On 3/9/2024 10:29 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 13:46:50 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2024 8:20 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>>>> PC's broke.
>
>> Congratulations on the impressive detective work.
>
> Thanks... although I'm not sure it's deserved, given how long it took
> me to figure it all out. ;-)
>
> The primary PC is (mostly) back together now; all that's left is to
> fasten the chassis covers and plug in the external peripherals. I'm
> benchmarking and stress-testing it as I type this. It looks like my
> computer is now 5-10% slower than it should compared to synthetic
> benchmarks for its processor due to the underclocking. I may be able
> to up the clock a bit, but at the moment I'm hesitant to experiment.
> The difference reall isn't at all noticable anyway, except in
> benchmarks. I doubt I'd notice it at all in games, especially as most
> games are limited by their GPUs far more than their CPUs.
>
>
> I probably could have solved this problem faster, except
>
> a) since I had a functional backup PC, there was no essential need
> for a fast solve,
>
> b) I only had a limited amount of time every day to play
> with the computers (made even shorter by how little
> light gets into the study during winter months). At
> most, I fiddled with the busted PC an hour a day tops,
> and a lot of that time was spent just rebooting (usually
> from a slow external CD-ROM drive),
>
> and
>
> c) the whole incident just annoyed me so much that I didn't
> want to bother with it. Especially after I figured out
> the it was the default settings of the motherboard that
> had triggered the whole thing.
>
>
> I have to (grudgingly) give kudos to Microsoft's operating system.
> Despite the many, many, MANY BSODs and hard shutdowns the OS suffered
> through - most of them at boot-up - when I finally did solve the
> issue and reinstalled the HDD, Windows ran as if nothing had gone
> awry. This despite the fact that - attempting to troubleshoot the
> problem - I had instructed Windows to reset (and later do a clean
> reinstall) in hopes that would solve the problem. But since the
> hardware kept crashed the OS, it never got very far in that process.
> Still, I fully expected I'd have to reinstall the OS. But nope,
> Windows came through it all very cleanly.
>
>
> So, current plan is more stress-testing, then finally button it all
> up, copy all the files I worked on using the backup PC to the
> hopefully-repaired primary, stress test some more and then finally
> decide it's 'safe' to use it as my primary again. After which I can
> hopefully put this whole nonsense episode behind me.
>
Hey, I used to do tech support for the dispatch systems used in 911
centers. (And this wasn't script-monkey tech support, if it was a code
problem I was expected to correct the code and distribute the fix so it
could be applied as part of the next regular update.) Sometimes that
kind of slow repetitive grind is how you get it done.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/03/2024 03:02, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> So, current plan is more stress-testing, then finally button it all
>> up, copy all the files I worked on using the backup PC to the
>> hopefully-repaired primary, stress test some more and then finally
>> decide it's 'safe' to use it as my primary again. After which I can
>> hopefully put this whole nonsense episode behind me.
>>
> Hey, I used to do tech support for the dispatch systems used in 911
> centers.  (And this wasn't script-monkey tech support, if it was a code
> problem I was expected to correct the code and distribute the fix so it
> could be applied as part of the next regular update.)  Sometimes that
> kind of slow repetitive grind is how you get it done.
>

Something I learned pretty early in my career was that you get two types
of bugs, those that you almost know where the problem is straight away
and those that require a more methodical approach.

The ones I really hated where when they turned out to be a problem with
the hardware.

On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.

I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it feels
like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price for the
base product then you won't mind doing the same for increasing the
specs. I did quickly check on some of the option prices and to say they
are taking the pee is an understatement. To go from 512GB/8GB to
1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even mention that for the
base price it seems rater underpowered to start with.

On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>
> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it feels
> like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price for the
> base product then you won't mind doing the same for increasing the
> specs. I did quickly check on some of the option prices and to say they
> are taking the pee is an understatement. To go from 512GB/8GB to
> 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even mention that for the
> base price it seems rater underpowered to start with.

