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

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

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

>
By considering the actual performance of a USB 3.2 storage device?
>
You read exactly like the superficially "expert" 1337 Linux dweeb you are:
>
"USB???? Uggh... ...USB sux, man!".

>
It doesn't suck for an external drive, using an external drive sucks
as a continuous solution.

>
Why?

 
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.

>
1. That's not an answer. That's saying the same thing by different words.

It's an answer to Apple's arbitrary hand-holding of what you can do
with your expensive device from them.

2. Having two drives has nothing to do with whether or not you are
dual-booting. I would have thought an "expert" would have understood that.

You *can* dual-boot with a single drive, sure, but it sucks balls.  I
wouldn't do it.

And yet you won't use a SATA drive even if you wouldn't notice the
difference [from the speed of an NVMe drive]...

 
Using SATA when NVMe is an option isn't elite enough, right.

>
It's seems you're looking for "bragging rights", not utility.

I mean, it is that in a sense, but even just to "feel good" about my
build, I did what I did.  I had a 1 TB SATA SSD, that I'd briefly used
in my old computer, but I bought it for that computer, I wanted to get
the latest and greatest for this one, even if it seems redundant to a
"practical" person like you (who pays for Apple ...).

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.