Cheap Apple
 

On Nov 12, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in ):

This is a scan of an ad in today's newspaper:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cpxwou1fkh...-12-R.jpg?dl=0

Refresh Computers is a local store that sells used (sometimes
reconditioned) computer stuff. Much of their stock is purchased from
corporations who are upgrading or going out of business. They may
have other sources.

My second monitor was purchased from Refresh at a truly bargain price.
The first one I bought there had problems after a couple of months,
but they replaced it with a comparable, but slightly more expensive
one, at no charge.

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook, not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Cheap Apple
 

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook, not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Cheap Apple
 

On 2017-11-12 15:07, nospam wrote:
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook, not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market. But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks installed.

If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as sold.

--
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
...Donald Trump

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook, not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

small photos and videos, perhaps, but for 1080p and/or h.265, it's
going to fall flat.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

Cheap Apple
 

In article ,
nospam wrote:

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

Lots of folks are curious in what step Apple will take next with Mac
hard and software. If you are interested in the current family of
systems it might be a good idea to take a step back and see where they
are heading. Will there be separate mac- and i- OSs or will they merge?
Will the hardware merge so that we will see ARM processors on Macs? That
will be sorted out then the new Mac Pro system arrives. Until then the
serious hobbyist with other obligations and limited resources could be
wise to wait and see if Apples new offerings due in a year or so just
see if is that is that they want. They do charge for the gear, you know!
--
teleportation kills

Cheap Apple
 

On 11/12/2017 8:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook, not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

A seventy year old woman decides to become a prostitute. She came home
and told her husband that she made $30.10. Her husband asked: "who gave
you ten cents?" She replied: "Everybody."



--
PeterN

Cheap Apple
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:


A seventy year old woman decides to become a prostitute.

you would know about that.

Cheap Apple
 

On 11/13/2017 2:56 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

Lots of folks are curious in what step Apple will take next with Mac
hard and software. If you are interested in the current family of
systems it might be a good idea to take a step back and see where they
are heading. Will there be separate mac- and i- OSs or will they merge?
Will the hardware merge so that we will see ARM processors on Macs? That
will be sorted out then the new Mac Pro system arrives. Until then the
serious hobbyist with other obligations and limited resources could be
wise to wait and see if Apples new offerings due in a year or so just
see if is that is that they want. They do charge for the gear, you know!


Good advice, except the Appleseed will ignore it. I have an Appleseed
friend who pre-ordered two iPhone Xs. One for him. He sold the other on
Craig's List, for a profit. From what I hear, he is not the only one.


--
PeterN

Cheap Apple
 

On Nov 13, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 11/13/2017 2:56 AM, android wrote:
In ,
nospam wrote:

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

Lots of folks are curious in what step Apple will take next with Mac
hard and software. If you are interested in the current family of
systems it might be a good idea to take a step back and see where they
are heading. Will there be separate mac- and i- OSs or will they merge?
Will the hardware merge so that we will see ARM processors on Macs? That
will be sorted out then the new Mac Pro system arrives. Until then the
serious hobbyist with other obligations and limited resources could be
wise to wait and see if Apples new offerings due in a year or so just
see if is that is that they want. They do charge for the gear, you know!

Good advice, except the Appleseed will ignore it. I have an Appleseed
friend who pre-ordered two iPhone Xs. One for him. He sold the other on
Craig's List, for a profit. From what I hear, he is not the only one.

What is it with this derogatory “Appleseed� crap?

Should we start labelling you a Window-pain?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Cheap Apple
 

On 2017-11-12 20:12, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook, not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

small photos and videos, perhaps, but for 1080p and/or h.265, it's
going to fall flat.

No issue for 1080 - used to do that with my SO's prior MBA w/o issue and
it was slow.

h.265 is rare in most respects.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

Not really. The iMac was a 2007 model. If the Macbook quoted is
2009/2010 then it has a pretty good processor.


If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".


--
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
...Donald Trump

Cheap Apple
 

On 2017-11-13 10:41, PeterN wrote:
On 11/13/2017 2:56 AM, android wrote:

Lots of folks are curious in what step Apple will take next with Mac
hard and software. If you are interested in the current family of
systems it might be a good idea to take a step back and see where they
are heading. Will there be separate mac- and i- OSs or will they merge?
Will the hardware merge so that we will see ARM processors on Macs? That
will be sorted out then the new Mac Pro system arrives. Until then the
serious hobbyist with other obligations and limited resources could be
wise to wait and see if Apples new offerings due in a year or so just
see if is that is that they want. They do charge for the gear, you know!


Good advice

No. It's crappy advice. Apple will not merge iOS and MacOS despite
greater and greater integration and interoperability between them
(across apps via iCloud and local comms services such as handover).

What they will do (and almost certainly have running in the back room)
is move Macs from intel to ARM processors. But this will be very
transparent to users and more so than during the past quite smooth
transition from PowerPC to intel.