Price has never been a selling point with Apple products.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>
>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for increasing
>> the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option prices and to say
>> they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go from 512GB/8GB to
>> 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even mention that for the
>> base price it seems rater underpowered to start with.
>
> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products.
>
Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
superiority over the lesser masses.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote at 09:48 this Sunday (GMT):
> On 10/03/2024 03:02, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> So, current plan is more stress-testing, then finally button it all
>>> up, copy all the files I worked on using the backup PC to the
>>> hopefully-repaired primary, stress test some more and then finally
>>> decide it's 'safe' to use it as my primary again. After which I can
>>> hopefully put this whole nonsense episode behind me.
>>>
>> Hey, I used to do tech support for the dispatch systems used in 911
>> centers.  (And this wasn't script-monkey tech support, if it was a code
>> problem I was expected to correct the code and distribute the fix so it
>> could be applied as part of the next regular update.)  Sometimes that
>> kind of slow repetitive grind is how you get it done.
>>
>
> Something I learned pretty early in my career was that you get two types
> of bugs, those that you almost know where the problem is straight away
> and those that require a more methodical approach.

That's about my experience too.

> The ones I really hated where when they turned out to be a problem with
> the hardware.

Never really worked with hw but I'd imagine that would be really
annoying.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote at 15:02 this Monday (GMT):
> On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>>
>>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for increasing
>>> the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option prices and to say
>>> they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go from 512GB/8GB to
>>> 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even mention that for the
>>> base price it seems rater underpowered to start with.
>>
>> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products.
>>
> Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
> superiority over the lesser masses.

Brand recognition lets them do that, probably..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/11/2024 8:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>>
>>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for
>>> increasing the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option
>>> prices and to say they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go
>>> from 512GB/8GB to 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even
>>> mention that for the base price it seems rater underpowered to start
>>> with.
>>
>> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products. >>
> Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
> superiority over the lesser masses.

I should've said "low price." or "price/performance"

It's the whole wine thing. It's good because it costs more.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:02:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 3/11/2024 8:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>>>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>>>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for
>>>> increasing the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option
>>>> prices and to say they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go
>>>> from 512GB/8GB to 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even
>>>> mention that for the base price it seems rater underpowered to start
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products. >>
>> Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
>> superiority over the lesser masses.
>
>I should've said "low price." or "price/performance"
>
>It's the whole wine thing. It's good because it costs more.

Although it would equally be wrong to dismiss Apple's engineering
chops. They /do/ make some good hardware (even if sometimes I disagree
with the philosophies behind the design). It's not as if you're paying
Apple prices and getting Compaq results. You can be fairly sure that,
by buying Apple, you're getting good components put together
competently.

But still, it's not worth the premium they charge... especially if you
compare price-to-performance.

But Apple gets away with it because they are a luxury brand. They're
like Rolex; nobody is really expecting a Rolex to somehow tell time
better so much more accurately than a $20 Casio. You're paying for the
style and cachet of the device. Likewise, Apple. Their computers are
fine; reliable, generally performative and (usually) with solid design
philosophy behind them. But it's not really like there's anything an
Apple computer/phone/etc can do that a less expensive brand couldn't.

On 3/11/2024 3:25 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:02:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2024 8:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>>>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>>>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>>>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>>>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>>>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>>>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>>>>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>>>>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for
>>>>> increasing the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option
>>>>> prices and to say they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go
>>>>> from 512GB/8GB to 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even
>>>>> mention that for the base price it seems rater underpowered to start
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products. >>
>>> Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
>>> superiority over the lesser masses.
>>
>> I should've said "low price." or "price/performance"
>>
>> It's the whole wine thing. It's good because it costs more.
>
> Although it would equally be wrong to dismiss Apple's engineering
> chops. They /do/ make some good hardware (even if sometimes I disagree
> with the philosophies behind the design). It's not as if you're paying
> Apple prices and getting Compaq results. You can be fairly sure that,
> by buying Apple, you're getting good components put together
> competently.
>
> But still, it's not worth the premium they charge... especially if you
> compare price-to-performance.
>
> But Apple gets away with it because they are a luxury brand. They're
> like Rolex; nobody is really expecting a Rolex to somehow tell time
> better so much more accurately than a $20 Casio. You're paying for the
> style and cachet of the device. Likewise, Apple. Their computers are
> fine; reliable, generally performative and (usually) with solid design
> philosophy behind them. But it's not really like there's anything an
> Apple computer/phone/etc can do that a less expensive brand couldn't.
>

