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

On 11/27/24 4:52 PM, Joel wrote:

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

On 11/27/24 3:12 PM, Joel wrote:

-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

On 11/27/24 2:29 PM, Alan wrote:

>
having empty space isn't "elite".

>
Particularly since having the storage be internal is primarily only a
concern today for people who need the mobility of a laptop.

>
Utter nonsense, that's even worse rationalization than Alan's.

>
Not at all:  it is recognizing when system packaging is operationally
important and when it is not:  when one is being mobile (laptop), you're
typically willing to pay extra to not have external devices that have to
get plugged in.  Conversely, for a home desktop, it's not as big a deal.

  What planet is this?  How can you pretend that a USB-connected
external drive is the same thing as an internal storage drive?

 From a storage capacity standpoint, they most certainly can be the same.
What you're just trying to pretend that being an external USB must be a sucky & slow interface.  You've not kept up to date on what USB has been doing for the past 1.5 decades.  Case in point, contrast these to SATA-3's 6 Gbps standard:
5 Gbps:  USB 3.0, 3.1 Gen 1, 3.2 Gen 1 ... introduced 2008
10 Gbps:  USB 3.1 Gen 2, 3.2 Gen 2 (Gen 2x1) ... intro 2013
20 Gbps:  USB 3.2 Gen 2 (Gen 2x2) ... intro 2017
40 Gbps:  USB 4, Thunderbolt 3, 4 (2020 Mac mini) ... intro 2019
80 Gbps:  Thunderbolt 5 (current Mac mini) ... intro 2023
<https://www.tomshardware.com/news/usb-3-2-explained>
Which means that this harkens back to how you've still not revealed how fast (or not) your SSD is on your PC.  As I've said, its likely no better than 3000 MB/s, as that would be comparable to the non-RAID'ed NVMe in the 2020 Mac Mini's 256GB configuration (~2.8 GB/s), but is less than the 512GB & up (3.4 GB/s) which are RAID'ed.  The Studio takes this further and doubles it again to ~7 GB/s).  Want speed?  Gotta pay.

Look at it this way:  if you can save $300 by having an external SSD
instead of an internal SSD on your desktop PC are you going to pay the
extra for the aesthetics, or are you going to save a few bucks?

 Not using Apple, I don't have that problem.

Bullshit you don't, for above you just rejected external solutions even for a desktop. And for your current system, just how many NVMe's can you   install on your motherboard?  If you want/need more than 1TB, if you buy a 2TB are you going to throw the 1TB away?  Or are you going to be keep it available by putting it into a USB 3.2 external case for ~$12?

YMMV, but I'm willing to be frugal on my desktop system, so I have had
both internal (Apple OEM) & external SSDs from the start.  Not only did
it make migration easier, but its allowed me to have all of my 'ready'
data also on SSDs, so I have zero HDD latency issues when doing system
searches/data retrievals, etc.  Plus no fan noise.

 I still have an old 1 TB external hard drive, I use for my backups.
It's remarkably simple, just use a file browser to copy files, and use
its extra space for temporary storage when doing a clean OS reinstall.
Boom.

So you're admitting that you don't have any automated backup system running?  And probably no more than a single instance either?  Let alone any remote site backup.  You clearly don't value your data.

Everyone else who's on a desktop can readily buy an external SSD,
including the URL link that Joel posted earlier today...
>
...

>
USB?  Come on.  You're just lapping up Apple's spoiled milk.

>
Are you really trying to show everyone how dated your "expertise" is?

 It's not dated, I don't want to have an external drive continually
plugged in.

No matter how much money it would save you for your desktop PC?
Pull my other leg.

USB 3.2 Gen 2 has a max transfer speed of *at least* 1250MB/sec (as Gen
2 2x2 is double that).  This means its 2x-4x faster than SATA-3.

 I'm not using any SATA device, not even a DVD drive.

I'm not talking about SATA, Mr "expert".

Likewise, I did ask you what your i5's SSD benchmarks in at, but you've
conveniently never provided a number, for given what you've described,
its probably around ~3000 MB/s, which is ~half of what Macs' SSDs do.
Gosh, at twice as fast, maybe that's why Apple's SSDs cost more!
>
Ultimately, what's the right performance to select comes down to what
your capability needs use case is for how much performance you need to
pay for.
>
For example, since you're trying to make fun of 2000+ MB/sec USB 3.2 G2
rates, how much would it cost you to upgrade your system to the ~7000
MB/s performance of the cheaper Mac Mini that you've complained about?

 I'm reasonably sure that my SSD's speeds are comparable to Macs of its
time.

Benchmark used:  "Trust Me, Bro 2.0".   /s
-hh