Those developers who completely adopted XCode/Cocoa will be able to
distribute their code to the new ARM world with nary a change to their
code - so no impact on late intel adopters, contrary to the nonsense
above. This will be even smoother than the Rosetta supported PPC/intel
transition.

The main difference is that iOS is mainly a "consumption and capture"
device whereas a Mac is a mainly "workstation and creation" device.
There is overlap (when isn't there?). But they will remain very
separate for many years to come.

That said, the higher end iPads are becoming desktop class devices in
computing and graphics power. But they are hampered to a degree where
storage and peripherals are concerned.

If one operates several Macs, iPhones and iPads as I do at home and at
work, one is very grateful for the interoperability provided in a near
seamless manner between iOS and Mac OS. There's no need to merge them -
indeed "under the hood" they have had a ton of commonality since the
iPhone (or even iPod).

--
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
...Donald Trump

Cheap Apple
 

On 2017-11-13 11:24, Savageduck wrote:

Should we start labelling you a Window-pain?

!

--
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
...Donald Trump

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Lots of folks are curious in what step Apple will take next with Mac
hard and software. If you are interested in the current family of
systems it might be a good idea to take a step back and see where they
are heading. Will there be separate mac- and i- OSs or will they merge?
Will the hardware merge so that we will see ARM processors on Macs? That
will be sorted out then the new Mac Pro system arrives. Until then the
serious hobbyist with other obligations and limited resources could be
wise to wait and see if Apples new offerings due in a year or so just
see if is that is that they want. They do charge for the gear, you know!


Good advice

No. It's crappy advice. Apple will not merge iOS and MacOS despite
greater and greater integration and interoperability between them
(across apps via iCloud and local comms services such as handover).

it depends what you call merge.

under the hood, they're already merged, since both are os x, but with a
different user interface layer and minor other differences.

What they will do (and almost certainly have running in the back room)
is move Macs from intel to ARM processors. But this will be very
transparent to users and more so than during the past quite smooth
transition from PowerPC to intel.

and even smoother transition from 68k to powerpc.

Those developers who completely adopted XCode/Cocoa will be able to
distribute their code to the new ARM world with nary a change to their
code - so no impact on late intel adopters, contrary to the nonsense
above. This will be even smoother than the Rosetta supported PPC/intel
transition.

more accurately, apps submitted to the app store can be recompiled to
arm code on the fly.

The main difference is that iOS is mainly a "consumption and capture"
device whereas a Mac is a mainly "workstation and creation" device.
There is overlap (when isn't there?). But they will remain very
separate for many years to come.

that's a myth.

both platforms serve both purposes, depending on the user and tasks.

That said, the higher end iPads are becoming desktop class devices in
computing and graphics power.

they already are and have been for a while.

the a11 chip benchmarks faster than recent macbook pros.

But they are hampered to a degree where
storage and peripherals are concerned.

not really.

If one operates several Macs, iPhones and iPads as I do at home and at
work, one is very grateful for the interoperability provided in a near
seamless manner between iOS and Mac OS. There's no need to merge them -
indeed "under the hood" they have had a ton of commonality since the
iPhone (or even iPod).

interoperability is yet another thing the apple haters do not 'get'.

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook,
not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

small photos and videos, perhaps, but for 1080p and/or h.265, it's
going to fall flat.

No issue for 1080 - used to do that with my SO's prior MBA w/o issue and
it was slow.

there absolutely is an issue with 1080p.

both my '08 and '09 macbook pros drop frames with 1080p, and the latter
has an ssd.

no issue on more recent macs.

h.265 is rare in most respects.

nope. it's actually rather common, and that's even before it became the
default format for iphones.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

Not really. The iMac was a 2007 model. If the Macbook quoted is
2009/2010 then it has a pretty good processor.

a core 2 duo of unspecified speed, which can be anywhere from 2-2.4
ghz.

more than likely it's on the slower end, otherwise the store would have
listed the cpu speed as well as jacked their price even more. the
macbook also has a slow laptop drive.

your 2007 imac had 2.8 ghz core 2 duo processor (already faster), more
memory, a much faster desktop drive and a faster gpu.

so yes, it was faster.

If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

it's not representative of what a modern mac can do. for example,
there's no handoff & continuity. the display is also not very good as
well as being pre-retina.

buying something cheap, only to spend money on it to make it less sucky
is not a good idea.

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as
sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

As the original poster of this thread...the *only* reason I'd buy one
of those Macs is out of curiosity.

it's the wrong mac to buy just for curiosity.

I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

yet another reason not to bother.

Cheap Apple
 

On 2017-11-13 16:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:50:28 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-11-12 20:12, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

[1] TC's original post:
I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

As the original poster of this thread...the *only* reason I'd buy one
of those Macs is out of curiosity. I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

My replies have only been in the context of such a Mac for someone who
is "Mac curious". What you do with your time and money is your affair.

--
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
...Donald Trump

Cheap Apple
 

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

No. It's crappy advice. Apple will not merge iOS and MacOS despite
greater and greater integration and interoperability between them

Good to know!

