Where I keep my spare cats.

On 7/4/2017 12:07 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/4/2017 5:16 AM, David B. wrote:



A lot of folk die BEFORE they get to be 80 years of age. I lost another
one of my boater friends just yesterday after a year long battle with
cancer.

I don't NEED a new iMac ..... but I'll get one after this year's boating
season! ;-)


I have three months to go, until I reach 80. I figure that since more
people die before they reach 80, than between 80 and 100, statistically,
my chances of reaching 100 are pretty good. Since the bucket in my list
has sprung a leak, I plan to see how many items in there I will use as
many as I can.



should read. I plan to use as many items from my bucket list, as quickly
as I can, while taking the time to enjoy each.

--
PeterN

On 04-Jul-17 5:16 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/4/2017 12:07 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/4/2017 5:16 AM, David B. wrote:



A lot of folk die BEFORE they get to be 80 years of age. I lost another
one of my boater friends just yesterday after a year long battle with
cancer.

I don't NEED a new iMac ..... but I'll get one after this year's boating
season! ;-)


I have three months to go, until I reach 80. I figure that since more
people die before they reach 80, than between 80 and 100, statistically,
my chances of reaching 100 are pretty good. Since the bucket in my list
has sprung a leak, I plan to see how many items in there I will use as
many as I can.



should read. I plan to use as many items from my bucket list, as quickly
as I can, while taking the time to enjoy each.

*GOOD LUCK*, PeterN :-)

--
I hope you make it to that magical age of 80!

On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 21:48:05 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 3, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 16:42:04 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 3, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 21:57:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

When I get my 5K iMac I will let you know.

Are you waiting for the new model?

No. The model I want is available now.

I am not looking at the iMac Pro which is only going to be available at the
end of the year. What I am doing is prioritizing my spending, and
rationalizing my actual need in my head. I am trying to avoid acquisition
for
acquisition’s sake. To do that I have to take into account that I actually
have an iMac which does everything I ask of it now. The primary reason I
have
for buying the new iMac is to get my greedy hands on it.My major
consideration is the age of my current set up. The iMac is a mid-2010, and
eventually it is going to age out of the OS update window. I prefer to
preempt that by buying the replacement within the next six months, perhaps
earlier. To do that configured the way I want it, I would be spending
$2800-$3000. Once I have the new iMac, it wouldn’t actually be doing
anything different to what I am doing now, except, presumably faster.

The same thing could be said for my R2880. The prints I get out of that
printer are superb. It would be nice, but pointless to upgrade to something
new, especially considering that I am not running a production print house.

Then there are a few lenses I have my eye on, and those might come first.

I know the feeling.

A friend of mine who has driven second hand Hond Legends (AKA Acura
RL) for years has lashed out and bought a highly spec'd
http://tinyurl.com/tejs3w3 His excuse was that he was coming up to the
age of 80 and he was running out of time to yield to desire ...

Nice!
A new car is another thing I have thought of, and can’t quite pull the
trigger on. My E350 has 46K trouble free miles on the clock. When I was
working I ran up 180K-220K before trading for new.

I went in today to have the tires rotated and rebalanced, and the
wheel alignment checked, and the guy who runs the shop told me it was
28,000km since last had them done and that it was 4 years ago. 7,000km
(4,200m) per year but when I was working it was +20,000km/yr. The last
car I sold before I retired had 190,000km on the clock and was still
going like a rocket. Retiring is definitely an economic change in many
respects.

My biological clock is
running a little behind you, and your friend with me at 68+. So, by this time
next year my mortgage will be paid off, and I will have a little extra
spending power, then we shall see what develops.

Your E350 still has a long time to go, but I expect you will outlast
it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"David B."
Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:27:07 GMT
in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

Excellent answers, 'nospam'. :-)

For a clueless idiot like you, sure. You don't understand what
either of us are writing about. And, like i've written before, you'll
high five anybody who writes anything you perceve as negative about me
or something I wrote. [g] Even if they're so far off base, they aren't
even in the same ballpark. Example. You know I service macs, I've shown
you a pic of the guts of one I did a component changeout on. ROFL!




--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

"The knack to flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground
and miss."

nospam
Sun, 02 Jul 2017
01:49:10 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

not a single reputable site will insult users.

It must be nice to live in your universe. Do you offer tours?

