Re: Joel won't, so I will (was Re: Bungling Apple Lost the Plot on Texting

On 11/30/24 2:57 PM, Joel wrote:

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
 

TL;DR:  your options to get to parity with Apple hardware of that time
means that you need to invest another $300 at today's prices, which put
your total spent to date at ~$1450 (that we know of), and it looks like
it would still fall short in the third hardware metric. But it is about
as good as you can expect to do with the starting point your 'expert'
chose for you.

>
In other words, the Mac would be half a second faster on a typical
operation, at most, who the hell cares, ...

>
If you really didn't care about responsiveness, then you'd still be
using your 2010 PC. Strike one.
>
You'd also not have bragged about how Linux was faster than Windows on
your 2021 PC.  Strike two.
>
Nor have claimed its a "high end" system, trying (but failing) to claim
performance parity with the 'overpriced' Mac Studio.  Strike three.

  Strike three on you for three lies.

Nope:  its all been documented within this thread by posts you made.
BTW, there's also a follow-up question to something that you said a few posts earlier on this subthread fork.
Here's the extract:
Joel>>>>
 >>>> It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external
 >>>> drive sucks as a continuous solution.
Alan>>> Why?
Joel>>
 >> If I want two drives, I want them both internal.  However, since I
 >> have no wish to dual-boot Winblows, I don't need a second drive.
Alan>
 > 1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different
 > words.
 >
 > 2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are
 > dual-booting.
My observation is that it depends on what the workflow use case needs are for if two drives are better (or needed) vs one, as well as if these are better (or worse) served by both being internal vs internal/external, etc.
For example, contemplate the baseline 3-2-1 data backup strategy of having three backup copies at all times, preferably over two mediums, and having at least one be remote site located.  FYI, 'remote site' is to mitigate single point failure risks such as a home fire destroying everything. Ditto lightning strikes if all are continuously plugged in.
So for a home user, what's the hardware solution for rotating a backup copy to a remote site?  The main simple options today are either to:
a) pay $$ to rent Cloud storage,
or
b) an external hard drive: unplug and sneaker-net it to the remote.
A common trade-off on option (a) is one's ISP:  bandwidth speed limitations and monthly quota restrictions may interfere.
For option (b), if you want to have an internal bay instead of an external HDD, that's fine ... but you're now looking at having to shut down your entire PC, opening the case, and yanking out this internally installed drive for each transfer to remote.  How frequently will depends on your risk tolerance...a common best practice IIRC is weekly.
-hh