Re: Two points

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:29:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 11/29/24 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:
 

2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were
made from notebook equipment, and they are crap.

 
Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now a
glorified notebook anyway.

 
Which makes it sound like notebooks haven't advanced in the past 20
years to be as powerful as many desktops.

>
They are fundamentally compromised just from the form factor. As Scotty
might have said, “Ya canna change the laws of physics, Cap’n!”. Push them
too far for too long, and they get hot. Where does the heat go? And so
they have to throttle back. Compared to a desktop with equivalent
performance specs, they have no staying power.
>

So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.

 
Is that ARM-based? Is it as expandable as the old x86-based Mac Pro? If
no, then don’t call it a “workstation”.

>
The moniker of "workstation" is a bit more nebulous these days, as more
and more task workflows can be adequately performed by core hardware
instead of needing specialized expansion cards.

>
In hardware terms, I think of it in terms of hardware that is configurable
for different uses over its working life. You need upgradeable RAM and
expansion slots for that. But Apple is doing away with those across its
entire product line.

As usual, you downplay ARM grotesquely incorrectly, I hate to agree
with anything Apple, but they were ahead of curve, though PC tech is
advancing rapidly toward ARM's inevitable dominance.

--
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.