iPod Touch, that there was WiFi, for which one could notionally
purchase & download songs via iTunes - but these were linked to your
iTunes account, so it would synch onto your PC with the iTunes account.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 07:24:51 -0700, Tom Elam wrote:
On 2/23/26 7:46 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
You claim Apple’s product line is “tightly integrated”, yet I
mentioned elsewhere the problems a user had doing something as
seemingly simple as moving raw-format photos from their Iphone to a
Macintosh.
Never said the word "perfectly".
Maybe take out the word “tightly” as well?
I can remember, back when my mum had an Ipod, the only way to transfer
music from the device back to a PC was to use Linux. Apple’s Itunes
could only do the transfer one way, in the opposite direction.
Has that been fixed yet?
On 2026-03-02, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:get! It's gouging, you are
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that Apple is price gouging though.
On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-02, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer get! It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that Apple is >> price gouging though.
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature. It doesn't explain $200 more
in overall device price. Alan is clearly defending price gouging.
On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-02, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no longer get! It's gouging, you are
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has
sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
It doesn't explain $200 moreNope.
in overall device price. Alan is clearly defending price gouging.
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-02, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:longer get! It's gouging, you are
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it has >>>> sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
It doesn't explain $200 more in overall device price. Alan is clearlyNope.
defending price gouging.
I'm defending the right of a BUSINESS to set prices that it thinks will
make it the most PROFIT.
No business sells you a computer for just the cost of the components;
not even the cost of the components plus the cost of assembly.
EVERY company marks up those costs to make a PROFIT.
Does Apple mark up some components more?
Yes.
Does that make it "gouging"?
No.
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 5:20 PM, RonB wrote:
On 2026-03-02, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:longer get! It's gouging, you are
On 2026-02-27 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2026-02-27, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-02-27 04:48, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The upgrade to 512 GB [...] only changes the *size* of the *SSD*.
You're still paying>>>>> for the original SSD that you no
defending that, because you are a fanboy beyond belief.
The product is valued AS a whole.
To you, maybe. To me Apple overprices the parts *in* the computer.
OK... ...and so what?
Others look at the total price of the PRODUCT and decide whether it >>>>> has
sufficient value at that price.
I understand. It's a choice they make. Doesn't change the fact that
Apple is
price gouging though.
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making it
not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an advanced interface. However, since $200 is the price to replace the 256 GB
drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more than*
$200. There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.
It doesn't explain $200 more in overall device price. Alan isNope.
clearly defending price gouging.
I'm defending the right of a BUSINESS to set prices that it thinks
will make it the most PROFIT.
No business sells you a computer for just the cost of the components;
not even the cost of the components plus the cost of assembly.
EVERY company marks up those costs to make a PROFIT.
Does Apple mark up some components more?
Yes.
Does that make it "gouging"?
No.
Then switch to Windows, you clearly don't value macOS enough to put upYou've yet to give a single example of anything that you think is
with the crap software for it.
On 2026-03-02 19:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB one
is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making
it not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an
advanced interface. However, since $200 is the price to replace the
256 GB drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more
than* $200. There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.
That's some fine bullshit math there...
On 3/3/26 00:21, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 19:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB
one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
Its a misinterpretation of what was said, probably due to Joel's
technical incompetence.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells, making
it not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but having an
advanced interface. However, since $200 is the price to replace the
256 GB drive, that makes the total amount out of the $800 price *more
than* $200. There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that much.
That's some fine bullshit math there...
Math aside, Joel is not understanding the the interface wasn't more "advanced", but simply that it was using two lanes instead of one, which increased the useful bandwidth:
There's been ample discussion of this over the years and it has become
part of the independent testing of each product variation to see where
it was/wasn't present. For example:
"Apple released the new M3 MacBook Air this week, with faster
performance, Wi-Fi 6E, and support for dual external displays. As it
turns out, Apple also addressed another problem that plagued the previous-generation base model MacBook Air: SSD storage speeds.
The backstory here is that base model M2 MacBook Air with 256GB of
storage offered slower SSD speeds than higher-tier configurations. This
was due to the fact that the base model used one 256GB storage chip,
rather than two 128GB storage chips."
<https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/09/macbook-air-m3-storage-speeds/>
TL;DR: a change from 256 to 512 isn't merely twice as big, but because
of increasing the employment of the same "interface technology" from one
to two, it is (figuratively) twice as fast.
Gaining higher bandwidth performance has a tangible value to customers
which is obviously more than merely being twice as much storage size.
This factor is what is totally absent from Joel's attempted math.
On 3/3/2026 3:21 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/3/26 00:21, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 19:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/2/2026 9:19 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-02 14:29, Joel W. Crump wrote:
...
The claim that the 512 GB drive is more advanced than the 256 GB
one is merely reflecting its larger-sized nature.
Literally no one has made that claim.
Its a misinterpretation of what was said, probably due to Joel's
technical incompetence.
You confirm it's accurate below.
It was asserted that the 512 GB has two banks of memory cells,
making it not just twice the size of the basic model's SSD, but
having an advanced interface. However, since $200 is the price to
replace the 256 GB drive, that makes the total amount out of the
$800 price *more than* $200. There exists no 512 GB SSD worth that
much.
That's some fine bullshit math there...
Math aside, Joel is not understanding the the interface wasn't more
"advanced", but simply that it was using two lanes instead of one,
which increased the useful bandwidth:
Which is more advanced.
There's been ample discussion of this over the years and it has become
part of the independent testing of each product variation to see where
it was/wasn't present. For example:
"Apple released the new M3 MacBook Air this week, with faster
performance, Wi-Fi 6E, and support for dual external displays. As it
turns out, Apple also addressed another problem that plagued the
previous-generation base model MacBook Air: SSD storage speeds.
The backstory here is that base model M2 MacBook Air with 256GB of
storage offered slower SSD speeds than higher-tier configurations.
This was due to the fact that the base model used one 256GB storage
chip, rather than two 128GB storage chips."
<https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/09/macbook-air-m3-storage-speeds/>
TL;DR: a change from 256 to 512 isn't merely twice as big, but
because of increasing the employment of the same "interface
technology" from one to two, it is (figuratively) twice as fast.
Gaining higher bandwidth performance has a tangible value to customers
which is obviously more than merely being twice as much storage size.
This factor is what is totally absent from Joel's attempted math.
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product.
The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent
on capacity of hardware.
On 3/3/2026 5:02 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about
the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems
are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton headers
in my text NNTP posts.
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about
the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems
are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton headers
in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and trying
to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about
the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems
are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton
headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent.
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about >>>>> the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows
systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux
does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton
headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent
on capacity of hardware.
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care
about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows >>>>>> systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way Linux >>>>> does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting Norton
headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021. That machine was a premie
for Windows 11. I've recreated the environment with a mini PC. It is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care
about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft
Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way
Linux does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting
Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD
change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and
trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021. That machine was a premie
for Windows 11. I've recreated the environment with a mini PC. It is
true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent >>> on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD, >>>> makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent >>>> on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The
software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the
cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The
software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the
cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are- surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket. Intel and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so
many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care >>>>>>>> about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft
Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way
Linux does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting
Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 SSD >>>>>> change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, and >>>>>> trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021. That machine was a premie
for Windows 11. I've recreated the environment with a mini PC. It
is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's a lot.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though? It seems we're both pretty informed.No, actually.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:LOL!
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the SSD, >>>> makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are dependent >>>> on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software >>>>> and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book. It's just that he obfuscates price. Apple
is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
On 3/3/2026 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the
SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The
software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the
cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are >>>>> dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are-
surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket. Intel and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so
many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
On 2026-03-03 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care >>>>>>>>> about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft
Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way >>>>>>>> Linux does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting >>>>>>>> Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200
SSD change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth performance, >>>>>>> and trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent.
How does that address what he said?
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making?
I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021. That machine was a
premie for Windows 11. I've recreated the environment with a mini
PC. It is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's a
lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though? It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk about.
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the >>>>>> SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The software >>>>>> and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost.
However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book. It's just that he obfuscates price. Apple
is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the "smart" comment...
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't know
what "obfuscates" means.
On 2026-03-03 20:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the >>>>>> SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The >>>>>> software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the >>>>>> cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are >>>>>> dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are-
surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket. Intel
and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so
many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
There's no doubt that Apple's "gear" is more expensive.
There's also no doubt that they command tremendous brand loyalty
suggesting that their customers find the gear WORTH the added cost.
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:I had 1 TB NVMe in the first half of 2021. That machine was a
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:How does that address what he said?