See below if you want to get an idea of how much you're being
****ed over. Btw, the Acer below is considerably more upgradable
if you wanted to do so. The all in one mac, due to it's very
design/case/etc, isn't.

who cares. what matters is getting actual work done, not opening
up the box and poking around inside.

I care. I doubt I'm the only one.

Other than swapping out the HD and adding more ram, that is. With
the Acer, I can add another hard drive, internally; no swap
required. As well as the ram, the video card, the sound card, etc
etc etc. I can't changeout the sound card or video card on the
mac. I'm stuck with what it has. Thanks so much Apple. I can't
add an additional video card to the apple for quad display or
coin mining, either. I can with the Acer. And, if I wanted to
mine coins, I'd want more GPUS and the better CPU working
together for faster coin mining results. The apple won't lemme do
that.

there's much more to life than mining bitcoins.

Who said anything about bitcoins specifically? I didn't. Or, do you
think that's the only digital currency? And, it was just an example.
Point is, for less money, I get a faster machine that has
upgradability. Unlike the mac you claimed was 'better'


the prices of apple products are competitive for similar specs,
often *less* expensive.

We're discussing Apple computers, specifically. Do you have any
reputable sites that state an Apple computer costs about the same
as an equivalent PC? If so, please provide url(s)...

there are plenty of comparisons and more every day.

I'll try again.

Do you have any reputable sites that state an Apple computer costs
about the same as an equivalent PC? If yes, provide url(s). Seems
like a simple request to me.

apple did *much* more than give it a new video panel.

Er, no, no they didn't...

But, as I said, this isn't a fair comparison. Especially when you
consider that it's an all in one, and not just a display that can
be connected to other computers...Unlike the Dell you picked for
price comparison purposes..Which is a bit pricey, considering
other options...

it doesn't matter whether it's an all in one or not.

Yes it does.

what matters is having comparable specs.

The mac falls short there. As I already stated.

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac

I'm assuming you picked the Dell because of it's high price, and,
made no effort to see what other companies were offering theirs
for.

i picked the dell because both the dell and the 5k imac used the
*same* lcd panel internally.

*ALOT* of companies use the same panels! Do you really think there's
a ****ton of panel manufacturers out there? Newsflash, there isn't!

So, I did it for you:

https://www.amazon.com/HP-J3G14A8-AB...nitor/dp/B00VO
85RY6

Thats a commercial grade one, too.

no it isn't. 'commercial grade' is meaningless and that's not in
the same class as what's in an imac, which is a dci-p3 wide gamut
display that's also nearly twice as bright.

Er, it is infact a commercial grade monitor. And, it's not a
meaningless claim or statement. You clearly know nothing about
this...

CPU, twice the ram, twice the HD
space...If compared to the prior two Apple Imacs with 5k retina
otherwise, HD space is the same, ram isn't, and cpu is lacking on
the Apple. The apple is using an i5. The acer is using an i7 with
a higher clock frequency before 'turbo boost'

again wrong.

The specs are from Apples website, accurate at the time of my
original post on this subject.



--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Warning: Do not attempt to stop chainsaw with testicles.

nospam
Sun, 02 Jul 2017
01:49:08 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

In article
XnsA783B1E3E49FHT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP5 hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh
.90b6 e2Gl51, Diesel wrote:

you don't understand what it is you're reading, mostly because
you don't use macs and don't understand how they work, and
based on your posts, you are an apple-hating troll.

Partially correct. I don't like macs, would prefer not to use
macs, but, I'm not an Apple hating troll, and, I do understand
how they work.

based on what you've written, you haven't any clue whatsoever
about how macs work (or anything else apple makes). everything
you've said is nothing more than ignorant apple-bashing trolling.

While I do find your comment rather amusing, is there a particular
reason you've decided to respond to a post written in May? It's
July...

in the wild means propagates on its own.

Technically, that isn't what it means. As a former virus writer who
has stuff that went ITW, I'll defer to your assumptions concerning
the term. Hell, why not. You have far more credibility concerning it
that I ever would. /sarcasm.


[snip] It was trolling bull**** with no urls to support your claims,
despite having been asked to provide them.



--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

A life lived in fear is half a life lived.

In article
dp9ZlJL643r91C2r8o,
Diesel wrote:

you don't understand what it is you're reading, mostly because
you don't use macs and don't understand how they work, and
based on your posts, you are an apple-hating troll.

