On 2023-09-30 06:36:02 +0000, Dorper said:
> On Sep 29, 2023, candycanearter07 wrote
> (in article <uf89pi$n7qd$1@dont-email.me>):
>> On 9/29/23 23:38, Dorper wrote:
>>> Like them or not:
>>> - The Notch
>>> - Removing the headphone jack
>>> - The reversible charging port
>>> - Marketable wireless earbuds
>>> - Marketable wireless trackers
>>> - AirDrop (like bluetooth file xfer if it didn't suck)
>>> - Functional x86 to ARM64 translation
>>> - On-chip ML acceleration
>>> - Application of the broadband engine concept to laptops
>>>
>>> Primarily Apple makes technologies that were previously unmarketable
>>> (Wireless trackers, wireless earbuds, wireless file transfers, Thunderbolt,
>>> binary translation, smart watches, mp3 players, etc.) appealing to the
>>> general public.
>>
>> To be fair, yes.
>> The marketing hides that they haven't made anything NEW, just repackaged
>> an existing thing and made it a selling point.
>>
>> Apple managed to make their massive USB-C scandal into an "exciting new
>> model" of devices.
>
> All technology is built upon existing technology.

Apple never said it invented the smart phone, the tablet, the computer,
the portable music player, etc., etc.

Apple creates devices that work better than the existing ones, and then
all the other lazy companies like Samsung and Microsloth simply copy
what Apple does.

On 2023-09-30 17:39:44 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
>>> platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
>>> of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind of
>>> performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once this
>>> one becomes obsolete.
>>
>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering
>> software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
>> via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>
>> From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available
>> on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access
>> these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
>> low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>
>>
>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as
>> capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>
> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
> they really wanted simply because their university program required
> x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
> eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
> realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
> software for the Mac as there is for the PC.

The fact that there is "more" Windoze software doesn't mean anything
when 95% of it is just useless drivel. :-\

With the exception of some games and some specific / custom work or
school apps, you can get every app the average user needs on the Mac.

> Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
> learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
> inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
> walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
> there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).

There were tons of "random apps" easily obtainable, often for free, on
magazine cover disks / discs. I got a free copy of ColorIt! from a
magazine cover disk and I used that as a Photoshop replacement for many
years (it didn't have all the fancy "features" as Photoshop evolved,
but was much easier to use and did everything I needed it to).

> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
> are actually nicer.

That's because the MacOS itself is much "nicer" to use (although Apple
keeps trying to negate that with more and more unnecessary gimmickry).
Windoze is just a continual kludge and mess, not to mention all the
malware issues.

Most people use Windoze for one or two reasons:

1. Work / school forces them to use it.

2. Because Windoze PCs appear to be cheaper when
solely look at the price tag in-store.

On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:

>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>
>
> That's SolidWorks fault.
>
> But...
>
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>
> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.

In a VM (Parallels).

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

On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>
>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>
>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>
> In a VM (Parallels).

And people report it works well.

--
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

On 2023-09-30 14:00, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>
>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>
>>
>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>
>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>
> In a VM (Parallels).
>

Yup.

So what?

On 2023-09-30 17:06, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 14:00, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>
>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
>>>> run it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
>>>> nearly as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>
>>> But...
>>>
>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>
>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>
>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>
>
> Yup.
>
> So what?

It's good thing. But I'd need to see it render a large, complex project
before cheering it completely.

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

On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>
>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>
>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>
>>> But...
>>>
>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>
>> In a VM (Parallels).
>
> And people report it works well.

I'd have to see it on a large complex project.

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

On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>
>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>
>>>> But...
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>
>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>
>> And people report it works well.
>
> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>

At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.

The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:

A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.

A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.

Pretty much even in I/O

And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the "Max"
version).

On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> But...
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>>
>>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>>
>>> And people report it works well.
>>
>> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
>
> At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
> workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
>
> The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
>
> A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
>
> A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
>
> Pretty much even in I/O
>
> And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the "Max"
> version).

RealView performance was not great.

Quote: "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."

Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far from
ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "

Quote:(ish ...):
"and m1 ultra processors also it's
important to be aware that you will
experience some performance related
issues when running solidworks on a mac
for example occasional graphical
glitches in features such as
transparency and reality this is because
apple does not build these macs with a
graphical driver similar to the nvidia
quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
that solidwork is optimized for you may
also experience other little glitches
such as items temporarily disappearing
when you rotate zoom and pan especially
with dimension text and 3d details ..."

That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
to work at all, it's pretty good.

Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...

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

On 2023-09-30 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>>>
>>>> And people report it works well.
>>>
>>> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
>>
>> At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
>> workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
>>
>> The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
>>
>> A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
>>
>> A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
>>
>> Pretty much even in I/O
>>
>> And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the
>> "Max" version).
>
> RealView performance was not great.
>
> Quote:  "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."

On a far-from-fastest Mac...

>
> Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
> about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
> solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far from
> ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "

Exactly.

So he compared one of the fastest workstations available with 384GB of
RAM to a MacBook Pro with a first generation Mx processor.

>
> Quote:(ish ...):
> "and m1 ultra processors also it's
> important to be aware that you will
> experience some performance related
> issues when running solidworks on a mac
> for example occasional graphical
> glitches in features such as
> transparency and reality this is because
> apple does not build these macs with a
> graphical driver similar to the nvidia
> quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
> that solidwork is optimized for you may
> also experience other little glitches
> such as items temporarily disappearing
> when you rotate zoom and pan especially
> with dimension text and 3d details ..."
>
> That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
> to work at all, it's pretty good.

Yup. Imagine if you just upgraded to the Mac Studio...

>
> Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...
>

Indeed.

They're already including the Mac as an officially recognized option
with Parallels 17.1.2

<https://www.solidworks.com/support/system-requirements>

And AutoCAD isn't SolidWorks, but it's going native:

"AutoCAD for Mac 2024 and AutoCAD LT for Mac 2024 deliver incredible,
new performance improvements with the ability to run AutoCAD natively on
Apple silicon," says Dania El Hassan, Director of Product Management for
AutoCAD, Autodesk. "It's exciting to see how customers can now take full
advantage of the latest hardware and M-series chips for faster ways to
work."

And of course, the cloud is becoming a more and more viable option:

<https://www.onshape.com/en/>

<https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/28/autocad-mac-2024-apple-silicon/>

On 2023-09-30 18:56, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 14:50, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 17:30, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 17:03, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 11:59, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 07:26, sms wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>>>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and
>>>>>>>> can't run
>>>>>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not
>>>>>>>> nearly
>>>>>>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's SolidWorks fault.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/SolidWorks/comments/11v5149/solidworks_2023_running_on_macbook_pro_14_m1_pro/>
>>>>>>> Running on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a VM (Parallels).
>>>>>
>>>>> And people report it works well.
>>>>
>>>> I'd have to see it on a large complex project.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsZZW_CminM>
>>>
>>> At about 3:00 they compare some benchmarks against an HP Z8 G4
>>> workstation with 384GB of RAM and an nVidia 6000 GPU.
>>>
>>> The M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" was:
>>>
>>> A little (about 10%) slower in graphics.
>>>
>>> A good bit FASTER in processor benchmarking.
>>>
>>> Pretty much even in I/O
>>>
>>> And that's against a MacBook Pro with an M1 processor (albeit the
>>> "Max" version).
>>
>> RealView performance was not great.
>>
>> Quote:  "It is quite usable __ depending __ on the size of the model."
>
> On a far-from-fastest Mac...
>
>>
>> Quote:(ish - using the transcript extraction) "there can be no doubt
>> about the fact that running a cpu intensive piece of software like
>> solidworks on an m1 macbook especially the first gen laptop is far
>> from ideal if you consider yourself a heavy user "
>
> Exactly.
>
> So he compared one of the fastest workstations available with 384GB of
> RAM to a MacBook Pro with a first generation Mx processor.

Yes - so still to be seen.