[---]

What they will do (and almost certainly have running in the back room)
is move Macs from intel to ARM processors. But this will be very
transparent to users and more so than during the past quite smooth
transition from PowerPC to intel.

Good to know too!
--
teleportation kills

Cheap Apple
 

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:50:28 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-11-12 20:12, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook,
not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could
do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and
you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

small photos and videos, perhaps, but for 1080p and/or h.265, it's
going to fall flat.

No issue for 1080 - used to do that with my SO's prior MBA w/o issue and
it was slow.

h.265 is rare in most respects.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks
installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

Not really. The iMac was a 2007 model. If the Macbook quoted is
2009/2010 then it has a pretty good processor.


If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as
sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

As the original poster of this thread...the *only* reason I'd buy one
of those Macs is out of curiosity. I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

Treat yourself to an old Mac then. I guess that your life is like an
empty void that have to be filled with the 15 year old buzz about that
what the OSX was...
--
teleportation kills

Cheap Apple
 

On 2017-11-13 16:39, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Lots of folks are curious in what step Apple will take next with Mac
hard and software. If you are interested in the current family of
systems it might be a good idea to take a step back and see where they
are heading. Will there be separate mac- and i- OSs or will they merge?
Will the hardware merge so that we will see ARM processors on Macs? That
will be sorted out then the new Mac Pro system arrives. Until then the
serious hobbyist with other obligations and limited resources could be
wise to wait and see if Apples new offerings due in a year or so just
see if is that is that they want. They do charge for the gear, you know!


Good advice

No. It's crappy advice. Apple will not merge iOS and MacOS despite
greater and greater integration and interoperability between them
(across apps via iCloud and local comms services such as handover).

it depends what you call merge.

under the hood, they're already merged, since both are os x, but with a
different user interface layer and minor other differences.

It's not OS X. It has a lot of OS X components but its behaviour, most
notably in the user relationship to the file system is completely
different. Likewise wrt to the gammut of i/o for MacOS v the thin world
of iOS.

What they will do (and almost certainly have running in the back room)
is move Macs from intel to ARM processors. But this will be very
transparent to users and more so than during the past quite smooth
transition from PowerPC to intel.

and even smoother transition from 68k to powerpc.

Those developers who completely adopted XCode/Cocoa will be able to
distribute their code to the new ARM world with nary a change to their
code - so no impact on late intel adopters, contrary to the nonsense
above. This will be even smoother than the Rosetta supported PPC/intel
transition.

more accurately, apps submitted to the app store can be recompiled to
arm code on the fly.

The main difference is that iOS is mainly a "consumption and capture"
device whereas a Mac is a mainly "workstation and creation" device.
There is overlap (when isn't there?). But they will remain very
separate for many years to come.

that's a myth.

both platforms serve both purposes, depending on the user and tasks.

Wow - what contradiction in one phrase.


That said, the higher end iPads are becoming desktop class devices in
computing and graphics power.

they already are and have been for a while.

the a11 chip benchmarks faster than recent macbook pros.

But they are hampered to a degree where
storage and peripherals are concerned.

not really.

Really. Don't see many Thunderbolt class peripherals running at full
tilt in an iOS environment. Try printing a 4 colour separation from iOS
.... etc. Indeed using iOS where a lot of files are in use is pretty
lame all around. It's just not oriented to that.

iOS / iDevices are thinly interfaced. Which is fine for what they do.

--
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
...Donald Trump

Cheap Apple
 

On 2017-11-13 16:39, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook,
not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

small photos and videos, perhaps, but for 1080p and/or h.265, it's
going to fall flat.

No issue for 1080 - used to do that with my SO's prior MBA w/o issue and
it was slow.

there absolutely is an issue with 1080p.

both my '08 and '09 macbook pros drop frames with 1080p, and the latter
has an ssd.

Sucks to be you - did same with aforementioned MBA w/o issue. SSD is
irrelevant since the HD has way more that enough BW to deliver the content.

no issue on more recent macs.

h.265 is rare in most respects.

nope. it's actually rather common, and that's even before it became the
default format for iphones.

And yet one has no issue finding most content in 264 on the web and
elsewhere. Default â‰* required. I haven't to date been unable to view a
video because it was .265. True non issue.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

Not really. The iMac was a 2007 model. If the Macbook quoted is
2009/2010 then it has a pretty good processor.

a core 2 duo of unspecified speed, which can be anywhere from 2-2.4
ghz.

Yep, fine for general use. 2010 is 2.4 actually.


more than likely it's on the slower end, otherwise the store would have
listed the cpu speed as well as jacked their price even more. the
macbook also has a slow laptop drive.

your 2007 imac had 2.8 ghz core 2 duo processor (already faster), more
memory, a much faster desktop drive and a faster gpu.

so yes, it was faster.

Not enough to matter for general purpose use.

The notebook mentioned is 4 GB. My iMac had 6 (at the end - started at 2).