Partially correct. I don't like macs, would prefer not to use
macs, but, I'm not an Apple hating troll, and, I do understand
how they work.

based on what you've written, you haven't any clue whatsoever
about how macs work (or anything else apple makes). everything
you've said is nothing more than ignorant apple-bashing trolling.

While I do find your comment rather amusing, is there a particular
reason you've decided to respond to a post written in May? It's
July...

they were in the queue and i'm catching up with older posts.

i have more important things to do than try to educate an ignorant
closed-minded troll, but i did want to correct your numerous mistakes
for the benefit of others.

in the wild means propagates on its own.

Technically, that isn't what it means. As a former virus writer who
has stuff that went ITW, I'll defer to your assumptions concerning
the term. Hell, why not. You have far more credibility concerning it
that I ever would. /sarcasm.

i'm using the industry standard definitions, not what some wannabe
script kiddie thinks.

https://us.norton.com/internetsecuri...computer-virus.
html
A computer virus, much like a flu virus, is designed to spread from
host to host and has the ability to replicate itself.

regardless of whatever definition you want to use, there is no
self-propagating malware on a mac and the chances of that are so close
to zero that it can be considered to be zero.

wannacry and petya affected *millions* of pcs and millions more are
still vulnerable.

the number of affected macs was *zero*. 0. none.

tl;dr macs are *far* more secure than windows can ever hope to be.

In article
p9ZlJL643r91C2r8o,
Diesel wrote:

not a single reputable site will insult users.

It must be nice to live in your universe. Do you offer tours?

it's called the real world and no tours are offered by anyone.

See below if you want to get an idea of how much you're being
****ed over. Btw, the Acer below is considerably more upgradable
if you wanted to do so. The all in one mac, due to it's very
design/case/etc, isn't.

who cares. what matters is getting actual work done, not opening
up the box and poking around inside.

I care. I doubt I'm the only one.

not the only one, but one of the few.

people buy computers to do actual work *not* to open it up and swap
parts, something totally lost on you.

it's like cars. most people just want to get to where they're going,
not open the hood and replace parts just for the hell of it.

Other than swapping out the HD and adding more ram, that is. With
the Acer, I can add another hard drive, internally; no swap
required. As well as the ram, the video card, the sound card, etc
etc etc. I can't changeout the sound card or video card on the
mac. I'm stuck with what it has. Thanks so much Apple. I can't
add an additional video card to the apple for quad display or
coin mining, either. I can with the Acer. And, if I wanted to
mine coins, I'd want more GPUS and the better CPU working
together for faster coin mining results. The apple won't lemme do
that.

there's much more to life than mining bitcoins.

Who said anything about bitcoins specifically? I didn't. Or, do you
think that's the only digital currency? And, it was just an example.

it doesn't matter which coin it is.

there's much more to life than mining whichever cryptocurrency is the
latest fad (and that's all it is). if you think you're going to get
rich that way, you're in for a very big and unpleasant surprise.

Point is, for less money, I get a faster machine that has
upgradability. Unlike the mac you claimed was 'better'

better depends on the task.

there is no single computer that is better at everything.

a system optimized for cryptocurrency is not ideal for other tasks,
such as editing photos or writing school papers.

what makes something better is how well it does the tasks someone needs
to do, not what the number on the box says or how many parts you can
stuff inside.

pick the best tool for the job.

you're also incorrectly assuming that the only thing that matters are
hardware specs, completely ignoring software. even the most tricked out
pc can't do things a mac can do.

the prices of apple products are competitive for similar specs,
often *less* expensive.

We're discussing Apple computers, specifically. Do you have any
reputable sites that state an Apple computer costs about the same
as an equivalent PC? If so, please provide url(s)...

there are plenty of comparisons and more every day.

I'll try again.

it's best you don't, because you will fail even worse than you already
have.

Do you have any reputable sites that state an Apple computer costs
about the same as an equivalent PC? If yes, provide url(s). Seems
like a simple request to me.

what part of *all* is not clear?