>
>>
>> Quote:(ish ...):
>> "and m1 ultra processors also it's
>> important to be aware that you will
>> experience some performance related
>> issues when running solidworks on a mac
>> for example occasional graphical
>> glitches in features such as
>> transparency and reality this is because
>> apple does not build these macs with a
>> graphical driver similar to the nvidia
>> quadro or ati firepro graphics cards
>> that solidwork is optimized for you may
>> also experience other little glitches
>> such as items temporarily disappearing
>> when you rotate zoom and pan especially
>> with dimension text and 3d details ..."
>>
>> That said - considering the whole thing has to pass through Rosetta II
>> to work at all, it's pretty good.
>
> Yup. Imagine if you just upgraded to the Mac Studio...

Not too fast - there may be GPU dependencies here that Parallels cannot
overcome technically or license wise...
>>
>> Maybe Solid Works will take another look at Macs ...
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> They're already including the Mac as an officially recognized option
> with Parallels 17.1.2
>
> <https://www.solidworks.com/support/system-requirements>
>
> And AutoCAD isn't SolidWorks, but it's going native:
>
> "AutoCAD for Mac 2024 and AutoCAD LT for Mac 2024 deliver incredible,
> new performance improvements with the ability to run AutoCAD natively on
> Apple silicon," says Dania El Hassan, Director of Product Management for
> AutoCAD, Autodesk. "It's exciting to see how customers can now take full
> advantage of the latest hardware and M-series chips for faster ways to
> work."
>
> And of course, the cloud is becoming a more and more viable option:
>
> <https://www.onshape.com/en/>
>
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2023/03/28/autocad-mac-2024-apple-silicon/>

Which is nice, but there are entire major corporations and there
collaborators (clients, subs, parts vendors, etc.) who are anchored in
SolidWorks.

I'll defer to the Zen Master.

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

On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
>> So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can't
>> play any role, can it?

Let's brake this down, shall we?

> https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/

And Apple included a feature to let someone know if an AirTag was moving
with them.

But what you're really showing is that a useful technology can be used
in nefarious ways. That's hardly unique to Apple.

> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/

Seriously? 2016, and Apple didn't give the FBI the access they wanted.

> https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html

Yes... ...let's look:

'We don’t really think there was anything substantial to the problem,
and the iPhone 4 sold tremendously well. Customers didn’t seem to
notice, let alone mind, and Apple repeatedly pointed out that other
mobile phones suffered the same effect. The iPhone 4S did have two
antennas, mind.'

Wow, you can bend a piece of electronics. You're not seriously claiming
that no other smartphone doesn't suffer from this non-problem, are you?

Gee, MobileMe wasn't great. Oh, no!

They gave people a free album, and this is supposed to be a real problem?

Apple Maps wasn't great from the word go. Golly.

"Crackgate" is just people not treating a piece of electronics with due
care.

Sorry... ...but this is a pretty lame list.

Moving on.

> https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html

Utterly irrelevant in a discussion of how well Apple's products work for
customers.

> https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html

Dude... ...an article that starts with the Apple III? Honestly?

> https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html

Show me the parts of that article that are relevant to a discussion of
consumer satisfaction.

>
> There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.

That would be true of any large company with lots of products that has
been around for 43 years.

On Sep 30, 2023, sms wrote
(in article <uf9b78$u6b2$1@dont-email.me>):

> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as
> capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.

Solidworks is tied to the Win32 platform and uses GDI objects (to the point
that it can cause a logout due to overutilization) and OLE extensively.

On 2023-10-01, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
>>> So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can't
>>> play any role, can it?
>
> Let's brake this down, shall we?

ERRRRRRRRRRRRT!!! Brakes excellently applied, good sir! 😁

>> https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
>
> And Apple included a feature to let someone know if an AirTag was moving
> with them.
>
> But what you're really showing is that a useful technology can be used
> in nefarious ways. That's hardly unique to Apple.

No shit.

Oh, MY! Such a *scandal*! Where is my pearl necklace? I must CLUTCH it!!

Talk about a reach... 🤡

>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
>
> Seriously? 2016, and Apple didn't give the FBI the access they wanted.

In fact, Apple has doubled down on security and encryption to ensure
even Apple employees can't access your private information - even going
so far as to design Advanced Privacy Protection and Lockdown Mode into
its products for those who are truly concerned with maintaining every
aspect of their privacy:

<https://support.apple.com/guide/security/advanced-data-protection-for-icloud-sec973254c5f/web>
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212650>

>> https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
>
> Yes... ...let's look:
>
> 'We don’t really think there was anything substantial to the problem,
> and the iPhone 4 sold tremendously well. Customers didn’t seem to
> notice, let alone mind, and Apple repeatedly pointed out that other
> mobile phones suffered the same effect. The iPhone 4S did have two
> antennas, mind.'

My wife and I owned the iPhone 4 at the time. We had friends with them
as well. Come of us used cases, others didn't (though most of us were
happy to take Apple's offer of a free bumper case later on, because free
stuff is fun). None of us had these supposedly widespread reception
issues.

> Wow, you can bend a piece of electronics. You're not seriously claiming
> that no other smartphone doesn't suffer from this non-problem, are you?
>
> Gee, MobileMe wasn't great. Oh, no!
>
> They gave people a free album, and this is supposed to be a real problem?
>
> Apple Maps wasn't great from the word go. Golly.
>
> "Crackgate" is just people not treating a piece of electronics with due
> care.
>
> Sorry... ...but this is a pretty lame list.
>
> Moving on.

Just something to troll about. Lazy trolls.

>> https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
>
> Utterly irrelevant in a discussion of how well Apple's products work for
> customers.

Just more lazy trolls.

>> https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html
>
> Dude... ...an article that starts with the Apple III? Honestly?

Dude is working on perfecting the art of the reach. Don't discourage
him! 🤣

>> https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
>
> Show me the parts of that article that are relevant to a discussion of
> consumer satisfaction.

Don't hold your breath!
>> There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
>
> That would be true of any large company with lots of products that has
> been around for 43 years.

Yes, but this is *Apple*, and Apple: BAD! 😉

--
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

On 2023-09-30 3:43 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>>
>>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>>> that.
>>
>> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
>> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
>
> Actually, there's no evidence control has nothing to do with it. It's
> just as plausible that Apple simply wanted to get full support for USB-C
> accessories lined up and deployed in iOS before transitioning. Keep in
> mind there were a shitload of existing Lightning accessories in use that
> would require an adapter and potential changes to those accessories to
> continue working, which no doubt required careful coordination with
> third-party accessory makers.

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.

>>> Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
>>
>> No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
>
>> <https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>.
>
> Not necessarily. That law doesn't go into effect until 2024. And there's
> little doubt Apple was already planning the transition of the iPhone to
> USB-C long before that law was but a spark in the EU's eyes.

There's little doubt, but no concrete proof. Either way, the transition
is good for customers.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-09-30 4:00 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 2:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
>>>> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
>>>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
>>>
>>> And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
>>>
>>> Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
>>> parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
>>>
>>> Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have
>>> significant investments in Lightning accessories.
>>
>> The USB-C claim of being forced.
>>
>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/10/26/weve-no-choice-apple-says-iphones-will-switch-over-to-usb-c-chargers-to-comply-with-new-eu-law/?sh=1240b35cbcde>
>>
>> "We've no choice."
>
> The law doesn't go into effect until 2024 (the iPhone is already
> released), and it's likely Apple was planning to transition the iPhone
> and iPhone accessories to USB-C anyway.

Likelihood isn't concrete evidence of anything. History will show that
the move to USB-C for the iPhone was forced, not Apple's own decision.

>> The Apple desire to hold onto Lightning to control the sale of accessories.
>>
>> <https://screenrant.com/apple-iphone-switch-lightning-usb-c-avoid-why/>
>>
>> "Apple’s ‘Made For iPhone’ program is just that. A system setup to
>> promote and sell products made are specifically made for iPhone. It is
>> understood to be a lucrative business for the company and Kuo was quoted
>> as saying a switch to USB-C would be “detrimental” to Apple’s MFI
>> business. "
>
> Yet it's a fact that Apple's MFi business represents an insignificant
> portion of its overall profits. You're also purposely ignoring other
> more important reasons for the iPhone transition taking longer than
> other Apple products.

Indulge me.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-09-30 18:56, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 3:43 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
>>> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
>>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
>>
>> Actually, there's no evidence control has nothing to do with it. It's
>> just as plausible that Apple simply wanted to get full support for USB-C
>> accessories lined up and deployed in iOS before transitioning. Keep in
>> mind there were a shitload of existing Lightning accessories in use that
>> would require an adapter and potential changes to those accessories to
>> continue working, which no doubt required careful coordination with
>> third-party accessory makers.
>
> 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?

On 2023-09-30 4:51 p.m., Your Name wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 17:39:44 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
>> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the
>>>> x86-64 platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice
>>>> the amount of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get
>>>> the same kind of performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying
>>>> another PC once this one becomes obsolete.
>>>
>>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and
>>> engineering software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual
>>> machine, or via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>>
>>> From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are
>>> available on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac
>>> computers can access these applications by leveraging our remote
>>> access tools."
>>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being
>>> as low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>>
>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly
>>> as capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>
>> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
>> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
>> they really wanted simply because their university program required
>> x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2
>> on eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
>> realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
>> software for the Mac as there is for the PC.
>
> The fact that there is "more" Windoze software doesn't mean anything
> when 95% of it is just useless drivel.  :-\
>
> With the exception of some games and some specific / custom work or
> school apps, you can get every app the average user needs on the Mac.

Actually, _most_ games. My Steam and GOG libraries both suddenly became
very small when I installed the program on my MacBook. Still, if the
machine plays Civilization 6 and Borderlands 3, I'm good.

>> Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
>> learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
>> inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
>> walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
>> there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
>
> There were tons of "random apps" easily obtainable, often for free, on
> magazine cover disks / discs. I got a free copy of ColorIt! from a
> magazine cover disk and I used that as a Photoshop replacement for many
> years (it didn't have all the fancy "features" as Photoshop evolved, but
> was much easier to use and did everything I needed it to).

I don't doubt that. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some people
actually prefer to use GIMP over Photoshop.

>> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
>> are actually nicer.
>
> That's because the MacOS itself is much "nicer" to use (although Apple
> keeps trying to negate that with more and more unnecessary gimmickry).
> Windoze is just a continual kludge and mess, not to mention all the
> malware issues.
>
> Most people use Windoze for one or two reasons:
>
> 1.  Work / school forces them to use it.
>
> 2.  Because Windoze PCs appear to be cheaper when
>    solely look at the price tag in-store.

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.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 2023-10-01, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 3:43 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
>>> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
>>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
>>
>> Actually, there's no evidence control has nothing to do with it. It's
>> just as plausible that Apple simply wanted to get full support for
>> USB-C accessories lined up and deployed in iOS before transitioning.
>> Keep in mind there were a shitload of existing Lightning accessories
>> in use that would require an adapter and potential changes to those
>> accessories to continue working, which no doubt required careful
>> coordination with third-party accessory makers.
>
> I am very reluctant to believe that Apple actually cared that people
> had already purchased Lightning accessories

That's a *you* problem.

> This is a company whose business depends on people buying the same
> phone they already have but with a higher number every year.

Wrong. It is a FACT that most people keep their iPhones multiple years
before upgrading to a newer device. Quit your bullshit:

<https://9to5mac.com/2023/05/10/how-long-people-keep-iphones/>

> The "theory" that they wanted to hold onto very lucrative accessory
> market makes the most sense.

Nope, sorry.

>>>> Were they "forced" to put USB-C on the iPad?
>>>
>>> No, but they _were_ forced by Europe to put USB-C on the iPhone
>>
>>> <https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/tech/eu-law-charging-standard/index.html>.
>>
>> Not necessarily. That law doesn't go into effect until 2024. And there's
>> little doubt Apple was already planning the transition of the iPhone to
>> USB-C long before that law was but a spark in the EU's eyes.
>
> There's little doubt, but no concrete proof. Either way, the transition
> is good for customers.

Not so good for customers who already have Lightning-based accessories,
no. We're supposed to just ignore them though, huh?

--
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

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/>

--
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

On 2023-10-01, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
> On 2023-09-30 4:00 p.m., Jolly Roger wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-30 2:12 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-30 11:06, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-30 1:15 p.m., Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 06:12, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is much truth here too. They fought USB-C for a long time,
>>>>>>> telling people that Lightning was better in every possible way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to see a single quote from anyone at Apple ever saying
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you're correct. It's entirely my mistake. It seems that
>>>>> their reluctance to change was based on wanting to retain control of
>>>>> the accessories purchased for their phones.
>>>>
>>>> And you've just switched to another claim you cannot support.
>>>>
>>>> Apple sales of accessories and the licensing fees that that third
>>>> parties pay are a ROUNDING ERROR in the revenue.
>>>>
>>>> Apple didn't want to piss off a large base of customers who already have
>>>> significant investments in Lightning accessories.
>>>
>>> The USB-C claim of being forced.
>>>
>>> <https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2022/10/26/weve-no-choice-apple-says-iphones-will-switch-over-to-usb-c-chargers-to-comply-with-new-eu-law/?sh=1240b35cbcde>
>>>
>>> "We've no choice."
>>
>> The law doesn't go into effect until 2024 (the iPhone is already
>> released), and it's likely Apple was planning to transition the iPhone
>> and iPhone accessories to USB-C anyway.
>
> Likelihood isn't concrete evidence of anything. History will show that
> the move to USB-C for the iPhone was forced, not Apple's own decision.

Nothing like that has been shown. Apple has been moving various products
to USB-C for years. The iPhone is the last of them, and there is a large
market of existing Lightning accessories there that needs special care
for that transition. You're completely convinced the iPhone was the last
product to make the transition to USB-C due to supposedly nefarious
intentions, but there's no actual evidence of it. Sorry, but no sale.

>> Yet it's a fact that Apple's MFi business represents an insignificant
>> portion of its overall profits. You're also purposely ignoring other
>> more important reasons for the iPhone transition taking longer than
>> other Apple products.
>
> Indulge me.

Already have in other posts. You just refuse to read or acknowledge them
- for obvious reasons. 😉 Your mind is made up based on biased beliefs
rather than factual evidence.

--
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

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.

On 2023-09-29 22:05, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 9/29/23 23:58, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-09-29 21:54, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> On 9/29/23 23:44, Alan wrote:
>>>> So trust that they will work well based on previous experience can't
>>>> play any role, can it?
>>> https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/08/apples-biggest-scandal-of-2022-is-already-happening/
>>> https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-encryption-court-order-news/
>>> https://www.macworld.com/article/668520/from-antennagate-to-touch-disease-the-11-biggest-apple-scandals.html
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/tech/apple-labor-department-investigation/index.html
>>> https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1418-biggest-apple-fails.html
>>> https://www.aol.com/finance/apple-facing-mountain-controversies-investors-172000800.html
>>>
>>> There's also plenty of evidence it doesn't always work well.
>>
>> "doesn't always" is hardly sufficient.
>>
>> See if you can figure out why.
>
> Consider how many controversies there are.
> Consider what that says about their track record.

Consider how much focus is place on Apple.

On 9/30/2023 7:07 PM, RabidPedagog wrote:

<snip>

> 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.

That is true. The real issue is that there is so many Windows-only
applications that users have a need for. But if you're just mainly doing
web-browsing, office applications, and photo and video editing, then a
Mac is fine. It's when you get into engineering, industrial, medical,
business, and educational applications that you are usually forced to
run Windows. The x86 Macs were great in this regard since you got the
quality of design and construction of a Mac but could run both Windows
and OS-X.

One issue with the Mac that has always been a limitation is the lack of
any pen input (which would affect iPad sales if they added it). This is
a major issue since there are many software packages that require the
use of a stylus. My son had to run one of those in college and at the
time there was no iPad version of the app but now there is. A touch
screen has been predicted for the 2024 Macbook though not with Apple
Pencil support.

--
“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 02:07:30 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
> On 2023-09-30 4:51 p.m., Your Name wrote:
>> On 2023-09-30 17:39:44 +0000, RabidPedagog said:
>>> On 2023-09-30 10:26 a.m., sms wrote:
>>>> On 9/30/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>>> I see more potential from the Mx processors than I do from the x86-64
>>>>> platform. Some might not mind the fact that they need twice the amount
>>>>> of RAM, a much bigger battery and powerful fans to get the same kind of
>>>>> performance, but I do. I don't see myself buying another PC once this
>>>>> one becomes obsolete.
>>>>
>>>> The Mx processors are excellent in performance/watt. Alas, many
>>>> commercial, industrial, educational, medical, business, and engineering
>>>> software programs are x86 only. Running them in a virtual machine, or
>>>> via remote access, is not a great solution.
>>>>
>>>> From University of Colorado (most universities have similar warnings):
>>>> "Many engineering applications only develop versions that are available
>>>> on the Windows operating system. Students with Mac computers can access
>>>> these applications by leveraging our remote access tools."
>>>> <https://engineering.ucdenver.edu/laptops#ac-electrical-engineering-bachelor-of-science-6>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps if the Mac gains more market share, like 20-25% then this
>>>> situation will change. In 4Q22 Macs hit a peak of 17.2% after being as
>>>> low as 10.2% in 1Q21. But now it's fallen to 13.3%
>>>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/576473/united-states-quarterly-pc-shipment-share-apple/>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right now I'm on a project where we really want one of of our
>>>> sub-contractors to use Solidworks but he uses a Macbook and can't run
>>>> it. So he's using some other 3D modeling program which is not nearly as
>>>> capable, even though in the past he used Solidworks.
>>>
>>> Yeah, during my time in the ZephyrusG14 forum on Reddit, there were
>>> quite a few threads of people who bought the machine over the MacBook
>>> they really wanted simply because their university program required
>>> x86-specific software. There's even a guy selling his MacBook Air M2 on
>>> eBay, not too far from where I live, most likely because he quickly
>>> realized that as fantastic as the machine is, there just isn't as much
>>> software for the Mac as there is for the PC.
>>
>> The fact that there is "more" Windoze software doesn't mean anything
>> when 95% of it is just useless drivel.  :-\
>>
>> With the exception of some games and some specific / custom work or
>> school apps, you can get every app the average user needs on the Mac.
>
> Actually, _most_ games. My Steam and GOG libraries both suddenly became
> very small when I installed the program on my MacBook. Still, if the
> machine plays Civilization 6 and Borderlands 3, I'm good.

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.

Epic is similar, but even worse since they have a vendetta and current
lawsuits against Apple, so seem to be purposely not making games
available for the Mac.

But there are many Mac games around. Diablo III was released only last week.

>>> Even in the early 2000s, I was fixing up an old man's Pentium 3, and I
>>> learned that he was a Mac die-hard since it was released. When I
>>> inquired why he finally went for a PC, I learned that the guy loved
>>> walking into a computer store and buying random programs, but that
>>> there was less and less for the Mac (which was true at the time).
>>
>> There were tons of "random apps" easily obtainable, often for free, on
>> magazine cover disks / discs. I got a free copy of ColorIt! from a
>> magazine cover disk and I used that as a Photoshop replacement for many
>> years (it didn't have all the fancy "features" as Photoshop evolved,
>> but was much easier to use and did everything I needed it to).
>
> I don't doubt that. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some people
> actually prefer to use GIMP over Photoshop.
>
>>> Meanwhile, I find that the Mac equivalents of programs I use on the PC
>>> are actually nicer.
>>
>> That's because the MacOS itself is much "nicer" to use (although Apple
>> keeps trying to negate that with more and more unnecessary gimmickry).
>> Windoze is just a continual kludge and mess, not to mention all the
>> malware issues.
>>
>> Most people use Windoze for one or two reasons:
>>
>> 1. Work / school forces them to use it.
>>
>> 2. Because Windoze PCs appear to be cheaper when
>>    solely look at the price tag in-store.
>
> 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.

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."