If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

it's not representative of what a modern mac can do. for example,

It doesn't have to be for someone who simply wants to see what OS X is
all about. If one likes that experience then sell it off and get the
real thing.

there's no handoff & continuity. the display is also not very good as
well as being pre-retina.

So what? My 2012 iMac (this one) is not retina either. Doesn't stop me
from doing anything I need to do.


buying something cheap, only to spend money on it to make it less sucky
is not a good idea.

No need to spend more on it. Those are just possibilities if one wanted
to keep the thing.

--
"My Twitter has become so powerful that
I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."
...Donald Trump

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

No. It's crappy advice. Apple will not merge iOS and MacOS despite
greater and greater integration and interoperability between them
(across apps via iCloud and local comms services such as handover).

it depends what you call merge.

under the hood, they're already merged, since both are os x, but with a
different user interface layer and minor other differences.

It's not OS X.

yes it most certainly is os x.

It has a lot of OS X components

because it's os x.

but its behaviour, most
notably in the user relationship to the file system is completely
different.

more accurately, the ui layer is the major difference, specifically
appkit versus uikit.

the mac does provide direct file system access, but it's not normally
needed, so that falls into the minor category.

there are other minor differences, such as ios not including useless
crap such as man pages or drivers for hardware that will never exist on
any ios device.

Likewise wrt to the gammut of i/o for MacOS v the thin world
of iOS.

there's nothing thin about it.

in fact, some frameworks show up on ios before they do on the mac.



The main difference is that iOS is mainly a "consumption and capture"
device whereas a Mac is a mainly "workstation and creation" device.
There is overlap (when isn't there?). But they will remain very
separate for many years to come.

that's a myth.

both platforms serve both purposes, depending on the user and tasks.

Wow - what contradiction in one phrase.

there's no contradiction.

different people use ios devices and macs for different things, a
concept you refuse to accept.

some users consume, some create and some do both, regardless of device,
and not just with macs or ios devices either.

That said, the higher end iPads are becoming desktop class devices in
computing and graphics power.

they already are and have been for a while.

the a11 chip benchmarks faster than recent macbook pros.

But they are hampered to a degree where
storage and peripherals are concerned.

not really.

Really. Don't see many Thunderbolt class peripherals running at full
tilt in an iOS environment. Try printing a 4 colour separation from iOS
... etc. Indeed using iOS where a lot of files are in use is pretty
lame all around. It's just not oriented to that.

that's one highly specific use case and you know it.

plenty of people create and edit videos & photos, create and edit
music, write novels or papers and much more, entirely on an ipad or
iphone.

iOS / iDevices are thinly interfaced. Which is fine for what they do.

anyone who thinks that is not using ios devices to their potential.

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

No issue for 1080 - used to do that with my SO's prior MBA w/o issue and
it was slow.

there absolutely is an issue with 1080p.

both my '08 and '09 macbook pros drop frames with 1080p, and the latter
has an ssd.

Sucks to be you - did same with aforementioned MBA w/o issue. SSD is
irrelevant since the HD has way more that enough BW to deliver the content.

ssd is very relevant and has made a noticeable difference in overall
performance on my '09 mbp, but even with an ssd, there absolutely is an
issue with 1080p.

i tried it prior to posting my previous post and it was dropping frames
like crazy and losing sync.


h.265 is rare in most respects.

nope. it's actually rather common, and that's even before it became the
default format for iphones.

And yet one has no issue finding most content in 264 on the web and
elsewhere. Default ‚ required. I haven't to date been unable to view a
video because it was .265. True non issue.

there's plenty of h.265 on the 'net and more every day.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks
installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

Not really. The iMac was a 2007 model. If the Macbook quoted is
2009/2010 then it has a pretty good processor.

a core 2 duo of unspecified speed, which can be anywhere from 2-2.4
ghz.

Yep, fine for general use. 2010 is 2.4 actually.

the ad did not specify 2010.

the ad simply said core 2 duo and high sierra.

that means anywhere from late 2009 (the earliest that high sierra
requires) to mid-2010 (when the macbook took a hiatus). the 2009
started at 2 ghz and the 2010 ended at 2.4 ghz.

since the ad did not specify a speed or year, it's highly likely it's
the older and slower model.


If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as
sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

it's not representative of what a modern mac can do. for example,

It doesn't have to be for someone who simply wants to see what OS X is
all about. If one likes that experience then sell it off and get the
real thing.

it will be a ****ty experience because it's old and slow compared to a
modern mac and it also doesn't do all of the extremely useful things
that have been added since 2009-10.

there's no handoff & continuity. the display is also not very good as
well as being pre-retina.

So what? My 2012 iMac (this one) is not retina either. Doesn't stop me
from doing anything I need to do.

i didn't say it would stop anyone.

a retina display makes a *huge* difference and handoff & continuity are
*extremely* useful.

it's stuck with usb 2 and a sata ii internal drive, so even if one
replaces the hd with an ssd, it's nowhere near as fast as a mac a
couple of years newer with pci-e nvme ssd and any external drives will
be slow compared to usb 3.

it also lacks bluetooth 4, so a number of bluetooth peripherals won't
work, or they'll fall back to classic and its awful pairing process.

sure, someone can manage without any of that, but it going to give the
wrong answer to 'what this mac thing is about'.

