On 2023-10-01 9:20 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-10-01 00:56, Your Name wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately most people only see the sticker price and have no clue
>> about the actual tech inside, so you get the silly myth that Mac
>> computers are more expensive then Windows. As the old saying goes:
>> "You get what you pay for."
>
> OTOH, specing a Mac these days with more memory or SSD is horrifically
> more expensive than specing a PC and then adding the memory and SSD to
> taste.

It's actually quite laughable how expensive doubling the storage and RAM
from its default configuration on a Mac is. For the price they charge to
double from 256GB to 512GB, here in Canada at least and using
CanadaComputers.com as a reference, you can buy a 2TB NVMe with
excellent performance. For what Apple demands to double the RAM, you can
get get 64GB (2x32) or more. I imagine that Apple's tech is a little
faster, but it's still shocking.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-10-01 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 22:07, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>> .
>>
>> Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
>> choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it will
>> come with some rather significant compromises. For similar performance
>> and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose a Mac.
>
> Until you up the memory/SSD.  Apple are real pricks there.

Very much agreed. Admittedly, you don't _need_ to maximize the RAM on
the Mx Macs for most people and the storage upgrades are not required if
you're making use of the cloud, but those are still compromises.

> Used to be you could buy the least spec'd model for a given processor,
> and then buy memory from Crucial (et al) at a much lower cost than Apple
> upgrades.
>
> Now - all soldered in place - so you need to spec high and pay the Apple
> ransom.
>
> (A few people have managed to de-solder RAM and SSD's and upgrade, but
> this is not for the faint of heart and can go wrong badly).

Yeah, I wouldn't touch that. I'm already dreading the possibility of
replacing the battery in this Zephyrus G14 laptop of mine. When I sent
it in for repairs during the summer, I asked them to switch the battery
at the same time (which they surprisingly did for free) since it was
already at 17% wear, but if I hold onto this laptop for another two
hours, I'll inevitably have to do it myself. It wouldn't be an issue for
me on any other machine, but this one is known to cause a spark and kill
the motherboard if you make even one wrong move. Clearly, the days of
opening up your own laptop and fixing it are becoming a memory with
these thin devices.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-10-01 09:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-10-01 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 22:07, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> .
>>>
>>> Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
>>> choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it
>>> will come with some rather significant compromises. For similar
>>> performance and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose
>>> a Mac.
>>
>> Until you up the memory/SSD.  Apple are real pricks there.
>
> Very much agreed. Admittedly, you don't _need_ to maximize the RAM on
> the Mx Macs for most people and the storage upgrades are not required if
> you're making use of the cloud, but those are still compromises.

I'm not the power-user I used to be, but re-compiling some of my s/w
takes a while and rendering video is long on this 2012 i7 quad core.

I have a lot of apps open at a time, and I like using RAM disks for
source file (say a video in one container) for conversion to disk in the
desired container. So I allocate 12 GB of RAMdisk. (The memory is not
actually used until a file is written. To recover the memory, eject the
drive).

I currently have 24 GB of RAM and that's fine (bought the computer with
8 GB and bought the rest 3rd party).

I keep my computers for a long time (10 years+) - so over-spec now pays
off (in theory) down the road.

New iMac|Studio|Mini will probably spec at 32 or 48 GB depending on how
they sell it.

As to SSD I'll want at least 2 TB, and I'm pondering 4TB.

So it will be a big chunk of cash.

>> Used to be you could buy the least spec'd model for a given processor,
>> and then buy memory from Crucial (et al) at a much lower cost than
>> Apple upgrades.
>>
>> Now - all soldered in place - so you need to spec high and pay the
>> Apple ransom.
>>
>> (A few people have managed to de-solder RAM and SSD's and upgrade, but
>> this is not for the faint of heart and can go wrong badly).
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't touch that. I'm already dreading the possibility of
> replacing the battery in this Zephyrus G14 laptop of mine. When I sent
> it in for repairs during the summer, I asked them to switch the battery
> at the same time (which they surprisingly did for free) since it was
> already at 17% wear, but if I hold onto this laptop for another two
> hours, I'll inevitably have to do it myself. It wouldn't be an issue for
> me on any other machine, but this one is known to cause a spark and kill
> the motherboard if you make even one wrong move. Clearly, the days of
> opening up your own laptop and fixing it are becoming a memory with
> these thin devices.

