All-in-One PCs

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

On the contrary, the statement is true with regard to the fact that in
most cases used Macs sell for significantly more than PCs, which is
easily observed by doing a simple search on eBay and similar services
for sold Macs versus PCs. Keep denying it, though, if you feel it helps
you somehow.

denying is what he does.

when i go to swap meets, used macs sell at a premium over pc stuff, as
do apple peripherals.

he'll never admit it though. he'll just try to twist it into something
else.

Well, another one of your absolutes shot to hell. In my post in
response I agreed that Macs have higher resale value. You probably
read it before you made this post.

more denials and twists.

what i read is you said "it's probably true" and that you "won't be
that much ahead".

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:
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.

That's probably true, but also probably true is that you will have
paid less for the Windows machine than you would have paid for a Mac.
Therefore, over the course of use, you won't be that much ahead in
money spent/recovered.

There may be an argument advanced about the usual bull**** of a
comparably equipped Windows machine being equal in price to a Mac.
The fact is that most Windows users are not using machines that were
spec'd to equal Macs. They are using machines that cost less than
Macs because they didn't need the specs included in a Mac.

The spec'd equal argument only works if the specs are needed or
wanted.

There is also the time-value of money. Not everyone is willing to
spend $200 more out-of-pocket today in order to recoup part of that in
three to five years. If the extra $200 is financed (by credit card),
the interest charged must be considered.

The last consideration is that re-selling the machine that is to be
replaced is not always a practical consideration. A used computer can
be offered for sale on eBay or Craigslist, but both mean dealing with
a stranger and the potential hassle of a dissatisfied customer or a
customer that makes objections to what was delivered because the
offering description was not complete. An eBay sale may (and probably
will) involve packing and shipping problems and a Craigslist sale
means meeting someone that one may not want to meet. A sale (or
trade-in) to a retail computer distributer means less money because a
retailer has to re-sell to make a profit.

Exceptions, of course. There is no discussion possible that includes
all cases.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I'm hoping that this winter goes by without a heavy snow--somebody stole
mine and I'd rather hold off until summer when the prices are down.

If someone stole your snow, they did you a favor. I didn't know,
though, that the price of snow is less in the summer. I would think
it would be the opposite.

there you go, twisting the meaning again.

you know quite well what he meant.

Of course I did. It wasn't written for some humorless twit to argue
about.

Mr Clarke's syntax was an example of scope ambiguity, and Mr Clarke is
smart enough to understand my response. It's just that you aren't.

usenet is not english class where everything must be perfect.

you criticize people for improper usage all the time. it shows just how
much of an asshole you really are.

On 2016-01-30, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 30 Jan 2016 20:55:01 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
On 30 Jan 2016 19:24:36 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

On the contrary, the statement is true with regard to the fact that in
most cases used Macs sell for significantly more than PCs, which is
easily observed by doing a simple search on eBay and similar services
for sold Macs versus PCs. Keep denying it, though, if you feel it helps
you somehow.

Based on the posts you've made that I've seen, you have no more chance
of understanding a point made than Oscar Pistorius has of being
accepted as a member of The Royal Ballet Company.

Insults won't get you anywhere with me, Sally. Fling all you want though if
you think it helps you feel better about yourself.

Insults from you are fine, but do try to exercise some imagination.
Your mind is need of exercise in any form. "Sally" and "lady" just
don't make the cut of being cutting.

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

The point was that anecdotal examples - and specifically this
anecdotal example - are not usually projectable as valid indicators of
anything.

Unfortunately for you, that doesn't change the reality, which is that in
general, you can offset the cost of a new computer significantly more by
selling a used Mac than selling a used PC.

I am quite willing to accept that Macs have greater resale value than
PCs.

Yet still the lady doth protest too much.

That's rather typical of the Macolyte.

You keep forgetting I use all of the above operating systems, as I have
for decades. Many Mac users necessarily use other operating systems,
while the same is often not the case with PC users, who therefore form
opinions out of ignorance. Your simpleton black and white view of the
world is both delusional and ignorant.

--
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 , Jolly Roger
wrote:


The point was that anecdotal examples - and specifically this
anecdotal example - are not usually projectable as valid indicators of
anything.