*every* site that does a fair and unbiased comparison (i.e., reputable)
will not only find that macs and pcs with similar specs cost about the
same, but in many cases, the mac is *less* expensive.

when a pc computer costs less, it's because its specs are less.

apple doesn't bother with bottom tier products, so there's a lot of
cheap crap on the pc side.

https://www.recode.net/2016/10/20/13337652/mac-ibm-business-cheaper
Big Blue released data on Wednesday showing that it saves anywhere
from $265 to $535 over a four-year period for each employee who uses
a Mac over a PC.
....
The company, which began letting workers choose Macs or PCs last
year, says it has found PCs drive twice as many support calls as Macs
and that IBMers are now ³overwhelmingly² opting for Macs: 73 percent
of IBM employees say they want their next computer to be a Mac.

more examples - the microsoft surface studio costs quite a bit more
than an imac, with the only real difference being that it pivots and
has touch, except that it includes a slow 5400 rpm laptop drive (versus
pci-e nvme ssd on the imac) and also lacks thunderbolt and usb-c.

the microsoft surface laptop also costs more than a similar spec
macbook pro, but also lacks usb-c and thunderbolt and is *impossible*
to open without destroying it.

apple did *much* more than give it a new video panel.

Er, no, no they didn't...

oh yes they did.

you can't just swap in a 5k display in place of a 2k display and expect
everything to work properly, no matter what platform it is.

apple had to design several custom components for the retina 5k imac
because the technology to drive a display of that resolution from a
single video source did not exist at the time.

the dell 5k display required *two* displayport cables because a single
displayport link was incapable of driving it, along with a high end
video card, which means it was both expensive and a complete
cluster****.

just about every product apple makes has custom apple-designed
components. in fact, apple has over 10,000 engineers designing a wide
variety of custom chips, well beyond what's available to a run of the
mill pc.

But, as I said, this isn't a fair comparison. Especially when you
consider that it's an all in one, and not just a display that can
be connected to other computers...Unlike the Dell you picked for
price comparison purposes..Which is a bit pricey, considering
other options...

it doesn't matter whether it's an all in one or not.

Yes it does.

no it doesn't.

what matters is having comparable specs.

The mac falls short there. As I already stated.

no it definitely doesn't, and you're also fixated on solely hardware
specs, which means very little in the grand scheme of things.

even the most tricked out pc can't do many of the things even a low end
mac can do.

again, pick the best tool for the job.

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac

I'm assuming you picked the Dell because of it's high price, and,
made no effort to see what other companies were offering theirs
for.

i picked the dell because both the dell and the 5k imac used the
*same* lcd panel internally.

*ALOT* of companies use the same panels! Do you really think there's
a ****ton of panel manufacturers out there? Newsflash, there isn't!

whoooooosh.

you snipped the links that show you to be wrong. here they are again:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2467511,00.asp
And with the UltraSharp 27 Ultra HD 5K monitor expected to retail for
a cool $2,500, you may just need Santa to foot the bill for any
add-ons.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/28447...tor-price-afte
r-apple-launches-new-imac.html
...Dell, which has announced but not yet shipped its UltraSharp 5K
monitor, says it will cut its price, in the wake of Apple¹s latest
27-inch iMac hitting the market.
....
For $2,499.99, Apple is throwing an entire computing platform into
its 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K Display. Dell¹s UltraSharp 27 is only
a monitor and the company may have had to drop its price to attract
buyers, Colegrove said.

what you're also unaware of is that apple has first dibs at the panels,
with dell getting the leftovers. apple gets the cream of the crop.

So, I did it for you:

https://www.amazon.com/HP-J3G14A8-AB.../dp/B00VO85RY6

Thats a commercial grade one, too.

no it isn't. 'commercial grade' is meaningless and that's not in
the same class as what's in an imac, which is a dci-p3 wide gamut
display that's also nearly twice as bright.

Er, it is infact a commercial grade monitor. And, it's not a
meaningless claim or statement. You clearly know nothing about
this...

*far* more than you do.

commercial grade means nothing. it's fluff words.

it also doesn't matter since that hp display has been discontinued.

when it was new, it sold for $1300, which was a little less than dell's
display, but not by a whole lot. it wasn't as good and still didn't
include a computer.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9870/h...-aiming-for-mo
re-pixels
But at CES 2015, HP announced the HP Z27q monitor, which takes a step
back on gamut and manageability, but takes two steps forward with
resolution...The HP Z27q is one of a handful of 5K displays on the
market now, and HP came in with a pretty low launch price of $1300.

comparing the clearance price of a discontinued product to a new and
current product shows just how disingenuous you are and the lengths you
will go to try and support the myth that macs are more expensive.

that hp display and what's in the imac have many differences.

first of all, the retina imac has a wide gamut dcip-p3 display that's
also nearly twice as bright as the hp display.

the hp display used displayport 1.2, which *can't* support 5k on a
single link. that means it needed *two* displayport cables to support
5k, along with a video card capable of driving it, a cost you're
conveniently forgetting to include.

then there's the software compatibility issues and that it's a complete
cluster****.

a retina 5k imac starts at $1799, without a tangled mess of cables. it
just works. out of the box, the user is getting real work done.

that's a difference of $400, and there's no way anyone can get a
computer anywhere near as capable as what's in the base level retina
imac with dual displayport output that's capable of driving the hp
display for $400.

CPU, twice the ram, twice the HD
space...If compared to the prior two Apple Imacs with 5k retina
otherwise, HD space is the same, ram isn't, and cpu is lacking on
the Apple. The apple is using an i5. The acer is using an i7 with
a higher clock frequency before 'turbo boost'

again wrong.

The specs are from Apples website, accurate at the time of my
original post on this subject.

bull**** they were. not only are you full of ****, but now you're flat
out lying.

at the time of your original post, there was a 4 ghz i7 retina 5k imac,
which was updated just *two* *weeks* *later* to a 4.2 ghz i7 (along
with many other changes).

you further claimed that all retina 5k imacs are core i5:

In article
XnsA7841A9453C1AHT1@z2EEd70JefktzJb64TMQebUU311gP 5hrG.npCmT206Xn5lh.90b
6e2Gl51, Diesel wrote:
i7 (all retina imacs are i5) CPU, twice the ram, twice the HD
space...

that too is absolutely wrong.

the very first retina imac 5k back in 2014 was either a 3.5 ghz core i5
or 4 ghz core i7, so even *then* it had a higher clock speed.

the first core i7 imac was released in 2009, shortly after the i7 chip
itself was released. why would a retina imac *not* have an i7 when the
standard imac did all along?

you haven't a clue.

you're also ignoring all of the other specs that an imac has, such as
thunderbolt 3 and usb-c 3.1 gen 2.

nospam
Thu, 06 Jul 2017
16:44:36 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

In article
dp9ZlJL643r91C2r8
o, Diesel wrote:

you don't understand what it is you're reading, mostly
because you don't use macs and don't understand how they
work, and based on your posts, you are an apple-hating
troll.

Partially correct. I don't like macs, would prefer not to use
macs, but, I'm not an Apple hating troll, and, I do understand
how they work.

based on what you've written, you haven't any clue whatsoever
about how macs work (or anything else apple makes). everything
you've said is nothing more than ignorant apple-bashing
trolling.

While I do find your comment rather amusing, is there a
particular reason you've decided to respond to a post written in
May? It's July...

they were in the queue and i'm catching up with older posts.

Sure you are...

i have more important things to do than try to educate an ignorant
closed-minded troll, but i did want to correct your numerous
mistakes for the benefit of others.

ROFL. Okay.

in the wild means propagates on its own.

Technically, that isn't what it means. As a former virus writer
who has stuff that went ITW, I'll defer to your assumptions
concerning the term. Hell, why not. You have far more credibility
concerning it that I ever would. /sarcasm.

i'm using the industry standard definitions, not what some wannabe
script kiddie thinks.

I'm not a wannabe script kiddie, but, thanks for the label. It only
further demonstrates your ignorance of the subject, and, what you
think you know about me or the knowledge I possess.

https://us.norton.com/internetsecuri...is-a-computer-
virus. html
A computer virus, much like a flu virus, is designed to spread
from host to host and has the ability to replicate itself.

I'm well aware of the definition of a computer virus, thanks. I've
actually written a few, back in the day. Not scripts, mind you, but
actual executable based infection.

regardless of whatever definition you want to use, there is no
self-propagating malware on a mac and the chances of that are so
close to zero that it can be considered to be zero.

A virus isn't the only item that propogates into the wild.

wannacry and petya affected *millions* of pcs and millions more
are still vulnerable.

the number of affected macs was *zero*. 0. none.

It wasn't intended for macs.

tl;dr macs are *far* more secure than windows can ever hope to be.

You seem a bit more than confused on this subject. Macs weren't
targeted due to the extremely low target base. Not enough of you
exist in positions where real harm can be caused. If your usage was
anywhere near that of Windows, various malware authors would take
more interest in you. As you only serve a niche market though, you're
of little to no consequence and the malware code base reflects that.