If you need a good laptop that you'll be able to upgrade in all respects
look at Framework.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-01 9:48 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-10-01 09:39, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-10-01 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 22:07, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Admittedly, the price should no longer be as significant a factor in
>>>> choosing a PC. Sure, you can buy a PC for less than a Mac, but it
>>>> will come with some rather significant compromises. For similar
>>>> performance and durability, there is little premium to pay to choose
>>>> a Mac.
>>>
>>> Until you up the memory/SSD.  Apple are real pricks there.
>>
>> Very much agreed. Admittedly, you don't _need_ to maximize the RAM on
>> the Mx Macs for most people and the storage upgrades are not required
>> if you're making use of the cloud, but those are still compromises.
>
> I'm not the power-user I used to be, but re-compiling some of my s/w
> takes a while and rendering video is long on this 2012 i7 quad core.
>
> I have a lot of apps open at a time, and I like using RAM disks for
> source file (say a video in one container) for conversion to disk in the
> desired container.  So I allocate 12 GB of RAMdisk.  (The memory is not
> actually used until a file is written.  To recover the memory, eject the
> drive).
>
> I currently have 24 GB of RAM and that's fine (bought the computer with
> 8 GB and bought the rest 3rd party).
>
> I keep my computers for a long time (10 years+) - so over-spec now pays
> off (in theory) down the road.
>
> New iMac|Studio|Mini will probably spec at 32 or 48 GB depending on how
> they sell it.
>
> As to SSD I'll want at least 2 TB, and I'm pondering 4TB.
>
> So it will be a big chunk of cash.

It's a good chunk of cash, but consider how you keep them for ten years,
it's not that bad in terms of yearly investment. I rarely keep my
machines for more than five myself. The MSI GT72 I bought in 2015 was
replaced in 2021, but I still used it at work. I only now got rid of it
because one of my co-workers is somehow dirt poor despite getting paid
the same as me. Apparently, cigarettes are expensive.

>>> Used to be you could buy the least spec'd model for a given
>>> processor, and then buy memory from Crucial (et al) at a much lower
>>> cost than Apple upgrades.
>>>
>>> Now - all soldered in place - so you need to spec high and pay the
>>> Apple ransom.
>>>
>>> (A few people have managed to de-solder RAM and SSD's and upgrade,
>>> but this is not for the faint of heart and can go wrong badly).
>>
>> Yeah, I wouldn't touch that. I'm already dreading the possibility of
>> replacing the battery in this Zephyrus G14 laptop of mine. When I sent
>> it in for repairs during the summer, I asked them to switch the
>> battery at the same time (which they surprisingly did for free) since
>> it was already at 17% wear, but if I hold onto this laptop for another
>> two hours, I'll inevitably have to do it myself. It wouldn't be an
>> issue for me on any other machine, but this one is known to cause a
>> spark and kill the motherboard if you make even one wrong move.
>> Clearly, the days of opening up your own laptop and fixing it are
>> becoming a memory with these thin devices.
>
> If you need a good laptop that you'll be able to upgrade in all respects
> look at Framework.

I want to get away from something where my only options are Linux or
Windows. Both have a tendency to break on me. The Mac is looking like
the most interesting option for me as a 44-year-old who no longer gets
much of a chance to play games. We'll see what kind of brilliant device
Apple will be selling in 2026.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-10-01 09:58, RabidPedagog wrote:

> I want to get away from something where my only options are Linux or
> Windows. Both have a tendency to break on me. The Mac is looking like
> the most interesting option for me as a 44-year-old who no longer gets
> much of a chance to play games. We'll see what kind of brilliant device
> Apple will be selling in 2026.

When Vista came out I was on the verge of a new computer. Vista (alas)
was broken out of the gate with many missing drivers for existing and
emerging peripherals.

I experimented with Linux (Mandrake IIRC) for a month or so, but the key
needs were far from met (Photoshop, Excel, Word, Powerpoint and others).
I never got much into programming under Linux though some simple
command line programs compiled and ran with minor tweaks (usually file
references).

I looked up the Mac specs, was delighted that MS Office and Photoshop
were supported (and Adobe transferred the license at no charge but I had
to buy a new Office license).

And then discovered Fusion (VM) so a lot of legacy apps (and WinXP)
followed me onto the new Mac (2007). In 2014 the business went Mac in
the backoffice too with Win7 in VM to support accounting (Sage).

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 10/1/2023 6:24 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:

<snip>

> I notice that a lot of the students at my workplace are already used to
> the idea of touching the screen to scroll or click items on a webpage. .
> Anything that could easily have been done with a mouse, they will choose
> to do by touching the screenHowever, I'm the kind of person who can't
> stand his screen being dirty, and I'd never get used to the idea of
> touching it to accomplish the simplest thing. Therefore, whether the Mac
> eventually gets this functionality or not makes no difference in my
> life. However, I can indeed imagine it being necessary for some
> software. Admittedly, I would have enjoyed using a touchscreen to draw
> things in Photoshop rather than a graphics tablet back in the day when I
> still showed some potential as an artist.