Cheap Apple
 

On Nov 13, 2017, Alan Browne wrote
(in ):

On 2017-11-13 16:39, nospam wrote:
In , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note; Macbook,
not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It could
do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200 and
you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

small photos and videos, perhaps, but for 1080p and/or h.265, it's
going to fall flat.

No issue for 1080 - used to do that with my SO's prior MBA w/o issue and
it was slow.

there absolutely is an issue with 1080p.

both my '08 and '09 macbook pros drop frames with 1080p, and the latter
has an ssd.

Sucks to be you - did same with aforementioned MBA w/o issue. SSD is
irrelevant since the HD has way more that enough BW to deliver the content.

no issue on more recent macs.

h.265 is rare in most respects.

nope. it's actually rather common, and that's even before it became the
default format for iphones.

And yet one has no issue finding most content in 264 on the web and
elsewhere. Default â‰* required. I haven't to date been unable to view a
video because it was .265. True non issue.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks
installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

Not really. The iMac was a 2007 model. If the Macbook quoted is
2009/2010 then it has a pretty good processor.

a core 2 duo of unspecified speed, which can be anywhere from 2-2.4
ghz.

Yep, fine for general use. 2010 is 2.4 actually.


more than likely it's on the slower end, otherwise the store would have
listed the cpu speed as well as jacked their price even more. the
macbook also has a slow laptop drive.

your 2007 imac had 2.8 ghz core 2 duo processor (already faster), more
memory, a much faster desktop drive and a faster gpu.

so yes, it was faster.

Not enough to matter for general purpose use.

The notebook mentioned is 4 GB. My iMac had 6 (at the end - started at 2).

If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as
sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

it's not representative of what a modern mac can do. for example,

It doesn't have to be for someone who simply wants to see what OS X is
all about. If one likes that experience then sell it off and get the
real thing.

there's no handoff & continuity. the display is also not very good as
well as being pre-retina.

So what? My 2012 iMac (this one) is not retina either. Doesn't stop me
from doing anything I need to do.

....and this Mid-2010 21.5 inch, 3.6 GHz Core i5, with 16 GB DDR3, running
macOS 10.12.6 still manages to get stuff done. One day I will treat myself to
a new Mac.


buying something cheap, only to spend money on it to make it less sucky
is not a good idea.

No need to spend more on it. Those are just possibilities if one wanted
to keep the thing.

Yup! If the inclination grabs one, then that particular MacBook is a good
candidate for an SSD, and possibly another 4 GB RAM. Who cares if it
doesn’t have a retina display if it will do the work.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Cheap Apple
 

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

...and this Mid-2010 21.5 inch, 3.6 GHz Core i5, with 16 GB DDR3, running
macOS 10.12.6 still manages to get stuff done. One day I will treat myself to
a new Mac.

you keep saying that :)



buying something cheap, only to spend money on it to make it less sucky
is not a good idea.

No need to spend more on it. Those are just possibilities if one wanted
to keep the thing.

Yup! If the inclination grabs one, then that particular MacBook is a good
candidate for an SSD, and possibly another 4 GB RAM. Who cares if it
doesn¹t have a retina display if it will do the work.

because by the time you add all that stuff, you've spent about what a
more recent mac would have cost, which has many more features.

and actually, for tony's situation, a used mac mini would be the best
choice, which he could plug into his existing displays and use his
existing keyboard and mouse.

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

As the original poster of this thread...the *only* reason I'd buy one
of those Macs is out of curiosity.

it's the wrong mac to buy just for curiosity.

Oh. Is there a Code of Conduct involved in deciding to buy a used
Mac? Is it in the TOS not buy one out of curiosity? Is it a mortal
or venial Applesin?

yes there is, and it's called having manners and not being a dumb****.

assholes are not allowed into the mac cult. you lose.

I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

yet another reason not to bother.

I really depend on your input to tell me if my reasons for doing
something are the right reasons.

completely missing the point, as always.

You *really* must have too much time on your hands to type out posts
like this. Did you get laid off at the Geek desk?

more of your insults. they must be paying you overtime.

Cheap Apple
 

On Nov 13, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:

...and this Mid-2010 21.5 inch, 3.6 GHz Core i5, with 16 GB DDR3, running
macOS 10.12.6 still manages to get stuff done. One day I will treat myself
to a new Mac.

you keep saying that :)

....and I will. I finally bought the new 10.5� iPad Pro as an upgrade for my
old iPad2. It is just that this old steam driven Mac plods on, doing all I
ask of it, while I keep stumbling over other things I want to buy. Then I
have another overseas trip scheduled for February, and that has lifted
±$3000 from my bank account.



buying something cheap, only to spend money on it to make it less sucky
is not a good idea.

No need to spend more on it. Those are just possibilities if one wanted
to keep the thing.

Yup! If the inclination grabs one, then that particular MacBook is a good
candidate for an SSD, and possibly another 4 GB RAM. Who cares if it
doesn¹t have a retina display if it will do the work.

because by the time you add all that stuff, you've spent about what a
more recent mac would have cost, which has many more features.

Not quite. To start with that $149 MacBook as configured should be enough to
give him a taste. He might, or might not want to beef it up by spending
anything from $150-$350 extra. If he gets infected, he might even decide to
pony up and by something new rather than an upgrade of the old machine.

and actually, for tony's situation, a used mac mini would be the best
choice, which he could plug into his existing displays and use his
existing keyboard and mouse.

A used mini would do the job for him. However, he is just exploring as part
of a thought experiment, and not quite ready to make any real move towards
conversion to Mac.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Cheap Apple
 

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

buying something cheap, only to spend money on it to make it less
sucky is not a good idea.

No need to spend more on it. Those are just possibilities if one wanted
to keep the thing.

Yup! If the inclination grabs one, then that particular MacBook is a good
candidate for an SSD, and possibly another 4 GB RAM. Who cares if it
doesn1t have a retina display if it will do the work.

because by the time you add all that stuff, you've spent about what a
more recent mac would have cost, which has many more features.

Not quite. To start with that $149 MacBook as configured should be enough to
give him a taste. He might, or might not want to beef it up by spending
anything from $150-$350 extra. If he gets infected, he might even decide to
pony up and by something new rather than an upgrade of the old machine.

a not very good taste. it's too old. he won't see much of a difference
from what he has now, other than it being a different os.

and actually, for tony's situation, a used mac mini would be the best
choice, which he could plug into his existing displays and use his
existing keyboard and mouse.

A used mini would do the job for him. However, he is just exploring as part
of a thought experiment, and not quite ready to make any real move towards
conversion to Mac.

a used mini from a few years ago for $50-100 would be a much better
choice than a 7-8 year old macbook. it would be much faster and support
more of apple's latest technologies.

with careful shopping, one could even find a 2014 mac mini for around
$200, possibly less, which would be a *much* better choice than an 8
year old macbook. the older 2012 mac minis are in higher demand than
the '14s, so they're a little more expensive, but also a good choice.

Cheap Apple
 

On 11/13/2017 4:07 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2017-11-13 10:41, PeterN wrote:
On 11/13/2017 2:56 AM, android wrote:

Lots of folks are curious in what step Apple will take next with Mac
hard and software. If you are interested in the current family of
systems it might be a good idea to take a step back and see where they
are heading. Will there be separate mac- and i- OSs or will they merge?
Will the hardware merge so that we will see ARM processors on Macs? That
will be sorted out then the new Mac Pro system arrives. Until then the
serious hobbyist with other obligations and limited resources could be
wise to wait and see if Apples new offerings due in a year or so just
see if is that is that they want. They do charge for the gear, you know!


Good advice

No.Â* It's crappy advice.Â* Apple will not merge iOS and MacOS despite
greater and greater integration and interoperability between them
(across apps via iCloud and local comms services such as handover).


I was not agreeing with the specifics. If there is no immediate need to
"upgrade," it is smarter to wait, and see if the now latest and greatest
will be superseded by something that will better fulfill your needs.
Also, your needs may change. I can always spend money.


What they will do (and almost certainly have running in the back room)
is move Macs from intel to ARM processors.Â* But this will be very
transparent to users and more so than during the past quite smooth
transition from PowerPC to intel.

Those developers who completely adopted XCode/Cocoa will be able to
distribute their code to the new ARM world with nary a change to their
code - so no impact on late intel adopters, contrary to the nonsense
above.Â* This will be even smoother than the Rosetta supported PPC/intel
transition.

The main difference is that iOS is mainly a "consumption and capture"
device whereas a Mac is a mainly "workstation and creation" device.
There is overlap (when isn't there?).Â* But they will remain very
separate for many years to come.

That said, the higher end iPads are becoming desktop class devices in
computing and graphics power.Â* But they are hampered to a degree where
storage and peripherals are concerned.

If one operates several Macs, iPhones and iPads as I do at home and at
work, one is very grateful for the interoperability provided in a near
seamless manner between iOS and Mac OS.Â* There's no need to merge them -
indeed "under the hood" they have had a ton of commonality since the
iPhone (or even iPod).



--
PeterN

Cheap Apple
 

On 11/13/2017 4:16 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip


As the original poster of this thread...the *only* reason I'd buy one
of those Macs is out of curiosity. I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.


I have been tempted to get one of these, to satisfy my curiosity.

https://thepihut.com/collections/raspberry-pi-camera/products/zerocam-noir-camera-for-raspberry-pi-zero

My interest started about a year ago during a discussion of relativity
theory. The Raspberry PI handles the python equations well.

