On 2024-03-08 13:47, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-07 20:37, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-07 14:18, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:20, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 04:07, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> Am 06.03.24 um 00:22 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 16:50, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 11:52, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-05 09:26, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 05.03.24 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even
>>>>>>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should
>>>>>>>>>>>> just drop the
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product
>>>>>>>>>>>> line. :-\
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real
>>>>>>>>>>> story.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM.  Wholly inadequate.
>>>>>>>>>>> 512 GB of SSD.  Barely adequate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same
>>>>>>>>> load of
>>>>>>>>> apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds
>>>>>>>>> yours on
>>>>>>>>> this - as it does on most subjects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Post the screenshots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just the numbers I see.  Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?
>>>>
>>>> The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.
>>>
>>> Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.
>>
>> Which you will spend time writing about...
>>
>> ...rather than just post a couple of screenshots.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not much into proving anything to you.  You're simply not important.
>>>
>>
>> You are certainly proving that by this reply.
>
> Yes, thanks for confirming you're not important.  Unexpected humility
> from you.

You think THAT is what it confirms...

....you answering again?

LOL

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:

> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>
>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>
>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.
>>>
>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>
> I have no obligation to do so.
>
> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.

I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had that
much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)

Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're not
yet at the point where we have really fast persistent storage and can
thus have one big pool of memory/storage. Optane was getting closer to
that, but I think Intel did an "OS/2" (or maybe "PS/2") to it and it
withered on the vine.

My main home computer (the one I'm typing on now) is an M1 Mini with
16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. Would I like more RAM and storage? Yes. I'm ok
without it right now though, and it doesn't get in my way normally.

I'm not really happy with Macs no longer being upgradeable, nor with the
prices that Apple charges for (commodity) items like RAM and
storage. However, this Mini is a pretty amazing little box and I very
much like using it. I can forgive Apple's sins. :-)

I do question why, in 2024, Apple has such paltry amounts of RAM and
storage in their base model products. It doesn't seem fitting for a
premium product.

Tyrone <none@none.none> writes:

> On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne" <bitbucket@blackhole.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-04 19:15, Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>> New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
>>> differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
>>> "Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
>>>
>>>
>>> Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
>>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
>>>
>>> Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
>>> <https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>
>>
>> Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
>
> The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone
> needs a $4000 laptop.
>
>> The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
>> 512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.
>
> For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low
> end MacBook.
>
>> 16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
>> compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
>> expensive. Worse for SSD.
>
> Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
> are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance beats
> any commodity RAM plugged into slots over here and a commodity SSD plugged
> into another slot way over there.
>
> All while using way less power too.

The CPUs/GPUs/NPUs are bespoke. However, Apple doesn't make its own DRAM
chips or NAND flash chips. They use commodity RAM and NAND. There isn't
anything special about them, it's only the way that they're integrated
that is Apple's "special sauce."

Apple has always charged high prices for RAM and storage. Companies like
Sun Microsystems did too. The difference is that Apple has changed the
way they sell Macs (again) so that they're the same as the way they sell
mobile devices. You buy the complete product with whatever options Apple
has decided to provide and then it's "no touchee" from there on
out. It's Steve Jobs' old idea about selling computers as appliances.

So much for sustainability. I've had a few Macs that I got used and then
upgraded so that they became very usable computers that worked for me
for years.

The most recent was a 2012 Mini that came with not much RAM and a small
5400rpm hard drive. I put 16GB of RAM and a good-quality Samsung SSD in
it. It was like it got a new lease on life and it became a very nice
little computer. It saved it from the landfill too.

Oh well. Things change.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:

>
> However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded
> at all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac
> at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
>
> [1] From System Information | Memory:
> Memory: 24 GB
> Type: LPDDR5
> Manufacturer: Micron

I haven't actually compared this on Apple Silicon vs. Intel. However, it
had been my impression when comparing Linux on the Raspberry Pi vs on
x64 that software actually used less RAM on ARM. I even thought about it
as "a 4GB RPi is roughly equivalent to a PC with 8GB RAM."

I never really did any rigorous measurements though, since it didn't
really seem to be important.

Still, it's interesting to know that an M3 iMac at least is less
efficient with memory than an i7 one.

On 2024-03-08 19:27, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 13:41, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-07 20:20, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-07 14:25, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-06 20:17, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:04, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-06, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:59, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of
>>>>>>>> apps
>>>>>>>> since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
>>>>>>>> system Applications folder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Give an example of one such application.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
>>>>>> anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How much?
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
>>>>> folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and it seems to work fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> And where does the license credential reside?
>>>

[AAA] You said:

>>> I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to
>>> how it ran.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run
>>>> it with the license credentials in effect?
>>>
>>> Almost certainly not.
>>>
>>> Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years
>>> as you are about proportion?
>>
>> So you don't know where the license credential resides, but my
>> question is ignorant?
>
> I didn't say I don't know. I most certainly do.

Please get your story straight - AAA above.

> What's clear is that YOU have no clue about it.

Not a thing I delve into. I'm very (painfully) familiar with the user
Library as programming requires me to learn how it is set up for some
apps (and that various apps use and abuse it in various ways... or worse
- change their structures and/or locations and/or formats in updates
with no warning).