I prefer a mouse, though I do really like my Apple Pencil on my iPad and
on my old Samsung Note 9 the stylus was great. Windows Ink uses a stylus.

It's Gen Z that has been most vocal about wanting a touch screen Mac.

A touch screen opens up the possibility of a lot of applications that
are currently not possible on a Macbook unless you add something like a
Wacom tablet and stylus for several hundred dollars.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2023-10-01 10:20 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-10-01 09:58, RabidPedagog wrote:
>
>> I want to get away from something where my only options are Linux or
>> Windows. Both have a tendency to break on me. The Mac is looking like
>> the most interesting option for me as a 44-year-old who no longer gets
>> much of a chance to play games. We'll see what kind of brilliant
>> device Apple will be selling in 2026.
>
> When Vista came out I was on the verge of a new computer.  Vista (alas)
> was broken out of the gate with many missing drivers for existing and
> emerging peripherals.
>
> I experimented with Linux (Mandrake IIRC) for a month or so, but the key
> needs were far from met (Photoshop, Excel, Word, Powerpoint and others).
>  I never got much into programming under Linux though some simple
> command line programs compiled and ran with minor tweaks (usually file
> references).
>
> I looked up the Mac specs, was delighted that MS Office and Photoshop
> were supported (and Adobe transferred the license at no charge but I had
> to buy a new Office license).
>
> And then discovered Fusion (VM) so a lot of legacy apps (and WinXP)
> followed me onto the new Mac (2007).  In 2014 the business went Mac in
> the backoffice too with Win7 in VM to support accounting (Sage).

I wouldn't mind losing my Office 2021 license by going to the Mac
because I get a free Office 365 license from work. The only drawback is
that it is tied to my workplace e-mail account and almost forces me to
save on the work OneDrive. However, since any work I would do in Office
would be purposed for work anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference.
Migrating to the Mac is a reality for me, it would just be slightly
inconvenient because of the significant investment in media. Time will
tell how much I will actually care about this.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-10-01 08:02, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-10-01 10:20 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-10-01 09:58, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>
>>> I want to get away from something where my only options are Linux or
>>> Windows. Both have a tendency to break on me. The Mac is looking like
>>> the most interesting option for me as a 44-year-old who no longer
>>> gets much of a chance to play games. We'll see what kind of brilliant
>>> device Apple will be selling in 2026.
>>
>> When Vista came out I was on the verge of a new computer.  Vista
>> (alas) was broken out of the gate with many missing drivers for
>> existing and emerging peripherals.
>>
>> I experimented with Linux (Mandrake IIRC) for a month or so, but the
>> key needs were far from met (Photoshop, Excel, Word, Powerpoint and
>> others).   I never got much into programming under Linux though some
>> simple command line programs compiled and ran with minor tweaks
>> (usually file references).
>>
>> I looked up the Mac specs, was delighted that MS Office and Photoshop
>> were supported (and Adobe transferred the license at no charge but I
>> had to buy a new Office license).
>>
>> And then discovered Fusion (VM) so a lot of legacy apps (and WinXP)
>> followed me onto the new Mac (2007).  In 2014 the business went Mac in
>> the backoffice too with Win7 in VM to support accounting (Sage).
>
> I wouldn't mind losing my Office 2021 license by going to the Mac
> because I get a free Office 365 license from work. The only drawback is
> that it is tied to my workplace e-mail account and almost forces me to
> save on the work OneDrive. However, since any work I would do in Office
> would be purposed for work anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference.
> Migrating to the Mac is a reality for me, it would just be slightly
> inconvenient because of the significant investment in media. Time will
> tell how much I will actually care about this.
>

I happen to be intimately familiar with Microsoft 365 Office licensing,
and...

....would you tell me how it "forces" you?

On 2023-10-01 11:02, RabidPedagog wrote:

> I wouldn't mind losing my Office 2021 license by going to the Mac
> because I get a free Office 365 license from work. The only drawback is
> that it is tied to my workplace e-mail account and almost forces me to
> save on the work OneDrive. However, since any work I would do in Office
> would be purposed for work anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference.
> Migrating to the Mac is a reality for me, it would just be slightly
> inconvenient because of the significant investment in media. Time will
> tell how much I will actually care about this.

If you buy your Office license from a 3rd party site, it's about 40%
less than buying from MS.