Tell that to the people who make music and computer art.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 22:33 this Monday (GMT):
> On 3/11/2024 3:25 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:02:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/11/2024 8:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>>>>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>>>>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>>>>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>>>>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>>>>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>>>>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>>>>>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>>>>>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for
>>>>>> increasing the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option
>>>>>> prices and to say they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go
>>>>>> from 512GB/8GB to 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even
>>>>>> mention that for the base price it seems rater underpowered to start
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products. >>
>>>> Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
>>>> superiority over the lesser masses.
>>>
>>> I should've said "low price." or "price/performance"
>>>
>>> It's the whole wine thing. It's good because it costs more.
>>
>> Although it would equally be wrong to dismiss Apple's engineering
>> chops. They /do/ make some good hardware (even if sometimes I disagree
>> with the philosophies behind the design). It's not as if you're paying
>> Apple prices and getting Compaq results. You can be fairly sure that,
>> by buying Apple, you're getting good components put together
>> competently.
>>
>> But still, it's not worth the premium they charge... especially if you
>> compare price-to-performance.
>>
>> But Apple gets away with it because they are a luxury brand. They're
>> like Rolex; nobody is really expecting a Rolex to somehow tell time
>> better so much more accurately than a $20 Casio. You're paying for the
>> style and cachet of the device. Likewise, Apple. Their computers are
>> fine; reliable, generally performative and (usually) with solid design
>> philosophy behind them. But it's not really like there's anything an
>> Apple computer/phone/etc can do that a less expensive brand couldn't.
>>
>
> Tell that to the people who make music and computer art.

I make computer art (linux) and my brother makes music (windows).
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 11/03/2024 17:40, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Something I learned pretty early in my career was that you get two types
>> of bugs, those that you almost know where the problem is straight away
>> and those that require a more methodical approach.
>
> That's about my experience too.
>
>> The ones I really hated where when they turned out to be a problem with
>> the hardware.
>
> Never really worked with hw but I'd imagine that would be really
> annoying.

Most of the time it's fine, well with old style PCB where you could
actually do things like probe chips, but I did have an interesting one
where the RTC just wasn't counting. So I looked at the code to make sure
it was initialised correctly and all seemed fine. So next up look at the
hardware signals to see if anything didn't seem right. So out with
oscilloscope and circuit diagram and that's when I got confused. Probing
the chip meant that it then started working. That's when you go and get
one of the hardware guys to help you out. Turns out it was just that the
oscillator circuit wasn't quite right and probing it, kicked it into life.

I also had one where going into transmit caused the transceiver to
reboot itself. That turned out to be a naff power cable where the RF was
interfering with it.

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:33:20 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 3/11/2024 3:25 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:02:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/11/2024 8:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>>>>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>>>>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>>>>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>>>>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>>>>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>>>>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>>>>>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>>>>>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for
>>>>>> increasing the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option
>>>>>> prices and to say they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go
>>>>>> from 512GB/8GB to 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even
>>>>>> mention that for the base price it seems rater underpowered to start
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products. >>
>>>> Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
>>>> superiority over the lesser masses.
>>>
>>> I should've said "low price." or "price/performance"
>>>
>>> It's the whole wine thing. It's good because it costs more.
>>
>> Although it would equally be wrong to dismiss Apple's engineering
>> chops. They /do/ make some good hardware (even if sometimes I disagree
>> with the philosophies behind the design). It's not as if you're paying
>> Apple prices and getting Compaq results. You can be fairly sure that,
>> by buying Apple, you're getting good components put together
>> competently.
>>
>> But still, it's not worth the premium they charge... especially if you
>> compare price-to-performance.
>>
>> But Apple gets away with it because they are a luxury brand. They're
>> like Rolex; nobody is really expecting a Rolex to somehow tell time
>> better so much more accurately than a $20 Casio. You're paying for the
>> style and cachet of the device. Likewise, Apple. Their computers are
>> fine; reliable, generally performative and (usually) with solid design
>> philosophy behind them. But it's not really like there's anything an
>> Apple computer/phone/etc can do that a less expensive brand couldn't.
>>
>
>Tell that to the people who make music and computer art.