The software and "experience" they sell makes people not care >>>>>>>>>> about the cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft >>>>>>>>>> Windows systems are dependent on capacity of hardware.
Not responded to. Apple's cult has to obfuscate the same way >>>>>>>>> Linux does. Though admittedly my Microsoft choice is putting >>>>>>>>> Norton headers in my text NNTP posts.
Not germane to the hardware point.
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 >>>>>>>> SSD change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth
performance, and trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent. >>>>>>
Why does the limit being higher still rebut the point he was making? >>>>>
premie for Windows 11. I've recreated the environment with a mini >>>>> PC. It is true that macOS can run on 256 GB, though.
Again, how does that answer my question?
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's
a lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800. A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though? It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 22:20:44 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:21 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 17:02:28 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only
the SSD,
makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The
software
and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the cost. >>>>>>> However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are
dependent
on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book. It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't know
what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing what
I said.
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000, that's
a lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800. A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
Stipulated.
So what?
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though? It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk
about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
On 2026-03-03 21:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book. It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't know
what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing
what I said.
Clearly you do not.
At no time in any conversation I've ever had on this group have I ever "obfuscated" the price of ANYTHING.
On 3/4/2026 12:53 AM, Alan wrote:
If the price of a Mac mini with 1 TB storage starts at $1000,
that's a lot.
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800. A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
Stipulated.
So what?
Apple is luxury-car.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though? It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk
about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
I beg to differ. Win11 is the state of the art. So are multiple Linux distros. macOS can be too.You've yet to provide a single way in which Win11 or Linux is more
On 3/4/2026 12:54 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 21:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book. It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't
know what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing
what I said.
Clearly you do not.
At no time in any conversation I've ever had on this group have I ever
"obfuscated" the price of ANYTHING.
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades areI claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
On 2026-03-03 22:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:54 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 21:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book. It's just that he obfuscates price.
Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't
know what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing
what I said.
Clearly you do not.
At no time in any conversation I've ever had on this group have I
ever "obfuscated" the price of ANYTHING.
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
Apple is luxury-car.
Apple is better appointed car.
People will pay for better.
Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked?
Do you reciprocate, though? It seems we're both pretty informed.
No, actually.
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk
about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
I beg to differ. Win11 is the state of the art. So are multiple
Linux distros. macOS can be too.
You've yet to provide a single way in which Win11 or Linux is more
"state of the art" than macOS.
Isn't it neat the way you keep throwing out claims you never support?
:-)
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 9:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 18:08, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 7:40 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 16:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 6:37 PM, -hh wrote:How does that address what he said?
...
Which is why you're still trying to ignore how that their $200 >>>>>>>> SSD change also resulted in a ~doubling of bandwidth
performance, and trying to ignore the most basic question:
How . much . is . that . performance . increase . worth ?
512 GB isn't the limit on upgrading. Another $200 can be spent. >>>>>>
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro
will be far less.
On 3/4/2026 1:29 AM, Alan wrote:
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021.
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Apple's prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent
on their OS, to justify buying their goods.
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
On 3/4/26 02:02, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 1:29 AM, Alan wrote:
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021.
Plus there was $100 for that 4100 graphic card, remember?
Plus extra RAM (~$50) to get to 32GB, remember?
Plus the $200 that you spent on a Win10 license, remember?
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least $1840 (& counting).
Apple's prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent on
their OS, to justify buying their goods.
Or merely folks who've gotten tired of being nickeled and dime'd.
Raymond wrote:
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Which still has him ahead of Joel.
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from peopleThat's not a valid response to his request.
who are beholden to its platform.
On 3/4/2026 12:17 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 20:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:
To have a $200 gap between the exact same model, changing only the >>>>>>> SSD, makes Apple selling low-end junk on a high-end product. The >>>>>>> software and "experience" they sell makes people not care about the >>>>>>> cost. However, it is reasonable to say Microsoft Windows systems are >>>>>>> dependent on capacity of hardware.
You don't even want to get into the new M5s.
Apple's CPUs are fine, it's just that IntelAMD is still relevant.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/03/m5-pro-and-m5-max-are-
surprisingly-big-departures-from-older-apple-silicon/
I meant the variety of processors that fall into the M5 bucket.
Intel and
AMD certainly are no slouches as far as not being able to tell the
processors apart without the program but I didn't realize there were so >>>> many flavors in Apple silicon. However I don't know much about Apples
anyway.
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
There's no doubt that Apple's "gear" is more expensive.
There's also no doubt that they command tremendous brand loyalty
suggesting that their customers find the gear WORTH the added cost.
Also known as serving themselves piles of money. We made your Mac mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, or iMac. Feed us, white people.
On 3/4/2026 1:28 AM, Alan wrote:
Apple is luxury-car.
Apple is better appointed car.
People will pay for better.
I wouldn't. Linux or Win11 can't be worse than paying $800 for a modest mini PC.
No, actually.Why is it you can never address what you've actually been asked? >>>>>>>Do you reciprocate, though? It seems we're both pretty informed. >>>>>
It never seems like you're informed on almost any subject you talk >>>>>> about.
That would be an interesting example of why you're a Mac person.
That I'm better informed than you in pretty much every way, yes.
I beg to differ. Win11 is the state of the art. So are multiple
Linux distros. macOS can be too.
You've yet to provide a single way in which Win11 or Linux is more
"state of the art" than macOS.
Isn't it neat the way you keep throwing out claims you never support?
:-)
The point is that for you, a Mac would shine.The point is that you keep making bullshit claims you can't support.
On 2026-03-04 05:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a >>>>> speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
That's not a valid response to his request.
A Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD is $799.
Show a standard mini PC you can buy from a PC manufacturer that is "far less".
For instance, Dell's least expensive desktop PC starts at $499, for that
you get far less performance. Just 8GB of RAM and an Intel Core i3
process that is absolutely CRUSHED by the M4 cpu in the Mac Mini. It
does start with a 512GB SSD though.
Upgrade it to an i5 process (which is still outperformed by the M4) and 16GB, and all of a sudden, Dell's least expensive desktop will cost you $849.99...
...or $51 more than the Mac Mini.
<https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/desktop-computers/dell-slim-desktop/ spd/dell-ecs1250-slim-desktop/useecs1250pbtshmgp#customization-anchor>
So go ahead:
Show us.
On 3/4/2026 11:27 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-04 05:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increaseOK, and it costs $800.
(a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD. >>>>>
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
You were totally busted out there.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
That's not a valid response to his request.
A Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD is $799.
Show a standard mini PC you can buy from a PC manufacturer that is
"far less".
For instance, Dell's least expensive desktop PC starts at $499, for
that you get far less performance. Just 8GB of RAM and an Intel Core
i3 process that is absolutely CRUSHED by the M4 cpu in the Mac Mini.
It does start with a 512GB SSD though.
Upgrade it to an i5 process (which is still outperformed by the M4)
and 16GB, and all of a sudden, Dell's least expensive desktop will
cost you $849.99...
...or $51 more than the Mac Mini.
<https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/desktop-computers/dell-slim-desktop/
spd/dell-ecs1250-slim-desktop/useecs1250pbtshmgp#customization-anchor>
So go ahead:
Show us.
My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, but it
has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower demands on
hardware, because it's less advanced software than Microsoft is selling.
Linux can fit that need without the need for Apple hardware.
In what way is macOS less "state of the art" than Windows 11 or Linux?
Be specific.
My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, but
it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower demands on
hardware, because it's less advanced software than Microsoft is
selling. Linux can fit that need without the need for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
On 3/4/2026 11:33 AM, Alan wrote:
In what way is macOS less "state of the art" than Windows 11 or Linux?
Be specific.
It's too proprietary.
On 3/4/2026 11:57 AM, Alan wrote:
My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, butDodging and changing the subject again.
it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower demands on
hardware, because it's less advanced software than Microsoft is
selling. Linux can fit that need without the need for Apple hardware. >>
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longer available, a
On 3/4/2026 1:29 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 22:25, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:54 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 21:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:16 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-03 19:52, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/3/2026 10:34 PM, Raymond wrote:
Ignore the Alan Apple fan boy.
Alan is smart, in my book. It's just that he obfuscates price. >>>>>>> Apple is a sin tax on computer enthusiasts needing luxury.
Well thanks for the "smart" comment...
You have a very developed intellect.
...but it also means I'm smart enough to tell you that you don't
know what "obfuscates" means.
I'm smart enough to correctly say I do know, and that you are doing >>>>> what I said.
Clearly you do not.
At no time in any conversation I've ever had on this group have I
ever "obfuscated" the price of ANYTHING.
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
$390 completed my system, already having monitor/keyboard et al. SalesAnd from whom did you buy your system, and what are the full specs?
tax and financing notwithstanding. the 16 GB 256 GB Mac mini is $600.
$800 for 512 GB. It's a lot higher. People have told me I'm crazy for paying retail for Windows, but I know too much how MS operates.
On 3/4/2026 1:29 AM, Alan wrote:
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021. But I got more than the Mac mini. Apple's prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent on their OS, to
justify buying their goods.
Raymond wrote:
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Which still has him ahead of Joel.
Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longer available, a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, butDodging and changing the subject again.
it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower demands on
hardware, because it's less advanced software than Microsoft is
selling. Linux can fit that need without the need for Apple hardware. >>>
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.
$390 completed my system, already having monitor/keyboard et al.
Sales tax and financing notwithstanding. the 16 GB 256 GB Mac mini is
$600. $800 for 512 GB. It's a lot higher. People have told me I'm
crazy for paying retail for Windows, but I know too much how MS operates.
And from whom did you buy your system, and what are the full specs?
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical
"overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021. But I got more than the Mac mini. Apple's
prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent on their OS,
to justify buying their goods.
What "more" did you get?
You admitted the specs of your PC are less than the Mac Mini you've been whining about.
And what is $1000 in 2021 in 2026 dollars?
On 2026-03-04 04:35, chrisv wrote:
Raymond wrote:
The average Apple user doesn't know a CPU from a DIMM.
Just look at Alan as an example. They guy is not only
an Apple fan boy but also a moron as well.
His technical skills are below the noob level and most of what he
posts is gibberish intended to fool other posters.
Which still has him ahead of Joel.
Well... ...that's a very low bar to get over.
:-)
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
Apple is just far more expensive for the gear.
I won't argue that. As I've said before nobody ever wanted to pay me to develop Apple software and I never saw an advantage of buying one for my personal use. Supposedly GNOME resembles MacOS. If that's the case that's
a real argument against ever doing so.
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longer available,My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true,
but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower
demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software than
Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without the need
for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.
a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a
speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from people
who are beholden to its platform.
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 02:02, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 1:29 AM, Alan wrote:
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical >>>>> "overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021.
Plus there was $100 for that 4100 graphic card, remember?
Plus extra RAM (~$50) to get to 32GB, remember?
I also added a second SSD.
Plus the $200 that you spent on a Win10 license, remember?
I was including that in the $1000.
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least [correction: $1640] (& counting).
That's you being typical throwing out facts of irrelevance, I had to
replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Apple's prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent on
their OS, to justify buying their goods.
Or merely folks who've gotten tired of being nickeled and dime'd.
There are PC OEMs who are just as bad, I admit.
On 3/4/26 13:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longerMy device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true,
but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower
demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software than
Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without the need >>>>>> for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.
available, a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
Unfortunately, merely having similar RAM/SSD specs isn't adequate to compensate for a CPU which has 60% less computational capability.
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase (a >>>>> speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was the
$200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
On 3/4/26 13:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longerMy device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true,
but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower
demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software than
Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without the need >>>>>> for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.
available, a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
Unfortunately, merely having similar RAM/SSD specs isn't adequate to compensate for a CPU which has 60% less computational capability.
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least [correction: $1640] (&
counting).
That's you being typical throwing out facts of irrelevance, I had to
replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was getting on the
self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad temper?
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least [correction: $1640] (&
counting).
That's you being typical throwing out facts of irrelevance, I had to
replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was getting on the
self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying the motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the future.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually everything.
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longer available,My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true,
but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower
demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software than
Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without the need
for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.
a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longerMy device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, >>>>>>> but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower
demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software than
Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without the need >>>>>>> for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.
available, a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
Unfortunately, merely having similar RAM/SSD specs isn't adequate to
compensate for a CPU which has 60% less computational capability.
But equally unfortunately, for you and Alan, charging so much for aShow us a system with equivalent specs to the Mac Mini from any OEM...
halfway decent device is Apple's weak point. They weed out many.
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longerMy device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, >>>>>>> but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower
demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software than
Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without the need >>>>>>> for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less."
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400.
available, a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
Unfortunately, merely having similar RAM/SSD specs isn't adequate to
compensate for a CPU which has 60% less computational capability.
Uh huh, but why do the buyers care anymore? Apple is selling theirPrice it out with equivalent specs in ALL three areas:
brand on overpriced hardware, and there's no alternative manufacturer
that can carry their brand. My non-OEM provides competitive pricing and features, hardware-wise, and Microsoft/Norton give me assurance of what
I'm using.
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increaseOK, and it costs $800.
(a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD. >>>>>
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was
the $200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
Bullshit, Apple demands cash, people pay.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.That's an admission you know it's far slower.
On 3/4/2026 12:53 PM, Alan wrote:
$390 completed my system, already having monitor/keyboard et al.
Sales tax and financing notwithstanding. the 16 GB 256 GB Mac mini
is $600. $800 for 512 GB. It's a lot higher. People have told me
I'm crazy for paying retail for Windows, but I know too much how MS
operates.
And from whom did you buy your system, and what are the full specs?
It's a maker in China sold by and recommended to me by Amazon. $190There's no such thing as "four-thread CPU".
when I bought it. 16 GB RAM matching a four-thread CPU. 512 GB NVMe. Very mini form factor. Two video outputs, WiFi. It isn't as powerful
as Apple's offering. But it's a good simple device to boot whatever OS.
The product key isn't about access for me as it is about Microsoft
being a profit-seeking business.
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least [correction: $1640] (&
counting).
That's you being typical throwing out facts of irrelevance, I had to
replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was getting on the
self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad temper?
None of my parts were "cheap". I have talked about how I sweated onto
the hardware, destroying the motherboard. I may make use of the
leftover parts, in the future. But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually everything.
On 3/4/2026 1:12 PM, Alan wrote:
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some mystical >>>>> "overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021. But I got more than the Mac mini. Apple's
prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent on their
OS, to justify buying their goods.
What "more" did you get?
You admitted the specs of your PC are less than the Mac Mini you've
been whining about.
I had 12 threads on the CPU.
And what is $1000 in 2021 in 2026 dollars?
If the computer were still going as it should be, invaluable.Another dodge.
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increaseOK, and it costs $800.
(a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD. >>>>>
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was
the $200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
Bullshit, Apple demands cash, people pay.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
None of my parts were "cheap".But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least [correction: $1640] (&
counting).
That's you being typical throwing out facts of irrelevance, I had to
replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was getting on the >>>> self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad temper? >>
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to date...
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying the
motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the future.
Sweat? Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the toilet? /s Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the occasional "I
bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it has garnered some
other notoriety comments.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually everything.
"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power. The
good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest gear has
become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks without undue UI dwell - - especially for those with very low expectations/standards.
On 2026-03-04 13:33, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase >>>>>>> (a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD. >>>>>>OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was
the $200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
Bullshit, Apple demands cash, people pay.
So like every other company.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
That's an admission you know it's far slower.
$390 completed my system, already having monitor/keyboard et al.
Sales tax and financing notwithstanding. the 16 GB 256 GB Mac mini
is $600. $800 for 512 GB. It's a lot higher. People have told me
I'm crazy for paying retail for Windows, but I know too much how MS
operates.
And from whom did you buy your system, and what are the full specs?
It's a maker in China sold by and recommended to me by Amazon. $190
when I bought it. 16 GB RAM matching a four-thread CPU. 512 GB NVMe.
Very mini form factor. Two video outputs, WiFi. It isn't as powerful
as Apple's offering. But it's a good simple device to boot whatever
OS. The product key isn't about access for me as it is about
Microsoft being a profit-seeking business.
There's no such thing as "four-thread CPU".
"Threads" means something for the process that run ON a CPU.
You meant "four-CORE CPU"...
...and which one exactly, please?
You have said the $200/whatever Apple pricing-spec upgrades are
expensive but you claim that it's worth it because of some
mystical "overall value" of a mini PC that costs over $1000.
I claim that people clearly feel it's worth it...
...and I claim that because I'm right.
I paid $1000 in 2021. But I got more than the Mac mini. Apple's
prices are such that I'd have to be desperately dependent on their
OS, to justify buying their goods.
What "more" did you get?
You admitted the specs of your PC are less than the Mac Mini you've
been whining about.
I had 12 threads on the CPU.
You just claimed in another post it was only "four-thread[s]"
And what is $1000 in 2021 in 2026 dollars?
If the computer were still going as it should be, invaluable.
Another dodge.
On 3/4/2026 6:53 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-04 13:33, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase >>>>>>>> (a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB >>>>>>>> SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was
the $200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
Bullshit, Apple demands cash, people pay.
So like every other company.
Nope, the Apple experience is so perfected that the extortion of money
is equally perfected.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
That's an admission you know it's far slower.
Less than you would think.Since you won't actually tell us what your CPU is...
On 3/4/2026 6:54 PM, Alan wrote:
$390 completed my system, already having monitor/keyboard et al.
Sales tax and financing notwithstanding. the 16 GB 256 GB Mac mini >>>>> is $600. $800 for 512 GB. It's a lot higher. People have told me >>>>> I'm crazy for paying retail for Windows, but I know too much how MS >>>>> operates.
And from whom did you buy your system, and what are the full specs?
It's a maker in China sold by and recommended to me by Amazon. $190
when I bought it. 16 GB RAM matching a four-thread CPU. 512 GB
NVMe. Very mini form factor. Two video outputs, WiFi. It isn't as
powerful as Apple's offering. But it's a good simple device to boot
whatever OS. The product key isn't about access for me as it is
about Microsoft being a profit-seeking business.
There's no such thing as "four-thread CPU".
"Threads" means something for the process that run ON a CPU.
You meant "four-CORE CPU"...
You really need to get woke.
...and which one exactly, please?
N150.
On 2026-03-04 13:31, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
available, a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's true, >>>>>>>> but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling lower >>>>>>>> demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software than >>>>>>>> Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without the need >>>>>>>> for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less." >>>>>>>
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400. >>>>> Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longer
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
Unfortunately, merely having similar RAM/SSD specs isn't adequate to
compensate for a CPU which has 60% less computational capability.
But equally unfortunately, for you and Alan, charging so much for a
halfway decent device is Apple's weak point. They weed out many.
Show us a system with equivalent specs to the Mac Mini from any OEM...
...and show us it costs "far less".
On 3/4/2026 6:51 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-04 13:31, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 13:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:48 PM, Alan wrote:
available, a link to the nearest equivalent from the same company.My device has a much lower-end CPU than the Mac mini, it's
true, but it has 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Apple is selling >>>>>>>>> lower demands on hardware, because it's less advanced software >>>>>>>>> than Microsoft is selling. Linux can fit that need without >>>>>>>>> the need for Apple hardware.
Dodging and changing the subject again.
"A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less." >>>>>>>>
You said that.
Now support it.
Even by adding a product key to my experience, I'm still under $400. >>>>>> Show a link to the system you bought, or if it is no longer
It's a weaker CPU than the Mac mini - but similar specs, and now a
retail Win11 Pro. Half the price.
Unfortunately, merely having similar RAM/SSD specs isn't adequate to
compensate for a CPU which has 60% less computational capability.
But equally unfortunately, for you and Alan, charging so much for a
halfway decent device is Apple's weak point. They weed out many.
Show us a system with equivalent specs to the Mac Mini from any OEM...
...and show us it costs "far less".
I'm not playing that game, where parts don't exist.
$390 completed my system, already having monitor/keyboard et al.
Sales tax and financing notwithstanding. the 16 GB 256 GB Mac
mini is $600. $800 for 512 GB. It's a lot higher. People have >>>>>> told me I'm crazy for paying retail for Windows, but I know too
much how MS operates.
And from whom did you buy your system, and what are the full specs?
It's a maker in China sold by and recommended to me by Amazon. $190 >>>> when I bought it. 16 GB RAM matching a four-thread CPU. 512 GB
NVMe. Very mini form factor. Two video outputs, WiFi. It isn't as >>>> powerful as Apple's offering. But it's a good simple device to boot >>>> whatever OS. The product key isn't about access for me as it is
about Microsoft being a profit-seeking business.
There's no such thing as "four-thread CPU".
"Threads" means something for the process that run ON a CPU.
You meant "four-CORE CPU"...
You really need to get woke.
...and which one exactly, please?
N150.
LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
You are hilarious!
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a Mac Mini!
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150-vs- apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the speed of
an M4.
On 3/4/2026 7:48 PM, Alan wrote:
It's a maker in China sold by and recommended to me by Amazon.$390 completed my system, already having monitor/keyboard et al. >>>>>>> Sales tax and financing notwithstanding. the 16 GB 256 GB Mac >>>>>>> mini is $600. $800 for 512 GB. It's a lot higher. People have >>>>>>> told me I'm crazy for paying retail for Windows, but I know too >>>>>>> much how MS operates.
And from whom did you buy your system, and what are the full specs? >>>>>
$190 when I bought it. 16 GB RAM matching a four-thread CPU. 512 >>>>> GB NVMe. Very mini form factor. Two video outputs, WiFi. It isn't >>>>> as powerful as Apple's offering. But it's a good simple device to >>>>> boot whatever OS. The product key isn't about access for me as it >>>>> is about Microsoft being a profit-seeking business.
There's no such thing as "four-thread CPU".
"Threads" means something for the process that run ON a CPU.
You meant "four-CORE CPU"...
You really need to get woke.
...and which one exactly, please?
N150.
LOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
You are hilarious!
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a Mac Mini!
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150-vs-
apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the speed
of an M4.
30% does a lot more than you give it credit for.
charging so much for a
halfway decent device is Apple's weak point. They weed out many.
Show us a system with equivalent specs to the Mac Mini from any OEM...
...and show us it costs "far less".
I'm not playing that game, where parts don't exist.
You're running for cover.
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a Mac Mini! >>>
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150-vs-
apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the speed
of an M4.
30% does a lot more than you give it credit for.
Face it:
Your computer costs "far less" (only if we ignore the extra you've spent BTW)...
...because it actually IS far less.
On 3/4/2026 7:51 PM, Alan wrote:
charging so much for a halfway decent device is Apple's weak
point. They weed out many.
Show us a system with equivalent specs to the Mac Mini from any OEM... >>>>
...and show us it costs "far less".
I'm not playing that game, where parts don't exist.
You're running for cover.
If Apple is gonna be 100% proprietary, then it's gonna be open to this criticism.How is that in any way relevant to asking you to provide an OEM product equivalent to the Mac Mini?
On 3/4/2026 7:56 PM, Alan wrote:
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a Mac
Mini!
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150-vs-
apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the
speed of an M4.
30% does a lot more than you give it credit for.
Face it:
Your computer costs "far less" (only if we ignore the extra you've
spent BTW)...
...because it actually IS far less.
Nope, you're suckered in by Apple's gimmick, the fancy CPU/GPU makes the weak specs and high price seem acceptable.
charging so much for a halfway decent device is Apple's weak
point. They weed out many.
Show us a system with equivalent specs to the Mac Mini from any OEM... >>>>>
...and show us it costs "far less".
I'm not playing that game, where parts don't exist.
You're running for cover.
If Apple is gonna be 100% proprietary, then it's gonna be open to this
criticism.
How is that in any way relevant to asking you to provide an OEM product equivalent to the Mac Mini?
I think you've had a look and realized there isn't one that is "far
less" than a Mini for the same performance.
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a Mac
Mini!
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150-vs- >>>>> apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the
speed of an M4.
30% does a lot more than you give it credit for.
Face it:
Your computer costs "far less" (only if we ignore the extra you've
spent BTW)...
...because it actually IS far less.
Nope, you're suckered in by Apple's gimmick, the fancy CPU/GPU makes
the weak specs and high price seem acceptable.
LOL!
You're exposed.
You're trying to claim that you got the same for "far less"...
...when actually you got far less.
On 3/4/2026 8:17 PM, Alan wrote:
charging so much for a halfway decent device is Apple's weak
point. They weed out many.
Show us a system with equivalent specs to the Mac Mini from any
OEM...
...and show us it costs "far less".
I'm not playing that game, where parts don't exist.
You're running for cover.
If Apple is gonna be 100% proprietary, then it's gonna be open to
this criticism.
How is that in any way relevant to asking you to provide an OEM
product equivalent to the Mac Mini?
I think you've had a look and realized there isn't one that is "far
less" than a Mini for the same performance.
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
On 3/4/2026 8:18 PM, Alan wrote:
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a Mac >>>>>> Mini!
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150-
vs- apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the
speed of an M4.
30% does a lot more than you give it credit for.
Face it:
Your computer costs "far less" (only if we ignore the extra you've
spent BTW)...
...because it actually IS far less.
Nope, you're suckered in by Apple's gimmick, the fancy CPU/GPU makes
the weak specs and high price seem acceptable.