Indeed one site has MS Home and Office for Mac (2021) (1 license) at
US$25...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 10/1/2023 8:02 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:

<snip>

> I wouldn't mind losing my Office 2021 license by going to the Mac
> because I get a free Office 365 license from work. The only drawback is
> that it is tied to my workplace e-mail account and almost forces me to
> save on the work OneDrive. However, since any work I would do in Office
> would be purposed for work anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference.
> Migrating to the Mac is a reality for me, it would just be slightly
> inconvenient because of the significant investment in media. Time will
> tell how much I will actually care about this.

Microsoft Office for Mac is pretty inexpensive. See
<https://www.gamers-outlet.net/en/buy-office-2021-home-and-business-cd-key>.
Publisher and Access are not included in the Mac version of Office Home
& Business and there is no Office Professional version for the Mac.

Office Professional Plus 2021 is still available for Windows
<https://www.gamers-outlet.net/en/microsoft-office-2021-professional-plus-iso>
but there will not be any new versions, they are trying to migrate
everyone of Office 365.

I don't know how this retailer is able to sell the CD keys at that price
but they've been around for a long time and Microsoft has not shut them
down.

Personally, between Open Office/Libre Office and Google
Docs/Sheets/Slides, I find little need for Microsoft Office for personal
use. At work we have a corporate Google account and we don't use
Microsoft Office at all.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2023-10-01, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 19:11, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-10-01, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 18:56, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that
>>>> people had already purchased Lightning accessories, and didn't want
>>>> to force them to buy new ones. This is a company whose business
>>>> depends on people buying the same phone they already have but with
>>>> a higher number every year. The "theory" that they wanted to hold
>>>> onto very lucrative accessory market makes the most sense.
>>>
>>> But it simply ISN'T "very lucrative" for Apple.
>>>
>>> Take a look:
>>>
>>> <https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/_10-K-2022-(As-Filed).pdf>
>>>
>>> Page 21.
>>>
>>> "Wearables, Home and Accessories" taken TOGETHER totaled 20% of
>>> iPhone sales in 2022...
>>>
>>> ...and that category includes:
>>>
>>> 'AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod mini and
>>> accessories.'
>>>
>>> Do you really think that the Lightning accessories are any
>>> significant fraction of that?
>>
>> It's an insignificant percentage. Just look at AirPods revenue alone:
>>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/n5m2xp/oc_airpods_revenue_vs_top_tech_companies/>
>
> Wow!
>
> I mean I knew that AirPods would be a bit part of the category, but
> damn.

Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
haunts their tortured souls. 🤣

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

> Apple has not yet made an official
> statement about this issue.

Actually, Apple blamed everyone and everything under the sun.

... Which means...

Apple didn't test it.

... Again...

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

> it integrates beautifully with the
> rest of my Apple products (Macs, iPad and Watch) in ways other "system"
> vendors can only dream of.

I realize Alan Browne has no clue that the "integration" he speaks about is
only possible *because* he's logged into Apple mothership servers 24/7/365.

When people on the "other system vendors" stoop to that level of intrusion,
they too enjoy all that "integration" which Alan Browne has no clue about.

For example, the open source PulseSMS software puts iMessage to shame.
<https://pulsesms.app/>
--
It's no longer shocking that ignorant people like Alan Browne have no idea
that all that "integration" is not due to Apple - but to the mothership
servers (which all can do on any platform if they want to stoop that low).

On 2023-10-01 12:52, Wally J wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
>
>> it integrates beautifully with the
>> rest of my Apple products (Macs, iPad and Watch) in ways other "system"
>> vendors can only dream of.
>
> I realize Alan Browne has...

....your clown act completely figure out?

:-)

On 2023-10-01 13:34:26 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
> On 2023-10-01 9:20 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-10-01 00:56, Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately most people only see the sticker price and have no clue
>>> about the actual tech inside, so you get the silly myth that Mac
>>> computers are more expensive then Windows. As the old saying goes: "You
>>> get what you pay for."
>>
>> OTOH, specing a Mac these days with more memory or SSD is horrifically
>> more expensive than specing a PC and then adding the memory and SSD to
>> taste.
>
> It's actually quite laughable how expensive doubling the storage and
> RAM from its default configuration on a Mac is. For the price they
> charge to double from 256GB to 512GB, here in Canada at least and using
> CanadaComputers.com as a reference, you can buy a 2TB NVMe with
> excellent performance. For what Apple demands to double the RAM, you
> can get get 64GB (2x32) or more. I imagine that Apple's tech is a
> little faster, but it's still shocking.