Back-in-the-day, Macintoshes had a definite advantage in those fields.
The Macintosh, with its well-designed GUI and WYSIWYG interface was
perfect for desktop publishing, and apps like Photoshop and
Illustrator followed. Similarly, Macs were superior in low-latency
sound (thanks in part to SCSI drives being more common on that
platform), which gave it advantage over PCs in sound production
(although: Amiga ;-). Although stuff like ProTools was available on PC
too, musicians gravitated toward Macs.

But there's little real reason to pick Mac over PC anymore. In fact,
until two or three years ago, most Macs /were/ PCs, and shared all the
technical advantages (and disadvantages) of the platform.

Macs are still often picked as the 'go-to' machines for DTP and music,
but that is more out of inertia than any real benefit to using the
platform. Mostly, it boils down to, "I've been using Macs for twenty
years and I don't want to switch".

On 3/12/2024 11:25 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:33:20 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/2024 3:25 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:02:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/11/2024 8:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
>>>>>>>> do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
>>>>>>>> of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
>>>>>>>> can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
>>>>>>>> a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
>>>>>>>> capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
>>>>>>>> highway' attitude is in opposition to that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
>>>>>>> feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
>>>>>>> for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for
>>>>>>> increasing the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option
>>>>>>> prices and to say they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go
>>>>>>> from 512GB/8GB to 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even
>>>>>>> mention that for the base price it seems rater underpowered to start
>>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Price has never been a selling point with Apple products. >>
>>>>> Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
>>>>> superiority over the lesser masses.
>>>>
>>>> I should've said "low price." or "price/performance"
>>>>
>>>> It's the whole wine thing. It's good because it costs more.
>>>
>>> Although it would equally be wrong to dismiss Apple's engineering
>>> chops. They /do/ make some good hardware (even if sometimes I disagree
>>> with the philosophies behind the design). It's not as if you're paying
>>> Apple prices and getting Compaq results. You can be fairly sure that,
>>> by buying Apple, you're getting good components put together
>>> competently.
>>>
>>> But still, it's not worth the premium they charge... especially if you
>>> compare price-to-performance.
>>>
>>> But Apple gets away with it because they are a luxury brand. They're
>>> like Rolex; nobody is really expecting a Rolex to somehow tell time
>>> better so much more accurately than a $20 Casio. You're paying for the
>>> style and cachet of the device. Likewise, Apple. Their computers are
>>> fine; reliable, generally performative and (usually) with solid design
>>> philosophy behind them. But it's not really like there's anything an
>>> Apple computer/phone/etc can do that a less expensive brand couldn't.
>>>
>>
>> Tell that to the people who make music and computer art.
>
> Back-in-the-day, Macintoshes had a definite advantage in those fields.
> The Macintosh, with its well-designed GUI and WYSIWYG interface was
> perfect for desktop publishing, and apps like Photoshop and
> Illustrator followed. Similarly, Macs were superior in low-latency
> sound (thanks in part to SCSI drives being more common on that
> platform), which gave it advantage over PCs in sound production
> (although: Amiga ;-). Although stuff like ProTools was available on PC
> too, musicians gravitated toward Macs.
>
> But there's little real reason to pick Mac over PC anymore. In fact,
> until two or three years ago, most Macs /were/ PCs, and shared all the
> technical advantages (and disadvantages) of the platform.
>
> Macs are still often picked as the 'go-to' machines for DTP and music,
> but that is more out of inertia than any real benefit to using the
> platform. Mostly, it boils down to, "I've been using Macs for twenty
> years and I don't want to switch".
> I asked someone I know who used to do TV/Movie special effects about
which platform was better, PC or Apple. He's retired so not up on what
the current state of the art is but his explanation of what he worked
with was that Mac's were better early on but not because of the
hardware. They were better for FX/CGI work because the better programs
for that work were Mac only. That was becoming less and less an issue
over time before he retired.

Essentially it wasn't the hardware that mattered, it was the software.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.