All-in-One PCs

dorayme wrote:
In article ,
Jolly Roger wrote:

It made enough of an impression on you to comment on it. Mission
accomplished. Complain louder, Nancy.

If it's not Sally, it's Nancy or god knows what else your misogynist
brain comes up with. You really are such an arsehole.

Shut the **** up and eat my asshole like I taught you, ****wit wench.

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

JR

In article , J.
Clarke wrote:
In article 2016013012403993196-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...
On 2016-01-30 20:31:40 +0000, PeterN said:
On 1/29/2016 5:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
, dorayme
wrote:

who uses vga these days anyway?

Me for the odd occasions when I hook up my Macbook to a TV. The DVI
cable is used for the monitor on the desk, the VGA is what is left. It
is fine for TV.

tvs don't use vga, they use hdmi.

I wish I could find the HDMI input on several of my TVs.

I have one on both of mine, a 2002 vintage Sharp, and a more recent Sony.

The TV before my current one had VGA, HDMI, and DVI, in addition to two
F connectors for cable. Got that some time around 2006 and it was
remaindered then.

I've never bothered to look at what's on our two TVs (although one was
brand new gift a few years ago, but has never been used or even tuned
into the TV channels).

I know the main one of them has a couple of USB sockets on the side ...
as far as I know they're not really useful for anything other than
playing a slide show of photos from a USB keyring drive.

The old DVD player plugged into it uses the three-component video
connectors on the side. For some weird reason it won't work through
either of the two four-component video connections on the back. :-\

The Freeview aerial is plugged into the normal RF socket. I think the
Sky TV box is plugged into an HDMI socket, but can't say for sure. I
also think there's a VGS socket on the back (there's definitely a "PC"
option in the video source menu).

In article , J.
Clarke wrote:
In article om,
says...
On 2016-01-30 10:59, J. Clarke wrote:

Well, except that Apple was never actually _IN_ the server business.
Their two or three little toy servers with no scalability were evidence
to anybody who has ever run servers for a living that they were not
serious about it, or if they were that they hadn't done their homework.

the Xserve were serious servers. Certaintly not toy servers and had
server software that you needed. And they sold quite well, with long
waiting time for deliveries. A lot of large farms of these built because
of the integration with PC/Macs that they offered out of the box.
(pre-installed software).

I drive a mainframe for a living. Trust me, they were toy servers.

I can see them having a niche in businesses that were running large
number of Macs and needed to make them talk to the real world, but how
did you scale them? You can only put so many pizza boxes in a rack.

As far as I recall, the Xserve was standard rack-size (or was it
double-size??) purposely designed to fit server racks ... just like any
other real server boxes.

In article om, JF
Mezei wrote:

On 2016-01-30 15:49, Your Name wrote:

Actually they never left the "server business". You can get rack
shelving to put the Darth Vader spittoon Mac Pro tubes in.

They've left the server business. They may have kits to make a desktop
appear as a semi server,

The rack kits are third-party options. Apple themselves doesn't
technically sell them as servers, but some people do use them as such
(and the Mac Mini too).


but it lacks server management tools such as LOM/IPMI, dual power
supplies etc.

The OS is also now no longer server class because much of the server
stuff is not in an App. and it makes it much harder for users to
up]grade"/patch the open source components.

Also, Apple switched the software that did come with the server version
(removed mysql replaced by another databaase, removed dovecot for imap,
replaced by another etc. These switches make upgrades far more painful
because of the amount of work needed to either re-install the software
you used, or convert your stuff the watever Apple has decided to give
you for that version.

Last time I checked (which was a while ago) there was still a "Server"
version of Mac OS X, but I have no idea what was or wasn't included in
it.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 09:57:58 +1300, Your Name
wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:
On 1/29/2016 1:11 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:36:57 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I am not lured by Disney or proximity to anything that smacks of tourism
bait.

Nor am I. That's why I avoid the International Drive and tourist
corridor areas of this town. And, why I couldn't offer dining choices
to Sandman in that thread.

When my children were young, we did go to Disney but that time is long
past.

I will freely admit that about twenty five years ago while on a business
trip to Orlando, I went there without the kids, and had a good time.

The number of numbnuts who travel from England, Australia, etc. to take
their kids aged under four years old to Disneyland is ridiculous ...
the kids won't remember anything. If you really want to take them, wait
until they're older and will understand it and remember it.

Are you a parent? If so, you should know that the enjoyment is on
both sides. The parent gets great enjoyment from seeing a delighted
child. The child might not remember the delight, but the parent
remembers.

So you get half the value for your money. Wait a few years and get the
full value - plus the kids will not only remember it, but also enjoy it
far more.

I have a photo of me as a toddler sitting inside a Dalek at a theme
park. I don't remember it at all, but if I had been a few years older,
it would have been something worth remembering as a Doctor Who fan.

On 1/29/2016 10:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
, dorayme
wrote:

I wish they didn't have the need to release bug fixes and security
updates from one week to the next. I particularly wish they didn't
keep making subtle changes to the user interface.

it would be nice if they released a bug-free system with no security
exploits that didn't need any updates, but the reality is that is not
going to happen, for any platform.


Snow Leopard gets hardly any and it is wonderful. A blessed relief so
far.

snow leopard was released nearly 7 years ago and hasn't had an update
in years, with the lone exception of the update the other day, which
was only to keep app store apps working. that's all. it still has
numerous *unpatched* security exploits, including safari because the
latest (and patched) version of safari can't run on it.

windows 10 is barely six months old and is getting constant bug fixes
and security updates. that's a good thing.


Are you saying that we should get Windows rather than run OSX.

--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 5:32 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Martin Frost me at
invalid stanford daht edu wrote:


In fact, I just saw a 47" LED TV with a VGA input 30 seconds ago
... in my own house. It also has four HDMI inputs. So some TVs do
still have VGA inputs.

ok, some still do but quite a few do not.

the point is that there's no reason to use vga when there's hdmi
available (or dvi/displayport on a computer display). vga is obsolete.


You didn't disappoint, weasel.


--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 10:00 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-01-29 20:54, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

I think we all agree that it is possible to find cheaper than Apple
sells, just as we can also agree that if you do, you will not be
getting
some things that are included in Apple's offerings. So I'm not
sure why
you keep bringing it up - particularly under the guise of "spec for
spec" comparisons. You are really comparing apples and oranges,
which is
fine as long as you don't try to pretend that the computers you are
comparing are equal in every way but price, which is untrue.

Specmanship gets out of hand. The basic spec being
processor/memory/disk/good-graphics in which case Apple is more
expensive, doesn't provide a DVD reader/writer and imposes memory
restrictions (or forces you to update to the max on day 1 at a high
$/GB
cost - and that max is not the potential max of the competotors).

nonsense.

Not at all. Look at what I wrote a few posts up. Someone who needs a
basic desktop computer is, money wise, far off better with a Lenovo.
The features that differentiate a Mac Mini will be meaningless to him
once he has it up and running.

then they buy a lenovo.

get whatever fits your needs. nobody is saying that someone has to buy
more features than they need.

for those who want more than bottom tier computers (and there's a lot
of such people), a mac is highly competitive and cheaper in many cases.

With most Macs, as long as one is willing to forego the displays
(laptops and iMacs) and/or thunderbold/DVI then one can find Windows
machines that are less costly to buy (even including the Windows
license) and are more flexible.

If one must have the Mac spec (display / TB/DVI) then a Mac is the
better choice to be sure. And that really applies to the narrower
market that Apple enjoy.

A ~2.6 Ghz Mac mini is $200 more than a Lenovo with a faster processor
with a DVD read/writer. With no ability to upgrade the memory. With a
memory upgrade path capped at 16 GB. With memory that is more
expensive (Apple pricing) than what one can get for the Lenovo.

few people care about a dvd drive anymore (software and video is all
distributed online) and even fewer care about upgrading memory. apple
knows how many people upgrade after the fact, plus soldered memory is
more reliable, which customers like.

It's not more reliable in a home or office environment. If there's
vibration or heat or humidity extremes, sure. But desktop environments
are too benign. By your logic every single connection should be
soldered - but they are not.

Apple save money and space in the units by soldering memory and skipping
the insertable memory carrier. That's all that that is about.

Memory upgrades have always been a good speed fix. To be sure that's
less of an issue once you're at 8 GB as OS impact on memory has not
grown apace.


That is not a compelling argument for someone considering jumping the
fence.

except that you're comparing different spec systems.

The basic spec is what counts to most people: will it do what I need.
That comes down to processor/memory/storage/graphics. if that is good
enough (with some margin) then it's good enough.


apple's prices are competitive.

Not in all areas.

just about all areas. with macs and phones they certainly do.

I'm done with your general repeats.
No problem with that except that it's a strategic mistake IMO. They
could easily make a low end desktop and further leverage the halo effect
from the iPhone.

a mistake so bad that they're the most valuable company on the planet.

Not due to Macs. Indeed Macs have benefited from the other products
growth. Given that, Apple should put out a lean machine to profit from
the halo IMO.




may we all make mistakes like that.

And of course they don't have to make junk. For that matter what Lenovo
(to name one) makes at $500 is certainly not junk.

Yes, you get Thunderbold and DVI but people don't necessarily need
those
things to have a very good desktop computer.

nonsense. dvi has been around for 15 years and is much better than vga.

Which does not matter a whit to someone who needs a basic machine.
There are monitors galore out there that will use the VGA and do a
fine job.

there are monitors galore that have dvi, mostly the same ones that have
vga. nobody should be using vga in 2016.

I neglected to mention the HDMI that comes with the cited model.



who uses vga these days anyway? even the raspberry pi zero computer
doesn't have vga, and that costs all of 5 dollars.

It doesn't have a lot of things, but classic for you to bring up
something completely irrelevant.

it's not irrelevant at all.

vga is obsolete. if a $5 computer uses hdmi, a $500 shouldn't be stuck
using vga.

The cited model also has HDMI.

But really bringing up the Raspberry Pi (which is far more that $5) is
very poor form - but then we expect that from you. I paid closer to $60
(incl. delivery and exchange). Sold it after a few weeks of tinkering.


are you still using serial and parallel ports??

Serial? Of course. What do you think USB, DVI, SATA, ... are?

Parallel? can't say that I do.



Aw! I wanted to see how nospam weaseled out of that one. ;-)


--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 10:19 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-01-30 10:14, J. Clarke wrote:

I remember one Iron Butt when several of the front runners dropped out
when their BMWs failed, all with final-drive problems that did not
afflict Hondas, Harleys, or anything else in the same event. That alone
is sufficient to make me steer clear of BMWs. Although I'm finding that
in general "German innovation" has gone from the basic guts of the
machine working superbly well to seeing how much worthless
overcomplicated technocruft they can add.

Yep. Recall a comparison in (IIRC) the WaPo about 10 years ago.

The German cars all came out in the middle of the pack for defect rates
in 3 years of ownership. Ford and GM were ahead for many models! Range
Rover was dead last. At the far right end (least defects) stood Lexus
and Acura. Complexity (gadgets) means high fail rates (didn't seem to
affect the Japanese cars as much, however).

Our Lexus was an amazing car. However, my wife wanted a bright red car,
so we got a Caddy. Big mistake.



A friend had a 'benz with a completely shattered front wheel support
assembly (massive piece) by the side of road a few months after buying
the car. (happened close to a train station so he left the car there
and called 'benz to sort it out.)




--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 11:40 AM, Lewis wrote:
In message
PeterN wrote:
On 1/27/2016 2:24 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PAS wrote:

Maybe this lends itself to the idea that some Mac users are just snobs?
Or simply try to justify paying more for their machines, than they need
to spend.
they don't. that's a myth.
Yep, and it has been disproven time and again, yet fools continue to repeat
it anyway.

the hardware costs for a mac are about the same for similar spec pcs
and the cost of ownership is lower for a mac.
Yes. Resale value is *much* higher for instance.

Who honestly buys a computer with the resale value in mind. I suspect
that it is not many.

ask the people who list them on ebay or craigslist. there's a ****load
of macs and pcs there.

Irrelevant. I suspect that the vast majority of people who buy
computers, but them for current use, and keep them until the machine no
longer fills that need.

You keep repeating that as if someone is disagreeing with you. No one is
disagreeing. The point is that when you reach the point that the machine
no longer fills that needs, you will get far more for the old Mac than
you will get for the old Windows machine.


Future resale is simply not a consideration. When I buy a machine, it
usually does what I need it to. Though I do buy less memory and add my
own to save some money. I suspect that my cost for the machine I need is
less than i would pay for a Mac that has things I don't need, or want.
Assuming that the resale value is what you say it is, and the cost of
both is the same, with a PC I pay less up front.

--
PeterN