That is one of the few bad points for Mac computers these days - the
sheer lack of upgradability and the cost of build-to-order RAM and
drive upgrades, for which Johnny Ive is largely to blame due to his
idiotic insistence on fully sealed and ever thinner boxes. It has been
made worse by the fact that Apple Silicon includes the RAM on the chip
(which is why the recent "Mac Pro" is a rather pointless since there's
very little you actually can do inside the box (the only one that is
easily opened). :-(

On 9/30/23 23:56, Your Name wrote:
> Steam a GOG use what is basically their own proprietary wrapper to make
> old Windows (and even old Amiga, etc.) games run on the Mac and newer
> Windows versions. The fact that some of their games don't have Mac
> compatibility is largely down to them.

Do you mean Proton?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 10/1/23 08:29, RabidPedagog wrote:
> PC, with a huge game and movie library (through the Windows Store). If
Why are you using the Windows Store?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 2023-10-01 21:56:17 +0000, candycanearter07 said:
> On 9/30/23 23:56, Your Name wrote:
>>
>> Steam a GOG use what is basically their own proprietary wrapper to make
>> old Windows (and even old Amiga, etc.) games run on the Mac and newer
>> Windows versions. The fact that some of their games don't have Mac
>> compatibility is largely down to them.
>
> Do you mean Proton?

I don't know what each of them specifically use, but it is basically
similar to WINE where the Windows app is inside a wrapper so the app
can be run on MacOS computer without the need to have full Windows
installed. Many of their games have never had specific Mac versions
made.

Some of their games will have requirements that mean the wrapper cannot
make them work on MacOS, which is why they do not offer a "Mac"
version. Other games not have a "Mac" version are simply their choice
(or the developer's choice) to not offer it or not having gotten around
to it yet.

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote

> Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
> explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
> that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
> Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
> haunts their tortured souls.

The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly Roger.
*It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*

However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than Apple.
*Maybe Big Pharma comes close.*
Big Tobacco too.

They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple is.

On Oct 1, 2023, Wally J wrote
(in article <ufdn57$3uuq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>):

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>
> > Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
> > explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
> > that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
> > Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
> > haunts their tortured souls.
>
> The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly Roger.
> *It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
>
> However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than Apple.
> *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.*
> Big Tobacco too.
>
> They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple is.

"Apple is more despicable than Big Tobacco" is one hell of a take

On 2023-10-01 23:41, Dorper wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2023, Wally J wrote
> (in article <ufdn57$3uuq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
>
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>>> Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
>>> explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
>>> that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
>>> Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
>>> haunts their tortured souls.
>>
>> The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly Roger.
>> *It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
>>
>> However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than Apple.
>> *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.*
>> Big Tobacco too.
>>
>> They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple is.
>
> "Apple is more despicable than Big Tobacco" is one hell of a take
>

Kind of says more about the Clown than it does about Apple...

....doesn't it?

:-)

On 2023-10-02 02:41, Dorper wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2023, Wally J wrote
> (in article <ufdn57$3uuq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
>
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>>> Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
>>> explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for Apple
>>> that they literally spend hours and hours every single day trolling the
>>> Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them. Apple very clearly
>>> haunts their tortured souls.
>>
>> The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly Roger.
>> *It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
>>
>> However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than Apple.
>> *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.*
>> Big Tobacco too.
>>
>> They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple is.
>
> "Apple is more despicable than Big Tobacco" is one hell of a take

The tighter he's painted into a corner, the more desperate and
outrageous his taunts. Something like a former reality show host.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-10-02, Dorper <usenet@dorper.me> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2023, Wally J wrote
> (in article <ufdn57$3uuq1$1@paganini.bofh.team>):
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>
>> > Really puts into perspective how massively successful Apple is, and
>> > explains why the resident trolls here have such seething hate for
>> > Apple that they literally spend hours and hours every single day
>> > trolling the Apple newsgroups. The jealously is rampant in them.
>> > Apple very clearly haunts their tortured souls.
>>
>> The people who tell the truth about Apple don't hate Apple, Jolly
>> Roger. *It's you who hates the truth about Apple.*
>>
>> However, to your point, there are few companies more despicable than
>> Apple. *Maybe Big Pharma comes close.* Big Tobacco too.
>>
>> They're all "massively successful" in the exact same way that Apple
>> is.
>
> "Apple is more despicable than Big Tobacco" is one hell of a take

It really gives you an insight into their completely warped realities,
doesn't it? They are truly disturbed. If it wasn't so willful, I'd feel
sorry for them.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR