Hey all you Apple worshipers, have a look at this!

Wolf K wrote:

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/m...rocessor-128gb

" 3.6GHz quad-core 8th-generation Intel Core i3
8GB 2666MHz DDR4
Intel UHD Graphics 630
128GB SSD storage
Gigabit Ethernet (10/100/1000BASE-T Gigabit Ethernet using RJ-45
connector)"

That is the *least* expensive Mac they list. And it's $799. Double
the RAM, and it's another $200. To get a 512 GB SSD, add another
$400. Surely you can see how only the most devoted Apple fans would
spend that kind of cash.
[...]

Thanks, Joel. However, the Mini is an odd duck. The closest comparable
Windows hardware would be a server box, I think. Compare the laptops,
instead.


I did think the Mini was not the best example in terms of comparing,
but the prices of the MacBooks were extraordinary to me as well. If a
person has to have OS X, it might be worth it, but in terms of the
hardware, it's pricey.


Macbooks start at $1200 CAD. For that money you get:
13.3" screen (2304x1440);
1.8GHhz dual core i5 CPU
128GB SSD

Here's a $700 CAD machine available from The Source:

"HP Pavilion 15-ck010ca 15.6” Laptop with Intel Core i5-8250U Processor,
1TB HDD, 8GB RAM, Intel UHD Graphics 620, & Windows 10 - Snowflake -
Refurbished"

The i5-8250U is quad core, the screen is 1920x1080. Better than the
Macbook in some specs, worse in others. On balance, I think the HP is a
better buy. FWIW, we've had and have HP machines, they have given us no
trouble.

A better comparator might be the MS Surface ($1050 CAD at Staples

Microsoft SURFACE LAPTOP2 $1050 CAD at Staples:
13.5" PixelSense Display (2256 x 1504))
Intel Core i5 (8th generation, quad core)
8 GB RAM
128 GB SSD
Windows 10 Home

Somewhat better specs and price, but not a huge difference.


Yeah, the Surface models are overpriced, too, in all honesty. The
real value of non-Apple is that you have multiple, competing
manufacturers offering comparable products. Microsoft's offerings
aren't dramatically less expensive than Apple's, and thus the need for
OS X could justify the extra money, but that's why I'd shop around for
something basically as good at a more competitive price.

--
Joel Crump

In article , Joel
wrote:

I did think the Mini was not the best example in terms of comparing,

then why did you choose it? and you didn't compare it to anything, so
it wasn't actually a comparison.

but the prices of the MacBooks were extraordinary to me as well. If a
person has to have OS X, it might be worth it, but in terms of the
hardware, it's pricey.

macbooks are comparably priced to other similar laptops.

for example, the dell xps-13 and the new macbook air both start around
$1100:
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...ps-13-9360-lap
top/fncwtr755s


Yeah, the Surface models are overpriced, too, in all honesty.

then why single out apple?

The
real value of non-Apple is that you have multiple, competing
manufacturers offering comparable products. Microsoft's offerings
aren't dramatically less expensive than Apple's, and thus the need for
OS X could justify the extra money, but that's why I'd shop around for
something basically as good at a more competitive price.

microsoft's offerings are actually *more* expensive than apple, and by
quite a bit too.

for example, the microsoft surface studio *starts* at $3000 for the 1st
gen, $3500 for 2nd gen, while a similar size imac starts at $1799.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-studio-1st-gen/8xcw9bbpvfv9
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-studio-2/8sbjxm0m58t4

the biggest differences are that the surface studio pivots and has
touch, while the imac does not.

is that worth $1200? for some people, it is.

if a surface studio is the best product for a given task, then buying
something else is foolish. the benefits will pay for itself.

buying the cheapest product is rarely the best choice.

nospam wrote:

I did think the Mini was not the best example in terms of comparing,

then why did you choose it?