--
PeterN

Cheap Apple
 

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:41:57 +0100, android wrote:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:50:28 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2017-11-12 20:12, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I'm tempted to pick up one of those MacBooks at $149 just to see
what
the Mac thing is like, but I probably won't. Dunno what I'd do with
a
second laptop.

That is a pretty good price for a refurbished MacBook, (note;
Macbook,
not
MacBookPro) and could make for a budget on-the-road machine. It
could
do
with
a bit more RAM, and perhaps an SSD upgrade. So spend another $200
and
you
would have your budget Mac.

considering how old it is, it's not a pretty good price at all.

although adding memory and ssd would help (and very easy to do), it's
wasted money for something that old.

Perhaps $150 is a bit steep in that market.

very steep for something that old.

But the laptop will still
be fine for most general use that isn't CPU intensive. That includes
photo editing, office apps, mail, web, video watching, etc.

small photos and videos, perhaps, but for 1080p and/or h.265, it's
going to fall flat.

No issue for 1080 - used to do that with my SO's prior MBA w/o issue and
it was slow.

h.265 is rare in most respects.

I sold an iMac (late 2007 v.) with a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 6 GB of
RAM. The family that bought it still use it daily and w/o complaint.
I'm not sure what OS it is at. I sold it to them with Mavericks
installed.

it's probably still on mavericks, and also quite a bit faster than the
macbook.

Not really. The iMac was a 2007 model. If the Macbook quoted is
2009/2010 then it has a pretty good processor.


If I were to invest in improving that laptop at all it would be for
the
SSD first and the RAM only possibly depending on the configuration as
sold.

at which point, it becomes not such a good deal.

It's more than fine for someone who is "Mac curious".

As the original poster of this thread...the *only* reason I'd buy one
of those Macs is out of curiosity. I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

Treat yourself to an old Mac then. I guess that your life is like an
empty void that have to be filled with the 15 year old buzz about that
what the OSX was...

I suggest these for you:

http://headphonescompared.com/wp-con...t-noise-cancel
ling-headphones-under-100.jpg

They'll stop those whooshing noises from causing hearing loss.

Oki! :-))
--
teleportation kills

Cheap Apple
 

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

So why get one out of curiosity. I don't understand teh logic, why a you'd compare
a modern PC with a 10 year old mac what's the point ?

there is no point.

It's worse than me buying vista to see what windows software is like.

pretty much.

or buying a blackberry to 'try out this smartphone thing'. they were
the #1 smartphone around when the macbook in question was new.

Cheap Apple
 

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

So why get one out of curiosity. I don't understand teh logic, why a you'd
compare a modern PC with a 10 year old mac what's the point ?
It's worse than me buying vista to see what windows software is like.

Just for the fun of it. If I bought one, I could tell people I have a
Mac and a Windows PC, but the Window PC is better and watch the Mac
people's heads explode.

You could but anyone that knows better would just laugh and walk off.

yep.

Cheap Apple
 

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Anyone who reads this group knows that Mac people have no sense of
humour when it comes to anything that they feel that is at all
dismissive of their pets.

That's not really true, but it does happen when the unknowledgable talk about
Macs and it's usualy those that know least that spout the most crap.

yep.

Such as yuo can't run word on a Mac there;s loads of software you can't run
on a Mac, while there's more software you can't run on a PC than a Mac.
PCs are better because they have a larger share of the market.
You know crap like that.

then they get all bent out of shape when they're shown to be completely
wrong, rather than learn something.

Sure they are harder to upgrade than a PC

it depends on the model, just like with a pc. some pcs are impossible
to upgrade, such as microsoft's surface laptop, a fact that the bashers
conveniently 'forget'.

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Microsoft+Surface+Laptop+Teardown/92915
Verdict: The Surface Laptop is not a laptop. It¹s a glue-filled
monstrosity. There is nothing about it that is upgradable or
long-lasting, and it literally can¹t be opened without destroying it.
(Show us the procedure, Microsoft, we¹d love to be wrong.)

that's well beyond anything apple ever did.

but then again my 3 year-old iMac I
haven;t needed to replace the graphics card or the SSD/HD or anything else.
There was a time when computers needed parts changing almost every hour when
the valves blew but we're past that now, even PCs don't need to be upgraded
as often unless you are into gaming big time.
My 2010 mac mini is getting a bit slow now, bu I'm not planing on replacing
any individual part not worth the effort or cost, If I get a new iMac pro
I'll religate my iMac to my second/spare computer.

yep.

I really don't want to spend time replacing computer parts any more than I want
to change an exhaust pipe.

yep.

I don't like photos the app and I don't like apple mail.

photos is fine, but apple mail is a buggy mess.

Cheap Apple
 

On 11/14/2017 11:04 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

So why get one out of curiosity. I don't understand teh logic, why a you'd
compare a modern PC with a 10 year old mac what's the point ?
It's worse than me buying vista to see what windows software is like.

Just for the fun of it. If I bought one, I could tell people I have a
Mac and a Windows PC, but the Window PC is better and watch the Mac
people's heads explode.

You could but anyone that knows better would just laugh and walk off.

yep.