LOL!
You're exposed.
You're trying to claim that you got the same for "far less"...
...when actually you got far less.
What is the four-thread failing to do for me?
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a
Mac Mini!
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150- >>>>>>> vs- apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the >>>>>>> speed of an M4.
30% does a lot more than you give it credit for.
Face it:
Your computer costs "far less" (only if we ignore the extra you've
spent BTW)...
...because it actually IS far less.
Nope, you're suckered in by Apple's gimmick, the fancy CPU/GPU makes
the weak specs and high price seem acceptable.
LOL!
You're exposed.
You're trying to claim that you got the same for "far less"...
...when actually you got far less.
What is the four-thread failing to do for me?
LOL!
What are 256GB Mac Minis failing to do for the people who bought them?
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
On 3/4/2026 8:39 PM, Alan wrote:
An Intel N150 processor is a JOKE in comparison to the M4 in a >>>>>>>> Mac Mini!
<https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_processor_n150- >>>>>>>> vs- apple_m4>
There is no result there where the N150 is more than 30% of the >>>>>>>> speed of an M4.
30% does a lot more than you give it credit for.
Face it:
Your computer costs "far less" (only if we ignore the extra you've >>>>>> spent BTW)...
...because it actually IS far less.
Nope, you're suckered in by Apple's gimmick, the fancy CPU/GPU
makes the weak specs and high price seem acceptable.
LOL!
You're exposed.
You're trying to claim that you got the same for "far less"...
...when actually you got far less.
What is the four-thread failing to do for me?
LOL!
What are 256GB Mac Minis failing to do for the people who bought them?
Costing less.The cost more...
On 3/4/2026 6:53 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-04 13:33, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase >>>>>>>> (a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB SSD. >>>>>>>OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was
the $200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
Bullshit, Apple demands cash, people pay.
So like every other company.
Nope, the Apple experience is so perfected that the extortion of money
is equally perfected.
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less.
Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
That's an admission you know it's far slower.
Less than you would think.
On 3/4/2026 8:38 PM, Alan wrote:
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box I assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great new
motif for Windows 11.
On 2026-03-05, Joel W. Crump <[email protected]> wrote:Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
On 3/4/2026 6:53 PM, Alan wrote:
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less. >>>>>>>Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from
people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
That's an admission you know it's far slower.
Less than you would think.
Here is a comparison between a Pro Mac Mini M4 and an HP Ryzen Pro Max Mini.
Both are in a different price range than your PC but are very close in price.
https://youtu.be/OrpQOn5I71k?si=-PUzjLwb4QUHHy3n
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box I
assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great new
motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
On 3/4/2026 8:53 PM, Alan wrote:
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box I
assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great new
motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
When I received the computer, it had the China-Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer cost
based non-OEM's Win11 Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media. That's what I installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a product key. Now, I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a dead end
for the NT line, if 12 is as people are saying it is. So it's likely
that in the future Linux will replace Windows 11.
On 2026-03-04 17:48, pothead wrote:
On 2026-03-05, Joel W. Crump <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:53 PM, Alan wrote:
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less. >>>>>>>>Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from >>>>>>> people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
That's an admission you know it's far slower.
Less than you would think.
Here is a comparison between a Pro Mac Mini M4 and an HP Ryzen Pro Max
Mini.
Both are in a different price range than your PC but are very close in
price.
https://youtu.be/OrpQOn5I71k?si=-PUzjLwb4QUHHy3n
Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. :-)
On 3/4/26 16:33, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase >>>>>>> (a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB
SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was
the $200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
Bullshit, Apple demands cash, people pay.
That people do pay ... and often enough that Apple stays in business ...
is proof that their marketplace pricing isn't far from correct.
Regardless of your opinion.
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box I
assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great new >>>> motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's Win11
Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media. That's what I
installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a product key. Now, I
get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a dead end for the NT line, if
12 is as people are saying it is. So it's likely that in the future
Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer cost
"far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box I
assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great new >>>> motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's Win11
Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media. That's what I
installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a product key. Now, I
get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a dead end for the NT line, if
12 is as people are saying it is. So it's likely that in the future
Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer cost
"far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
On 3/4/2026 8:59 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-04 17:48, pothead wrote:
On 2026-03-05, Joel W. Crump <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:53 PM, Alan wrote:
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less. >>>>>>>>>Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from >>>>>>>> people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
That's an admission you know it's far slower.
Less than you would think.
Here is a comparison between a Pro Mac Mini M4 and an HP Ryzen Pro
Max Mini.
Both are in a different price range than your PC but are very close
in price.
https://youtu.be/OrpQOn5I71k?si=-PUzjLwb4QUHHy3n
Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. :-)
HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for a
laptop.
On 3/4/2026 9:16 PM, Alan wrote:
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box I >>>>> assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great
new motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
Maybe you've seen poor environments for Win11.
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's Win11
Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media. That's what I >>> installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a product key. Now,
I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a dead end for the NT line,
if 12 is as people are saying it is. So it's likely that in the
future Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer cost
"far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
Apparently not. I have a very strong presence with this device. Linux and Win11 both.Sure you do...you keep right on thinking that.
On 3/4/2026 9:16 PM, Alan wrote:
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box I >>>>> assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great
new motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's Win11
Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media. That's what I >>> installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a product key. Now,
I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a dead end for the NT line,
if 12 is as people are saying it is. So it's likely that in the
future Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer cost
"far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
It's better than you give it credit for.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 18:58:04 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 16:33, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 3:59 PM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 08:24, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:56 AM, -hh wrote:
On 3/4/26 00:36, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 12:15 AM, Alan wrote:
Which still doesn't address that there is a performance increase >>>>>>>> (a speed increase) in switching from the 256GB SSD to the 512GB >>>>>>>> SSD.
OK, and it costs $800.
False; the performance increase being discussed happened at +$200.
What is 600+200?
That $800 is the total cost isn't germane to the context, which was
the $200 incremental cost for going from 256 to 512GB.
Bullshit, Apple demands cash, people pay.
That people do pay ... and often enough that Apple stays in business ...
is proof that their marketplace pricing isn't far from correct.
How the Macbook Neo performs in the market will be interesting. $600 certainly is a low entry price for an Apple computer but there are many choices in the x64 world in that range too. Will it attract the Chromebook and bottom shelf laptop crowd that is spending less than $400?
When I bought the Swift 3 6 years ago it was $680 so that is in the same range. However it has 16 GB of RAM and double the SSD. Oh, and the fingerprint reader wasn't a $100 option.
On 3/4/2026 6:43 PM, -hh wrote:
None of my parts were "cheap".But I got more than the Mac mini.
Which was so much 'more' that you've now sunk in _another_ $390.
Based on your posts, your bill is at least [correction: $1640] (& >>>>>> counting).
That's you being typical throwing out facts of irrelevance, I had
to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was getting on >>>>> the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad temper? >>>
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the OS
and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying the
motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the future.
Sweat? Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the toilet? /s
Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the occasional "I
bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it has garnered some
other notoriety comments.
If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what I said happened.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually everything.
"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power. The
good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest gear has
become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks without undue
UI dwell - - especially for those with very low expectations/standards.
Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.
On 2026-03-04 18:22, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/4/2026 8:59 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-04 17:48, pothead wrote:
On 2026-03-05, Joel W. Crump <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/4/2026 6:53 PM, Alan wrote:
A competitively priced mini PC with Win11 Pro will be far less. >>>>>>>>>>Really? I doubt it.
Cite a real world example.
An OEM standard stock item, with product part#.
It's very clear that this is a move by Apple to secure money from >>>>>>>>> people who are beholden to its platform.
Dodge. Because you know that your $390 system isn't a peer.
I'm using it here, at least.
That's an admission you know it's far slower.
Less than you would think.
Here is a comparison between a Pro Mac Mini M4 and an HP Ryzen Pro
Max Mini.
Both are in a different price range than your PC but are very close
in price.
https://youtu.be/OrpQOn5I71k?si=-PUzjLwb4QUHHy3n
Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. :-)
HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for a
laptop.
At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the question.
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box >>>>>> I assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this great >>>>>> new motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
Maybe you've seen poor environments for Win11.
You've GOT a poor environment for Windows 11...
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's
Win11 Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media. That's >>>> what I installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a product
key. Now, I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a dead end for
the NT line, if 12 is as people are saying it is. So it's likely
that in the future Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer cost
"far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
Apparently not. I have a very strong presence with this device.
Linux and Win11 both.
Sure you do...you keep right on thinking that.
It's better than you give it credit for.
It's far worse than you were implying by suggesting you were using
something equivalent to a current Mac Mini for "far less".
I had
to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was getting >>>>>> on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad
temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there were
more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it clearly isn't
to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your current objective?
And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the OS
and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.
Because a personal computer doesn't need to be replaced as frequently as you've done, as it has utility over several years. That's why the IRS allowed depreciation rate for a PC for a business is five (5) years.
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying the
motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the future.
Sweat? Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the toilet? /s >>> Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the occasional "I
bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it has garnered some
other notoriety comments.
If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what I
said happened.
Nah, it has contained far too much chaff to make it worthwhile.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually everything.
"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power. The
good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest gear has
become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks without undue
UI dwell - - especially for those with very low expectations/standards.
Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.
Because "working" is a capability, not a capacity, so the same is true
when connected to the Internet 30 years ago on a 56kbps modem.
Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂
HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for a
laptop.
At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the question.
You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting a
mini PC from HP, today. The form factor isn't even really comparable.
The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't hallucinating massive advantage from CPU alone (this point really *is* sometimes comparable to
OEM PCs, which is what Apple is competing with on *price*), the Apple is going to cost more and more to overtake the real specs of what I have.
On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to date... >>>
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there were
more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it clearly isn't
to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it can
run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
On 3/4/2026 11:47 PM, Alan wrote:
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the box >>>>>>> I assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this
great new motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
Maybe you've seen poor environments for Win11.
You've GOT a poor environment for Windows 11...
You claim you know better than I do what I have.
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's
Win11 Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media.
That's what I installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a
product key. Now, I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a dead >>>>> end for the NT line, if 12 is as people are saying it is. So it's >>>>> likely that in the future Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer
cost "far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
Apparently not. I have a very strong presence with this device.
Linux and Win11 both.
Sure you do...you keep right on thinking that.
Win11 requires a 64-bit two-core CPU nominally at least 1 GHz, with 4 GB RAM. Clearly I exceed these requirements. And Linux really is almost flawless on it.LOL!
On 3/4/2026 11:48 PM, Alan wrote:
It's better than you give it credit for.
It's far worse than you were implying by suggesting you were using
something equivalent to a current Mac Mini for "far less".
The one I have isn't "equivalent" but there are other ones people canAnd yet when challenged to produce one of these fabled "other ones
buy, and the Mac mini isn't really competing with other mini PCs to that extent, it's competing with general PC OEM devices.
Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂
HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for a
laptop.
At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the question.
You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting a
mini PC from HP, today. The form factor isn't even really comparable.
The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't hallucinating massive
advantage from CPU alone (this point really *is* sometimes comparable
to OEM PCs, which is what Apple is competing with on *price*), the
Apple is going to cost more and more to overtake the real specs of
what I have.
Dude...give it up.
You bought components and assembled a crappy POS mini PC...
...and then by implication claimed that it was equivalent to a Mac Mini,
but cost "far less".
Truth is: it costs "far less" because it IS far less.
And when challenged to show a mini PC you can just buy from an OEM ready-to-use...
...you completely caved.
On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to date... >>>>
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there were
more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it clearly
isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your current
objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it isn't actually usable for Windows 11.
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the >>>>>>>> box I assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even this >>>>>>>> great new motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
Maybe you've seen poor environments for Win11.
You've GOT a poor environment for Windows 11...
You claim you know better than I do what I have.
Every time the truth has come out (Norton headers for instance)...
...I have known better than you do.
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's
Win11 Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media.
That's what I installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a
product key. Now, I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a
dead end for the NT line, if 12 is as people are saying it is. So >>>>>> it's likely that in the future Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer
cost "far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
Apparently not. I have a very strong presence with this device.
Linux and Win11 both.
Sure you do...you keep right on thinking that.
Win11 requires a 64-bit two-core CPU nominally at least 1 GHz, with 4
GB RAM. Clearly I exceed these requirements. And Linux really is
almost flawless on it.
LOL!
"almost flawless"!
It's better than you give it credit for.
It's far worse than you were implying by suggesting you were using
something equivalent to a current Mac Mini for "far less".
The one I have isn't "equivalent" but there are other ones people can
buy, and the Mac mini isn't really competing with other mini PCs to
that extent, it's competing with general PC OEM devices.
And yet when challenged to produce one of these fabled "other ones
people can buy"...
...you've produced nothing.
On 3/5/2026 5:15 PM, Alan wrote:
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the >>>>>>>>> box I assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even >>>>>>>>> this great new motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
Maybe you've seen poor environments for Win11.
You've GOT a poor environment for Windows 11...
You claim you know better than I do what I have.
Every time the truth has come out (Norton headers for instance)...
...I have known better than you do.
Retard, that was a careless oversight by me, you are trying to use it
now. Fuck off.
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's >>>>>>> Win11 Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media.
That's what I installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a >>>>>>> product key. Now, I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a >>>>>>> dead end for the NT line, if 12 is as people are saying it is. >>>>>>> So it's likely that in the future Linux will replace Windows 11.
Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer
cost "far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
Apparently not. I have a very strong presence with this device.
Linux and Win11 both.
Sure you do...you keep right on thinking that.
Win11 requires a 64-bit two-core CPU nominally at least 1 GHz, with 4
GB RAM. Clearly I exceed these requirements. And Linux really is
almost flawless on it.
LOL!
"almost flawless"!
I ran Mint's live session when I first got the PC, and installed DebianSo why isn't it "flawless"?
13 on it for quite a while. I know of what I speak. Same as Linux ran
on my 2010 PC.
On 3/5/2026 5:16 PM, Alan wrote:
It's better than you give it credit for.
It's far worse than you were implying by suggesting you were using
something equivalent to a current Mac Mini for "far less".
The one I have isn't "equivalent" but there are other ones people can
buy, and the Mac mini isn't really competing with other mini PCs to
that extent, it's competing with general PC OEM devices.
And yet when challenged to produce one of these fabled "other ones
people can buy"...
...you've produced nothing.
As if you should need to take my word for it? Try using a Web browser,How could I deny your "word" if you provided a link to such a system?
if Apple even has such.
Mine is better than the Mac. Fuck CPU power.
Now we can down to who is really the fanatic.
An N150?
LOL!
I say why not. It's a nice nominal modern CPU, much like the >>>>>>>>>> box I assembled in 2010. It still works for Linux and even >>>>>>>>>> this great new motif for Windows 11.
The N150 ranks 288 out of 295 processors...
...from Intel alone.
It's slower (a lot slower) than even an Apple M1.
Running Windows 11 on it would be HILARIOUS!
But I am doing that.
Riiiiiiight.
Run some benchmarks. Give us a good laugh!
Maybe you've seen poor environments for Win11.
You've GOT a poor environment for Windows 11...
You claim you know better than I do what I have.
Every time the truth has come out (Norton headers for instance)...
...I have known better than you do.
Retard, that was a careless oversight by me, you are trying to use it
now. Fuck off.
"Careless" is your nature.
That's the problem.
When I received the computer, it had the China- based non-OEM's >>>>>>>> Win11 Pro. I used Media Creation Tool to make a 25H2 media. >>>>>>>> That's what I installed my current Win11 from. And purchased a >>>>>>>> product key. Now, I get the idea that Windows 11 is kind of a >>>>>>>> dead end for the NT line, if 12 is as people are saying it is. >>>>>>>> So it's likely that in the future Linux will replace Windows 11. >>>>>>Keep deflecting from the fact that the only reason your computer >>>>>>> cost "far less" (if it actually did after all your failures)...
...is that it actually IS far less.
Apparently not. I have a very strong presence with this device. >>>>>> Linux and Win11 both.
Sure you do...you keep right on thinking that.
Win11 requires a 64-bit two-core CPU nominally at least 1 GHz, with
4 GB RAM. Clearly I exceed these requirements. And Linux really is >>>> almost flawless on it.
LOL!
"almost flawless"!
I ran Mint's live session when I first got the PC, and installed
Debian 13 on it for quite a while. I know of what I speak. Same as
Linux ran on my 2010 PC.
So why isn't it "flawless"?
On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to date... >>>
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there were
more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it clearly isn't
to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it can
run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the OS
and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.
Because a personal computer doesn't need to be replaced as frequently
as you've done, as it has utility over several years. That's why the
IRS allowed depreciation rate for a PC for a business is five (5) years.
The 2021 PC *existed* because of the stimulus payments. I very well
might be using the 2010 PC today if not for that (with Linux, obviously).
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying the >>>>> motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the future.
Sweat? Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the
toilet? /s Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the
occasional "I bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it
has garnered some other notoriety comments.
If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what I
said happened.
Nah, it has contained far too much chaff to make it worthwhile.
Then don't start *guessing* stupid bullshit in public, asshole. This is why people don't like you, I'm trying to be tolerant.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually everything. >>>>"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power.
The good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest gear
has become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks without
undue UI dwell - - especially for those with very low expectations/
standards.
Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.
Because "working" is a capability, not a capacity, so the same is true
when connected to the Internet 30 years ago on a 56kbps modem.
Hell, I saw a guy with a PC so old on IRC, I figured it out because he
was using mIRC 4.x. I never even downloaded that in my youth, 5.x was current by then. He would've been most likely literally been running Windows 95, in the 2020s.
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to date... >>>>
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there were
more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it clearly
isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your current
objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
Again: capability isn't capacity.
And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the OS
and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.
Because a personal computer doesn't need to be replaced as frequently
as you've done, as it has utility over several years. That's why the
IRS allowed depreciation rate for a PC for a business is five (5) years.
The 2021 PC *existed* because of the stimulus payments. I very well
might be using the 2010 PC today if not for that (with Linux, obviously).
Yet apparently no longer in service for some conveniently vague reason.
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying
the motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the
future.
Sweat? Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the
toilet? /s Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the
occasional "I bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it has >>>>> garnered some other notoriety comments.
If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what I
said happened.
Nah, it has contained far too much chaff to make it worthwhile.
Then don't start *guessing* stupid bullshit in public, asshole. This
is why people don't like you, I'm trying to be tolerant.
But I'm not guessing: I've said flat-out that your life is beneath my attention threshold.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually everything. >>>>>"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power.
The good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest
gear has become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks
without undue UI dwell - - especially for those with very low
expectations/ standards.
Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.
Because "working" is a capability, not a capacity, so the same is
true when connected to the Internet 30 years ago on a 56kbps modem.
Hell, I saw a guy with a PC so old on IRC, I figured it out because he
was using mIRC 4.x. I never even downloaded that in my youth, 5.x was
current by then. He would've been most likely literally been running
Windows 95, in the 2020s.
So? If it works still for him, good for him. After all, he wasn't
trying to claim that it was a performance peer to current products, was he?
On 3/5/2026 7:07 PM, -hh wrote:
I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to
date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
Again: capability isn't capacity.
You really are a retard. I'm using my machine to do many kinds of things. Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old head, "highhorse".
And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the
OS and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.
Because a personal computer doesn't need to be replaced as
frequently as you've done, as it has utility over several years.
That's why the IRS allowed depreciation rate for a PC for a business
is five (5) years.
The 2021 PC *existed* because of the stimulus payments. I very well
might be using the 2010 PC today if not for that (with Linux,
obviously).
Yet apparently no longer in service for some conveniently vague reason.
You claim you aren't interested in why that is - so SHUT YOUR PIEHOLE,
NERD.
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying >>>>>>> the motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the >>>>>>> future.
Sweat? Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the
toilet? /s Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the >>>>>> occasional "I bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it
has garnered some other notoriety comments.
If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what I >>>>> said happened.
Nah, it has contained far too much chaff to make it worthwhile.
Then don't start *guessing* stupid bullshit in public, asshole. This
is why people don't like you, I'm trying to be tolerant.
But I'm not guessing: I've said flat-out that your life is beneath my
attention threshold.
You did guess, ...
... and if you don't shut the fuck up, you better give me > your full nameand address, or you're an anonymously baiting pussy
*COWARD*.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually
everything.
"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power.
The good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest
gear has become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks
without undue UI dwell - - especially for those with very low
expectations/ standards.
Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.
Because "working" is a capability, not a capacity, so the same is
true when connected to the Internet 30 years ago on a 56kbps modem.
Hell, I saw a guy with a PC so old on IRC, I figured it out because
he was using mIRC 4.x. I never even downloaded that in my youth, 5.x
was current by then. He would've been most likely literally been
running Windows 95, in the 2020s.
So? If it works still for him, good for him. After all, he wasn't
trying to claim that it was a performance peer to current products,
was he?
Uh, running mIRC 4.x would have numerous security holes unpatched, in
mIRC itself and in the OS, dating back so far at the time I saw him on
IRC that it was just *unreal* (he was using dial-up Internet, for one thing). You're trolling, therefore, kid.
I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
Again: capability isn't capacity.
You really are a retard. I'm using my machine to do many kinds of
things. Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old head,
"highhorse".
One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability), but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern computer
(that's capacity). How that difference manifests itself is important.
For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.
And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the >>>>>> OS and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.
Because a personal computer doesn't need to be replaced as
frequently as you've done, as it has utility over several years.
That's why the IRS allowed depreciation rate for a PC for a
business is five (5) years.
The 2021 PC *existed* because of the stimulus payments. I very well >>>> might be using the 2010 PC today if not for that (with Linux,
obviously).
Yet apparently no longer in service for some conveniently vague reason.
You claim you aren't interested in why that is - so SHUT YOUR PIEHOLE,
NERD.
Your defensiveness implies that it was a very embarrassing event.
I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying >>>>>>>> the motherboard. I may make use of the leftover parts, in the >>>>>>>> future.
Sweat? Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the
toilet? /s Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the >>>>>>> occasional "I bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it >>>>>>> has garnered some other notoriety comments.
If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what >>>>>> I said happened.
Nah, it has contained far too much chaff to make it worthwhile.
Then don't start *guessing* stupid bullshit in public, asshole.
This is why people don't like you, I'm trying to be tolerant.
But I'm not guessing: I've said flat-out that your life is beneath
my attention threshold.
You did guess, ...
Nah, you volunteered "sweat" (still listed above) and since I've never
heard of anyone killing a desktop from perspiration, I simply expressed
my doubts. If you prefer, I'll flat-out say that I think you lied.
But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually
everything.
"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power. >>>>>>> The good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest >>>>>>> gear has become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks >>>>>>> without undue UI dwell - - especially for those with very low
expectations/ standards.
Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.
Because "working" is a capability, not a capacity, so the same is
true when connected to the Internet 30 years ago on a 56kbps modem.
Hell, I saw a guy with a PC so old on IRC, I figured it out because
he was using mIRC 4.x. I never even downloaded that in my youth,
5.x was current by then. He would've been most likely literally
been running Windows 95, in the 2020s.
So? If it works still for him, good for him. After all, he wasn't
trying to claim that it was a performance peer to current products,
was he?
Uh, running mIRC 4.x would have numerous security holes unpatched, in
mIRC itself and in the OS, dating back so far at the time I saw him on
IRC that it was just *unreal* (he was using dial-up Internet, for one
thing). You're trolling, therefore, kid.
The statement was merely one of principles, not geek minutia: "If it
works still for him, good for him."
And regarding your geek minutia, did he ever claim he was just as
secure? Because if he didn't claim "peer" then it doesn't apply.
On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:
Again: capability isn't capacity.I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I >>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? >>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>>> date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there >>>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it >>>>> can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen. >>>>
You really are a retard. I'm using my machine to do many kinds of
things. Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old
head, "highhorse".
One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability),
but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern
computer (that's capacity). How that difference manifests itself is
important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a
decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.
My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.
You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could is a pretty good machine.
On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there >>>>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since itI had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I >>>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>>>> date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your >>>>>>> current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That >>>>>> it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would >>>>>> happen.
Again: capability isn't capacity.
You really are a retard. I'm using my machine to do many kinds of
things. Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old
head, "highhorse".
One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability),
but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern
computer (that's capacity). How that difference manifests itself is
important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a
decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.
My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.
You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could is
a pretty good machine.
You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.
But that's no surprise.
On 3/6/2026 1:41 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there >>>>>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it >>>>>>>> clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your >>>>>>>> current objective?I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I >>>>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>>Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>>>>> date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>>
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That >>>>>>> it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would >>>>>>> happen.
Again: capability isn't capacity.
You really are a retard. I'm using my machine to do many kinds of >>>>> things. Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old
head, "highhorse".
One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability),
but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern
computer (that's capacity). How that difference manifests itself is >>>> important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a
decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.
My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.
You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could
is a pretty good machine.
You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.
But that's no surprise.
Oh really?
It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer thatThe specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.
is less than a year old.
On 2026-03-06 10:59, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/6/2026 1:41 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 >>>>>>>>> there were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, soI had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>> to date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>>>
since it clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, >>>>>>>>> what is your current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That >>>>>>>> it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed
would happen.
Again: capability isn't capacity.
You really are a retard. I'm using my machine to do many kinds of >>>>>> things. Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old >>>>>> head, "highhorse".
One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's
capability), but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as
a modern computer (that's capacity). How that difference manifests >>>>> itself is important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to
result in a decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.
My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.
You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could
is a pretty good machine.
You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.
But that's no surprise.
Oh really?
Yes. Very much "really".
It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is less
than a year old.
The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.
On 3/6/2026 3:03 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-06 10:59, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/6/2026 1:41 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 >>>>>>>>>> there were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so >>>>>>>>>> since it clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, >>>>>>>>>> what is your current objective?I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>>> to date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>>>>
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. >>>>>>>>> That it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I
assumed would happen.
Again: capability isn't capacity.
You really are a retard. I'm using my machine to do many kinds >>>>>>> of things. Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little >>>>>>> old head, "highhorse".
One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's
capability), but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as >>>>>> a modern computer (that's capacity). How that difference
manifests itself is important. For example, lags in UI response
time tend to result in a decline in productivity equal to the
square of the lag.
My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13,
and then Win11 25H2 again.
You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could >>>>> is a pretty good machine.
You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.
But that's no surprise.
Oh really?
Yes. Very much "really".
Who's judging the performance of my device, you or me?
It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is less
than a year old.
The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a
capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY
to actually do so WELL.
Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-CPU models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater concept when it cornered the market for the form factor.
On 3/5/2026 5:12 PM, Alan wrote:
You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting aExactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂
HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for
a laptop.
At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the question. >>>
mini PC from HP, today. The form factor isn't even really
comparable. The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't
hallucinating massive advantage from CPU alone (this point really
*is* sometimes comparable to OEM PCs, which is what Apple is
competing with on *price*), the Apple is going to cost more and more
to overtake the real specs of what I have.
Dude...give it up.
You bought components and assembled a crappy POS mini PC...
Um, no, it was assembled in China by a non-OEM manufacturer. That's
part of the whole point of this, assembling PCs is for gamers and other high-demand uses, your precious Apple hardware requires $1000+
investment to get anything of the kind.
Face it, my points stand.
...and then by implication claimed that it was equivalent to a Mac
Mini, but cost "far less".
I didn't claim equivalence. I claimed better value.
Truth is: it costs "far less" because it IS far less.
It isn't.
And when challenged to show a mini PC you can just buy from an OEM
ready-to-use...
...you completely caved.
What wasn't "ready-to-use" about mine?It's the nature of the supplier with yours.
On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:
I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to
date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it isn't
actually usable for Windows 11.
Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak. It's roughly as good as Linux.
It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is less
than a year old.
The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a
capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY
to actually do so WELL.
Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-CPU
models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater concept when
it cornered the market for the form factor.
I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...
...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.
Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂
HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for >>>>>> a laptop.
At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the
question.
You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting
a mini PC from HP, today. The form factor isn't even really
comparable. The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't
hallucinating massive advantage from CPU alone (this point really
*is* sometimes comparable to OEM PCs, which is what Apple is
competing with on *price*), the Apple is going to cost more and more
to overtake the real specs of what I have.
Dude...give it up.
You bought components and assembled a crappy POS mini PC...
Um, no, it was assembled in China by a non-OEM manufacturer. That's
part of the whole point of this, assembling PCs is for gamers and
other high-demand uses, your precious Apple hardware requires $1000+
investment to get anything of the kind.
Face it, my points stand.
Face it: you bought a POS.
...and then by implication claimed that it was equivalent to a Mac
Mini, but cost "far less".
I didn't claim equivalence. I claimed better value.
Far less performance for far less cost ISN'T "better value".
Truth is: it costs "far less" because it IS far less.
It isn't.
It really is.
But I'm game for running benchmarks on my M3 MacBook Air against your machine.
It's the nature of the supplier with yours.And when challenged to show a mini PC you can just buy from an OEM
ready-to-use...
...you completely caved.
What wasn't "ready-to-use" about mine?
It's fly-by-night manufacturing from China with no real chance to get it serviced under warranty.
That puts it in a very different class than machines from OEMs such as Apple, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, ASUS.
Find a machine from one of the companies that is actually in the same business as Apple that gives the performance of a Mac Mini for "far less".
The fact that Apple doesn't choose to sell cheap, low-end junk doesn't
make the value of their systems less.
On 3/6/2026 3:35 PM, Alan wrote:
It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is
less than a year old.
The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated
a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a
CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.
Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-
CPU models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater concept
when it cornered the market for the form factor.
I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...
...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.
Bzzt, Alan. You shouldn't make it that easy for me. My mini is cuter than Apple's and has more storage for the value."more storage for the value" doesn't make any sense in this context, Joel.
I win.
On 3/6/2026 3:43 PM, Alan wrote:
Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM... >>>>>>>>
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.
Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂
HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought
for a laptop.
At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the
question.
You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting >>>>> a mini PC from HP, today. The form factor isn't even really
comparable. The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't
hallucinating massive advantage from CPU alone (this point really
*is* sometimes comparable to OEM PCs, which is what Apple is
competing with on *price*), the Apple is going to cost more and
more to overtake the real specs of what I have.
Dude...give it up.
You bought components and assembled a crappy POS mini PC...
Um, no, it was assembled in China by a non-OEM manufacturer. That's
part of the whole point of this, assembling PCs is for gamers and
other high-demand uses, your precious Apple hardware requires $1000+
investment to get anything of the kind.
Face it, my points stand.
Face it: you bought a POS.
Definitely not.
...and then by implication claimed that it was equivalent to a Mac
Mini, but cost "far less".
I didn't claim equivalence. I claimed better value.
Far less performance for far less cost ISN'T "better value".
It's not far less performance.
Truth is: it costs "far less" because it IS far less.
It isn't.
It really is.
But I'm game for running benchmarks on my M3 MacBook Air against your
machine.
I'm game for comparing what I do to the entire world's community of
devices, not just Apple's trophyware.
It's the nature of the supplier with yours.And when challenged to show a mini PC you can just buy from an OEM
ready-to-use...
...you completely caved.
What wasn't "ready-to-use" about mine?
It's fly-by-night manufacturing from China with no real chance to get
it serviced under warranty.
That puts it in a very different class than machines from OEMs such as
Apple, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, ASUS.
Find a machine from one of the companies that is actually in the same
business as Apple that gives the performance of a Mac Mini for "far
less".
The fact that Apple doesn't choose to sell cheap, low-end junk doesn't
make the value of their systems less.
My CPU is low end. But it works better than you think.Let's run some benchmarks.
On 2026-03-05 14:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:
I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.
Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.
Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak. It's roughly as good as Linux.
On the machine with the N150 processor?
Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?
How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.
Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>
And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.
On 3/6/2026 3:35 PM, Alan wrote:
It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is
less than a year old.
The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated
a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a
CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.
Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up
AMD-CPU models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater
concept when it cornered the market for the form factor.
I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...
...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.
Bzzt, Alan. You shouldn't make it that easy for me. My mini is cuter than Apple's and has more storage for the value.
I win.
Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/6/2026 3:35 PM, Alan wrote:do you put the sudafed in first
It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is
less than a year old.
The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated >>>>> a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a
CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.
Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-
CPU models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater concept >>>> when it cornered the market for the form factor.
I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...
...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.
Bzzt, Alan. You shouldn't make it that easy for me. My mini is cuter
than Apple's and has more storage for the value.
I win.
Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.
Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak. It's roughly as good as Linux.
On the machine with the N150 processor?
Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?
How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.
Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>
And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.
On 2026-03-06 12:53, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-05 14:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
I had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad >>>>>>>>> temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there >>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it >>>> can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen. >>>
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.
Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak. It's roughly as good as Linux.
On the machine with the N150 processor?
Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?
How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.
Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>
And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.
Apologies, I meant "Black Magic DISK Speed Test".
At Fri, 6 Mar 2026 13:00:19 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2026-03-06 12:53, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-05 14:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
Which was defined then as what? Because even back in 2021 there >>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since itI had to replace certain things unexpectedly. The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.
Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily? No insurance? Bad
temper?
None of my parts were "cheap".
Indeed: you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...
I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your >>>>> current objective?
I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. That it >>>> can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen. >>>
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.
Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak. It's roughly as good as Linux.
On the machine with the N150 processor?
Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?
How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.
Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>
And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.
Apologies, I meant "Black Magic DISK Speed Test".
Where do you find that?
Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-CPU
models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater concept when it cornered the market for the form factor.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,099 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 492379:05:00 |
| Calls: | 14,106 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,124 |
| D/L today: |
2,546 files (1,099M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,496,244 |