Because it's the least expensive one they offer, currently, as I
pointed out. Maybe I also knew that you'd troll by pretending not to
have read what I wrote, so I trolled you into exposing yourself as a
troll, because I'm quite experienced with such matters on Usenet, and
have monitored your activities here for some time.


and you didn't compare it to anything, so
it wasn't actually a comparison.


Well you have to realize that 800 bucks for that piece of **** speaks
for itself - one look at Best Buy, Newegg, Micro Center, or whatever,
will reveal machines that are a lot more capable for a lot less
dinero. And that ignores the ability to self-build a machine, with
Windows and Linux. Funny how Apple just happens not to have a method
for a self-builder to run OS X ...


but the prices of the MacBooks were extraordinary to me as well. If a
person has to have OS X, it might be worth it, but in terms of the
hardware, it's pricey.

macbooks are comparably priced to other similar laptops.

for example, the dell xps-13 and the new macbook air both start around
$1100:
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...ps-13-9360-lap
top/fncwtr755s


I'm glad you linked to that one, it's a great example of what we're
talking about - it's significantly more bang for the buck than a
MacBook, and yet it isn't even the most affordable offering by the
Windows-based manufacturers. Let's examine it more closely.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...top/fncwtr755s

"Processor
8th Generation Intel® Core™ i5-8250U Processor (6M Cache, up to 3.4
GHz)"

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us.../i5-8250u.html

"Performance
# of Cores 4
# of Threads 8

Processor Base Frequency 1.60 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency 3.40 GHz"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's take a look at the MacBook you mentioned.

https://www.apple.com/macbook-air/specs/

"Processor
1.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz, with 4MB L3
cache"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Already, the MacBook costs $100 more, and has a mere dual-core CPU,
and the Dell has a quad-core. And, the Dell has twice as large an SSD
as the MacBook.


Yeah, the Surface models are overpriced, too, in all honesty.

then why single out apple?


Apple is even more overpriced than MS Surface is. And unlike Apple,
Microsoft lets other companies sell their OS. It's called
competition.


The
real value of non-Apple is that you have multiple, competing
manufacturers offering comparable products. Microsoft's offerings
aren't dramatically less expensive than Apple's, and thus the need for
OS X could justify the extra money, but that's why I'd shop around for
something basically as good at a more competitive price.

microsoft's offerings are actually *more* expensive than apple, and by
quite a bit too.

for example, the microsoft surface studio *starts* at $3000 for the 1st
gen, $3500 for 2nd gen, while a similar size imac starts at $1799.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-studio-1st-gen/8xcw9bbpvfv9
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-studio-2/8sbjxm0m58t4

the biggest differences are that the surface studio pivots and has
touch, while the imac does not.

is that worth $1200? for some people, it is.

if a surface studio is the best product for a given task, then buying
something else is foolish. the benefits will pay for itself.

buying the cheapest product is rarely the best choice.


Surface Studio is simply not what a typical personal computer user
would buy. And neither are any of the Macs, unless the person is
joined at the hip to the OS X cult.

--
Joel Crump

nospam wrote:

I did think the Mini was not the best example in terms of comparing,

then why did you choose it?

Because it's the least expensive one they offer, currently, as I
pointed out.

least expensive wasn't the issue.


It's *exactly* the issue when we're talking about what one gets for
the money. $800 is a lot for what the basic Mac mini is.


comparing systems with similar specs was.

goalpost movement noted.


Nope, because anyone with a browser and two minutes of time can verify
that one can get a more capable machine for less.


and the question remains, why did you intentionally choose what *you*
claim to not be a good example?


I already answered that question. The Mac mini is the least money one
can pay for an OS X computer, and it's overpriced, just like all Macs.


Maybe I also knew that you'd troll by pretending not to
have read what I wrote, so I trolled you into exposing yourself as a
troll, because I'm quite experienced with such matters on Usenet, and
have monitored your activities here for some time.

resorting to insults means you have nothing, along with moving the
goalposts, makes *you* the troll.


I'm not resorting to a damn thing, I'm pointing out that you have
trolled in this thread just like you have in many others. You
consistently apologize for and/or obfuscate Apple's drawbacks.


and you didn't compare it to anything, so
it wasn't actually a comparison.

Well you have to realize that 800 bucks for that piece of **** speaks
for itself - one look at Best Buy, Newegg, Micro Center, or whatever,
will reveal machines that are a lot more capable for a lot less
dinero.

nonsense.

'a lot less dinero' than $800 would be around $300.

which systems for $300 come standard, out of the box, with *four*
thunderbolt 3/usb-c ports (all 40gb/s), can drive up to *three* 4k
displays (or two displays if one is 5k with the other 4k), hardware
encryption & video codec acceleration, bluetooth 5, 802.11ac, comes
with windows 10 pro (not home) and offers 10gig ethernet as a $100
option, all in a small unobtrusive enclosure?

the mac mini does all that, making it *not* in any way a piece of ****,
but rather a very capable system, particularly for high bandwidth
applications.


https://www.microcenter.com/product/...sktop-computer

That box is $500, and has comparable-to-better specs than the Mac
mini. I rest my case.


And that ignores the ability to self-build a machine, with
Windows and Linux. Funny how Apple just happens not to have a method
for a self-builder to run OS X ...

who cares. home built computers are a tiny, tiny market niche, which is
why nearly all vendors don't bother.


Utter bull****. Lots of people self-build, it's a significant part of
the industry. Your "who cares" response says it all - Apple would
rather forego selling OS X to non-Mac users, than give up its monopoly
on hardware that runs OS X.


also, the vast majority of computers sold are laptops (and have been
for *years*), which are *not* home built.


Also, the vast majority of laptops that aren't made by Apple are less
expensive than Apple's.

snip of further redundant bull****

--
Joel Crump

In article , Joel
wrote:


https://www.microcenter.com/product/...sktop-computer

That box is $500, and has comparable-to-better specs than the Mac
mini. I rest my case.

you're delusional. there are dramatic differences.

that box has a slow mechanical hard drive, 802.11n*, bluetooth 4 and
has usb 2 ports on the back.

the mac mini has a faster nvme ssd, faster 802.11ac, faster bluetooth 5
and four *much* faster thunderbolt 3 ports (40gb/s) on the back.

those thunderbolt 3 ports are nearly 100x faster than usb 2:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/more%20speed.jpg

that box is also huge (and probably loud). a mac mini can fit in a
backpack or even a jacket pocket. a stack of mac minis can fit in the
space one of those takes up.

its specs are clearly lower (quite a bit lower), thus the lower price.

* the microcenter link states 802.11ac on one page and 802.11n on
another, however, dell confirms that it's only 802.11n and not even
mimo (i.e., 150mbit, max). in other words, laughably slow.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...spiron-desktop
/spd/inspiron-3670-desktop
802.11bgn + Bluetooth 4.0, 1x1

And that ignores the ability to self-build a machine, with
Windows and Linux. Funny how Apple just happens not to have a method
for a self-builder to run OS X ...

who cares. home built computers are a tiny, tiny market niche, which is
why nearly all vendors don't bother.

Utter bull****. Lots of people self-build, it's a significant part of
the industry. Your "who cares" response says it all - Apple would
rather forego selling OS X to non-Mac users, than give up its monopoly
on hardware that runs OS X.

nope. overall, the percentage for those who build their own is *very*
low, which is why it's not just apple who ignores that segment.

as i said, the majority of computers sold are laptops and those are
*not* home built. for desktops, nearly all are pre-built, like the one
you linked above.

also, the vast majority of computers sold are laptops (and have been
for *years*), which are *not* home built.

Also, the vast majority of laptops that aren't made by Apple are less
expensive than Apple's.

only the ones with lesser specs.

nospam wrote:

https://www.microcenter.com/product/...sktop-computer

That box is $500, and has comparable-to-better specs than the Mac
mini. I rest my case.

you're delusional.


The facts are the facts. I wouldn't talk too much about "delusional",
by the way, when you're claiming that MacBooks are competitively
priced.


there are dramatic differences.


Mainly the enclosure. If that's somehow worth another $300, fine. If
OS X and the fancy Apple fluff-design is worth another $300, fine.
Just don't pretend that it isn't expensive.


that box has a slow mechanical hard drive,


I had a feeling you'd mention that. Let's see, 128 GB SSD,
or 1 TB HDD. Gee, I dunno which one I'd rather have. As you point
out, hard drives are slightly less instantaneous than SSDs, so that's
a small point in the Mac mini's favor. But the Dell's hard drive is
*EIGHT TIMES* as large.

However, since you want to pretend that reality isn't reality, here's
a reality check for you:

https://www.microcenter.com/product/...id-state-drive

There you go. Proof that there is *no* comparison between Apple and
other manufacturers. The basic Mac mini with a 512 GB SSD is $1200.
But one can add a comparable 1 TB SSD to a Windows PC for $170.


802.11n*, bluetooth 4 and
has usb 2 ports on the back.


For most people that's perfectly sufficient. I'm still using
the N WiFi standard, and it's still faster than my fiber-optic
Internet. USB devices haven't gotten any less useful, either.


the mac mini has a faster nvme ssd, faster 802.11ac, faster bluetooth 5
and four *much* faster thunderbolt 3 ports (40gb/s) on the back.

those thunderbolt 3 ports are nearly 100x faster than usb 2:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/more%20speed.jpg

that box is also huge (and probably loud). a mac mini can fit in a
backpack or even a jacket pocket. a stack of mac minis can fit in the
space one of those takes up.


Translation: Apple is fancy. We knew that. But how will it benefit
a typical personal computer user?


its specs are clearly lower (quite a bit lower), thus the lower price.


Nonsense. It has the same basic specifications as the Mac mini. You'd
be hard-pressed to make a case that a typical user would care about
Apple's emphasis on relatively meaningless "features".


* the microcenter link states 802.11ac on one page and 802.11n on
another, however, dell confirms that it's only 802.11n and not even
mimo (i.e., 150mbit, max). in other words, laughably slow.

https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell...spiron-desktop
/spd/inspiron-3670-desktop
802.11bgn + Bluetooth 4.0, 1x1


https://www.microcenter.com/product/...xpress-adapter

"[...] IEEE 802.11ac Wireless [...] Wireless AC Data Transfer Rate Up
to 867Mbps on 5GHz [...]"

$32 will upgrade the WiFi. I doubt many people give a flying ****
whether they have Bluetooth 4 or 5.

500 + 170 + 32 = 602. $600 is still less than $800. And 1 TB *each*,
of a hard drive and an SSD, is still *more* than a 128 GB SSD.

snip more shill lying

--
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

500 + 170 + 32 = 602. $600 is still less than $800.


I apologize for such a stupid mathematical error, $702 is not as
dramatically less than $799 as $602 would be, but the example
nonetheless shows the advantage of not having the self-described
"miniature" enclosure of the Mac mini. The Dell could indeed accept
two PCI-e cards to achieve having a superior SSD to the Mac box, as
well as modern WiFi, and additionally could support a video card that
a person might prefer to typical integrated video.

That is to say, that the Mac mini and iMac are not really any better
than a laptop, in terms of expansion. Classical desktop boxes were
designed for flexibility, and that's no less relevant today than it
ever was, even with Apple having their cutesy, overly modern plug-in
ports that the shill was raving about.

Some of us are a little more down to earth. True desktops still have
significant advantages over stuff like Apple's proprietary junk.

--
Joel Crump

In article , Joel
wrote:


https://www.microcenter.com/product/...sktop-computer

That box is $500, and has comparable-to-better specs than the Mac
mini. I rest my case.

you're delusional.

The facts are the facts.

and you're blind to all of them.

I wouldn't talk too much about "delusional",
by the way, when you're claiming that MacBooks are competitively
priced.

they definitely are, but this is about a mini, not a macbook.

there are dramatic differences.

Mainly the enclosure.

nope. that's one of many differences, which you don't get to ignore.

If that's somehow worth another $300, fine. If
OS X and the fancy Apple fluff-design is worth another $300, fine.
Just don't pretend that it isn't expensive.

if you think $300 is in any way expensive, you need a better paying job.

that box has a slow mechanical hard drive,

I had a feeling you'd mention that. Let's see, 128 GB SSD,
or 1 TB HDD. Gee, I dunno which one I'd rather have. As you point
out, hard drives are slightly less instantaneous than SSDs, so that's
a small point in the Mac mini's favor. But the Dell's hard drive is
*EIGHT TIMES* as large.

8 times the capacity, but roughly 20 times slower.

those who are doing real work want the speed.

you can always connect an external drive for additional capacity, and
on the mini, that can be a *very* fast raid array via thunderbolt.

802.11n*, bluetooth 4 and
has usb 2 ports on the back.

For most people that's perfectly sufficient. I'm still using
the N WiFi standard, and it's still faster than my fiber-optic
Internet. USB devices haven't gotten any less useful, either.

it's in no way sufficient and your internet speed is irrelevant.

what's in the dell is 802.11n 1x1, which is 150 mbit and laughably
slow. 802.11ac is gigabit speeds, *much* faster.

the specs are *very* different, which is why the price is different.
simple concept.


the mac mini has a faster nvme ssd, faster 802.11ac, faster bluetooth 5
and four *much* faster thunderbolt 3 ports (40gb/s) on the back.

those thunderbolt 3 ports are nearly 100x faster than usb 2:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/more%20speed.jpg

that box is also huge (and probably loud). a mac mini can fit in a
backpack or even a jacket pocket. a stack of mac minis can fit in the
space one of those takes up.

Translation: Apple is fancy. We knew that. But how will it benefit
a typical personal computer user?

faster performance, higher productivity, and overall a much better user
experience. take it to a client site if needed.



its specs are clearly lower (quite a bit lower), thus the lower price.


Nonsense. It has the same basic specifications as the Mac mini. You'd
be hard-pressed to make a case that a typical user would care about
Apple's emphasis on relatively meaningless "features".

nonsense. the specs are very different, with benchmarks showing the mac
mini as faster, especially in multicore, where it's about twice as
fast:

dell inspiron 3670:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11090028
mac mini:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11448813

nospam wrote:

If that's somehow worth another $300, fine. If
OS X and the fancy Apple fluff-design is worth another $300, fine.
Just don't pretend that it isn't expensive.

if you think $300 is in any way expensive, you need a better paying job.


Do you honestly expect that argument to mean anything outside of CSMA
and other Mac groups? $300 out of $800 is 37.5% of the price. More
than one third.


the specs are *very* different, which is why the price is different.
simple concept.


Even if you want to claim that (despite it being misleading), it goes
back to the original point, that there really isn't anything directly
comparable to the less expensive Macs - which is a red flag for Apple
cutting corners. And that's exactly why a $1300 MacBook has such a
lame CPU, and modest other features.


its specs are clearly lower (quite a bit lower), thus the lower price.

Nonsense. It has the same basic specifications as the Mac mini. You'd
be hard-pressed to make a case that a typical user would care about
Apple's emphasis on relatively meaningless "features".

nonsense. the specs are very different, with benchmarks showing the mac
mini as faster, especially in multicore, where it's about twice as
fast:

dell inspiron 3670:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11090028
mac mini:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/11448813


Apple gave me basic details of the Mac mini's CPU, I found one that
matched those details. They might not be precisely the same model,
but that just goes to show why Apple is too dumbed-down for folks who
actually know hardware.

Face it, hardware buffs are only going to choose a Mac if they have
money to burn. The high-powered Macs are insanely expensive, and even
the lower-end ones are overpriced. Apple, when it comes to
the Mac/OS X, is a cult.

--
Joel Crump