ROFLMAO

You clearly made Tony's point

--
PeterN

Cheap Apple
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

So why get one out of curiosity. I don't understand teh logic, why a
you'd
compare a modern PC with a 10 year old mac what's the point ?
It's worse than me buying vista to see what windows software is like.

Just for the fun of it. If I bought one, I could tell people I have a
Mac and a Windows PC, but the Window PC is better and watch the Mac
people's heads explode.

You could but anyone that knows better would just laugh and walk off.

yep.


ROFLMAO

You clearly made Tony's point

nope.

Cheap Apple
 

On 11/14/2017 11:59 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:38:39 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/14/2017 11:04 AM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I have a perfectly fine Windows
desktop and laptop that have never caused me a problem, and see no
reason to switch to a Mac.

So why get one out of curiosity. I don't understand teh logic, why a you'd
compare a modern PC with a 10 year old mac what's the point ?
It's worse than me buying vista to see what windows software is like.

Just for the fun of it. If I bought one, I could tell people I have a
Mac and a Windows PC, but the Window PC is better and watch the Mac
people's heads explode.

You could but anyone that knows better would just laugh and walk off.

yep.


ROFLMAO

You clearly made Tony's point

The sad thing is they don't get it.

They jump to their keyboard and start banging out a litany of Macfacts
that all Macusers already know...preaching to the choir. And,
Macfacts that dedicated Window users don't give a **** about.

No one has ever been convinced to switch from Windows to a Mac because
of any of the arguments presented in this group. Windows users, by
and large, have a reason to stick to Windows and aren't influenced by
any of the rhetoric in this group.

Some users do switch from Windows-based PCs to Macs. We all
understand that, but their reasons are not based on what they read
here. They are making informed decisions based on their own needs.


I tested PS on a Mac for over a week, and saw no real difference between
a Mac and my PC. (Watch the knee jerking jerks, now.)
Further up the line I stated my reasons for getting the monitor I use.
The reaction, which I am now going to ignore, is only that the Retina is
a better monitor.
We have all noticed the number of images posted by the Appleseeds.

--
PeterN

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The sad thing is they don't get it.

they get that there are apple haters who have absolutely nothing better
to do than bash.

They jump to their keyboard and start banging out a litany of Macfacts
that all Macusers already know...preaching to the choir. And,
Macfacts that dedicated Window users don't give a **** about.

you asked what appeared to be an honest question and received helpful
and honest answers.

you have now admitted you were lying and being your usual asshole self,
then trying to blame mac users for being helpful.

No one has ever been convinced to switch from Windows to a Mac because
of any of the arguments presented in this group.

you have absolutely no way of knowing that.

Windows users, by
and large, have a reason to stick to Windows and aren't influenced by
any of the rhetoric in this group.

the only reasons are because they're stubbornly stuck in their ways and
not wanting to try anything new, and because they hate apple.

millions of people are switching *to* mac every single day, with over
half of apple's mac sales to new mac users, i.e., switchers, and that's
been the case for *years*.

Some users do switch from Windows-based PCs to Macs. We all
understand that, but their reasons are not based on what they read
here. They are making informed decisions based on their own needs.

what a load of bull****.

the only way to make an informed decision is if all the facts are
known, something which you do not want.

you said above:
And, Macfacts that dedicated Window users don't give a **** about.

those 'macfacts' are the very facts for someone to make an informed
decision, which you clearly do *not* want to happen.

you are a lying hypocrite.

Cheap Apple
 

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I tested PS on a Mac for over a week, and saw no real difference between
a Mac and my PC. (Watch the knee jerking jerks, now.)

what differences were you expecting?

and you didn't try it on a retina 5k imac, so your test is not relevant.

Further up the line I stated my reasons for getting the monitor I use.
The reaction, which I am now going to ignore, is only that the Retina is
a better monitor.

as i said, just about everyone considers the retina imac 5k to be the
best display around.

you are *assuming* it's not as good as whatever you have.

Cheap Apple
 

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The sad thing is they don't get it.

they get that there are apple haters who have absolutely nothing better
to do than bash.

You have a strange understanding of what the word "hate" means.
There's no "hate" involved in not wanting to join the Mac brigade.

saying 'join the mac brigade' clearly indicates hatred.

You also have a strange understanding of the word "bash". Most of
what you regard as "bashing" is simply expressing a lack of interest
in something. What is "bashed", using the true sense of the word, is
the stick-up-the-ass people like you who denigrate non-Mac-users for
no good reason and make wild claims.

i do not denigrate anyone.

not only are you overflowing with hatred, but you lie about it.

the rest of your bull**** snipped.

Cheap Apple
 

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:59:44 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

No one has ever been convinced to switch from Windows to a Mac because
of any of the arguments presented in this group.

Don't be so sure. I am certainly persuaded to look closely into Macs
when I next need a new computer, and it's because of the arguments on
this group. This is the first setting where I've been exposed to
extensive back and forth on the subject, and there are knowledgeable
folks on both sides here.