Unfortunately for you, that doesn't change the reality, which is that in
general, you can offset the cost of a new computer significantly more by
selling a used Mac than selling a used PC.

I am quite willing to accept that Macs have greater resale value than
PCs.

Yet still the lady doth protest too much.

That's rather typical of the Macolyte.

You keep forgetting I use all of the above operating systems, as I have
for decades. Many Mac users necessarily use other operating systems,
while the same is often not the case with PC users, who therefore form
opinions out of ignorance. Your simpleton black and white view of the
world is both delusional and ignorant.

and when their ignorant statements are corrected, they have a ****fit.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article ,
dorayme wrote:

Sandman:
VGA is vanishing from most modern TV's, but there's plenty of them
out there that still has a "PC Port" which is VGA.

That well may be so, mine is good quality Sony and not all that old
(got it about 4 years ago). Digital signal TV broadcast is of course
obviously better, but playing movie files from a Macbook via the VGA
I described, hard to tell it's not perfectly good. I suppose mine is
just 22" or thereabouts and with much bigger the differences might
emerge. When I record live TV, I have a choice of standard or HD
channels. No point in the latter on mine, but I have heard that
there is a point with much greater size TVs (of suitable quality).

One of the things you might notice with the quality of the images is
that once you are settled into a film, your experience is no longer
any worse than if you saw it in top quality HD. Of course, there
would be exceptions, but this is mostly so.

Well, this I don't agree with at all.

What you say below is not quite disagreeing with me, if you note my
remarks about size. g

Obviously, you mileage will vary due to
how important it is to you, but since the advent of Bluray, I can't watch DVD
any longer. Not on my 65" LCD TV, nor on my 160" home cinema screen. With a
screen small enough, or sitting at a specific distance, my eyes wouldn't be
able to tell the difference, but with the size of TV's growing, and
especially
the home cinema, the difference is huge, even when you're "in" the movie.

But again, it's all personal

I wonder about that. It might not be so personal, we would need to
look at or do some experiments with people.

--
dorayme

In article ,
Jolly Roger wrote:

Based on the posts you've made that I've seen, you have no more chance
of understanding a point made than Oscar Pistorius has of being
accepted as a member of The Royal Ballet Company.

Insults won't get you anywhere with me, Sally.

But you are hoping that your Sally will hit home as an insult. Dear O
dear o dear, and I mean that in a totally non-discriminatory way.

--
dorayme

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.

--
dorayme

On 2016-01-30 11:31, Lewis wrote:
In message
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-01-29 17:56, Lewis wrote:
In message
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-01-29 07:51, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

you can easily beat Apple's prices for a spec'd machine that does what
many users need.

If it doesn't have all the same specifications, it's no longer a
balanced comparison.

Not what you or I need, but my buddy across the street who browses,
edits a few photos (not very much), does Word and spreadsheets and
that's about it.

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.

Bull****. Lenovo is the worst possible choice for a consumer since they
intentionally infect their machines with spy ware.

I put it up as an example of what one gets for the dollar. The spyware
episode is past and in any case trivially removed.

And comes back.

You can substitute a long list of other manufacturers with a similar
price point for the general spec.

Sure. Dell installed a fraudulant root certificate that allowed them to
see everything you did on your machine, even the things you though were
protected by SSL.

And if you removed it, they put it back.

Next?


Cite (up to date mind you).

--
"But I am somehow extraordinarily lucky, for a guy with ****ty luck."
..Harrison Ford, Rolling Stone - 2015-12-02

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:59:58 -0500, nospam
wrote:

you're arguing just to argue.

And yet, you are here once again just to argue.

And here you are, arguing back. Oops.

--
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

dorayme wrote:
In article ,
Jolly Roger wrote:

Based on the posts you've made that I've seen, you have no more chance
of understanding a point made than Oscar Pistorius has of being
accepted as a member of The Royal Ballet Company.

Insults won't get you anywhere with me, Sally.

But you are hoping that your Sally will hit home as an insult.

It seems to have made an impression on your dumb ass as well. Bonus! Cry
more, dimwit! : )

--
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