Despite the forgetful userbase you do have, itw malware (viruses are
a subset, actually) does exist for your platform. Don't ignorantly
assume you're more secure because of your tiny userbase. You aren't.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

A man who turns green has eschewed protein.

nospam
Thu, 06 Jul 2017
16:44:38 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:

people buy computers to do actual work *not* to open it up and
swap parts, something totally lost on you.

Nothing lost on me. You defend what is essentially a niche market
intended for the types of users that require hand holding. More so
than that of Windows users.

there's much more to life than mining whichever cryptocurrency is
the latest fad (and that's all it is). if you think you're going
to get rich that way, you're in for a very big and unpleasant
surprise.

Rich? No, but, depending on the coins you're dealing in, it's not
chump change either. One coin could buy you a new mac, if you wanted
to waste that kind of money on it.

Point is, for less money, I get a faster machine that has
upgradability. Unlike the mac you claimed was 'better'

better depends on the task.

Indeed.

there is no single computer that is better at everything.

I never claimed otherwise.

a system optimized for cryptocurrency is not ideal for other
tasks, such as editing photos or writing school papers.

You're showing gross ignorance of the subject again. I think you'd
find editing photos on a mining rig to be quite responsive. Writing
papers could be done too, but, a total waste of good hardware in
doing so.

what makes something better is how well it does the tasks someone
needs to do, not what the number on the box says or how many parts
you can stuff inside.

Part specs matter. Not to you, obviously, but to those of us who
aren't simply end users tied to a particular name, it does.

you're also incorrectly assuming that the only thing that matters
are hardware specs, completely ignoring software. even the most
tricked out pc can't do things a mac can do.

Which things, specifically? Cite examples.

the prices of apple products are competitive for similar
specs, often *less* expensive.

We're discussing Apple computers, specifically. Do you have
any reputable sites that state an Apple computer costs about
the same as an equivalent PC? If so, please provide url(s)...

there are plenty of comparisons and more every day.

I'll try again.

it's best you don't, because you will fail even worse than you
already have.

Despite your efforts to spin, I'm not the one who's fallen on my arse
in this subject.

Do you have any reputable sites that state an Apple computer
costs about the same as an equivalent PC? If yes, provide url(s).
Seems like a simple request to me.

what part of *all* is not clear?

Urls then?

*every* site that does a fair and unbiased comparison (i.e.,
reputable) will not only find that macs and pcs with similar specs
cost about the same, but in many cases, the mac is *less*
expensive.

Urls then?

when a pc computer costs less, it's because its specs are less.

I already demonstrated in the post from May that your statement
wasn't accurate. At the time of my post, Apple had weaker machines
that cost more than the PC I forked specs of...And, it wasn't even a
high end PC.


just about every product apple makes has custom apple-designed
components. in fact, apple has over 10,000 engineers designing a
wide variety of custom chips, well beyond what's available to a
run of the mill pc.

Propreitary, closed source, so Apple and Apple alone can fleece you
for whatever amount they deem appropriate. I think if we took a head
count of all the PC engineers, it would grossly exceed the amount
Apple has. PC technologies are so good, Apple is going with Intel
processors, in lieu of their own.

no it definitely doesn't, and you're also fixated on solely
hardware specs, which means very little in the grand scheme of
things.

It means quite a bit more than you're willing to admit, actually.

even the most tricked out pc can't do many of the things even a
low end mac can do.

Examples?

you snipped the links that show you to be wrong. here they are
again:

Let's not even begin with link snipping accusations. I left a few in
my post from May with cost figures. You didn't include any of it.

what you're also unaware of is that apple has first dibs at the
panels, with dell getting the leftovers. apple gets the cream of
the crop.

Do you have any urls to support your claim?

Er, it is infact a commercial grade monitor. And, it's not a
meaningless claim or statement. You clearly know nothing about
this...

*far* more than you do.

I doubt it. But, I'm willing to find out one way or the other.

commercial grade means nothing. it's fluff words.

No, heh, it isn't either.

The specs are from Apples website, accurate at the time of my
original post on this subject.

bull**** they were. not only are you full of ****, but now you're
flat out lying.

I provided the links so anyone could check for themselves. You've
neglected to include them. From apple.com no less.

you haven't a clue.

Heh, it's you who has no clue.


--
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

And with the guts of the last priest, let us strangle the last king.
--Denis Diderot