How, eg, Adobe, store license data isn't of interest to me. I buy the
product, install it, register it and move on. Oops - I don't anymore -
they went full rental and I don't rent s/w ...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-08 19:40, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 13:45, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-07 20:36, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-07 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to
>>>>>> see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>>
>>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>
>>> Good. You're bright enough to know that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
>>> is on the one who MAKES the claim?
>>
>> Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.
>
> No... ...that's not the way it has ever worked.
>
>>
>> Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac?  Then you can prove me wrong.
>>
>> I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe
>> me.   I have the numbers in front of me.  And that's just the facts.
>
> If you actually had the numbers in front of you...
>
> ...and you were technically competent (maybe that's the problem)...
>
> ...it would be trivial to prove your claims.
>
> But you don't.

I do. I put up the numbers. And that is sufficient. You see: I don't
have to "prove my claim" to you. If you don't believe what I wrote,
then that's entirely, 100%, your problem.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
>
>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>
>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.
>>>>
>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>
>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>
>> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.
>
> I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
>
> I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had that
> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
>
> Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're not

It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.

Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main memory
on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped IO to some
extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high, so that is
good.

Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

> yet at the point where we have really fast persistent storage and can
> thus have one big pool of memory/storage. Optane was getting closer to
> that, but I think Intel did an "OS/2" (or maybe "PS/2") to it and it
> withered on the vine.

I fantasized about such back in the 80's ... one day perhaps.

> My main home computer (the one I'm typing on now) is an M1 Mini with
> 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD. Would I like more RAM and storage? Yes. I'm ok
> without it right now though, and it doesn't get in my way normally.

A client loaned me his M2 Mini for a while (reasons) and it had 16 GB
and I don't recall the SSD. Nice machine.

> I'm not really happy with Macs no longer being upgradeable, nor with the
> prices that Apple charges for (commodity) items like RAM and
> storage. However, this Mini is a pretty amazing little box and I very
> much like using it. I can forgive Apple's sins. :-)

Regrettably I'm all in on Apple for my personal use, and very much "in"
for business use. The latter is easier to bury the costs (esp. as a Mac
in the business will be useful for 10 years or more at some posts).

I don't protest so much the memory non-upgradeability of later Macs so
much, but the prices they charge are nuts. This iMac will likely be my
main personal computer for 10 years (given my past history) - so eat the
price.

Also, I bought the M3 with the max 24 GB of RAM. Would have preferred
at least 32, 42 (yes - that's a thing) or 48 GB.

2 TB of SSD should be OK for the long term - I also have 24 TB of
external online storage and 12 TB of rotated backup storage.

> I do question why, in 2024, Apple has such paltry amounts of RAM and
> storage in their base model products. It doesn't seem fitting for a
> premium product.

Because they are profit whores. The prices they charge for the
commodity memory (RAM and SSD) is outrageous.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:

> On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
>
>> I do question why, in 2024, Apple has such paltry amounts of RAM and
>> storage in their base model products. It doesn't seem fitting for a
>> premium product.
>
> Because they are profit whores. The prices they charge for the
> commodity memory (RAM and SSD) is outrageous.

My question was a bit rhetorical, but yeah, they bend their customers
over when it comes to RAM and storage.

On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
>>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
>>
>> That is my understanding too.
>>
>>> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
>>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
>>> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
>>
>> My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
>> wonderful - but expensive!
>
> Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
> UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
> is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
> consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
> It's worth every penny I paid for it.
>
>> With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
>> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
>
> Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
> storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

I'd like to know why you are convesing politely here yet have 'thrown your
toys out of the pram' elsewhere.
Will you tell?

On 10 Mar 2024 at 18:00:24 GMT, "dgb" <David) <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:

> On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
>>>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
>>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
>>>
>>> That is my understanding too.
>>>
>>>> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
>>>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
>>>> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
>>>
>>> My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
>>> wonderful - but expensive!
>>
>> Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
>> UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
>> is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
>> consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
>> It's worth every penny I paid for it.
>>
>>> With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
>>> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
>>
>> Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
>> storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
>
> I'd like to know why you are conversing politely here yet have 'thrown your
> toys out of the pram' elsewhere.
> Will you tell?

David tosses in the missing 'r'.
Sorry about that.

On 2024-03-10, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2024 at 16:23:38 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-06, dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> On 6 Mar 2024 at 04:45:43 GMT, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
>>>> iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
>>>> from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.
>>>
>>> That is my understanding too.
>>>
>>>> You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
>>>> screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
>>>> screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.
>>>
>>> My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
>>> wonderful - but expensive!
>>
>> Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
>> UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
>> is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
>> consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
>> It's worth every penny I paid for it.
>>
>>> With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
>>> to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.
>>
>> Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
>> storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.
>
> I'd like to know why you are convesing politely here yet have 'thrown your
> toys out of the pram' elsewhere.
> Will you tell?

Fuck off, troll.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2024-03-09 06:46, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-08 19:40, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-08 13:45, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-07 20:36, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-07 14:16, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to
>>>>>>> see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Good. You're bright enough to know that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
>>>> is on the one who MAKES the claim?
>>>
>>> Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.
>>
>> No... ...that's not the way it has ever worked.
>>
>>>
>>> Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac?  Then you can prove me wrong.
>>>
>>> I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe
>>> me.   I have the numbers in front of me.  And that's just the facts.
>>
>> If you actually had the numbers in front of you...
>>
>> ...and you were technically competent (maybe that's the problem)...
>>
>> ...it would be trivial to prove your claims.
>>
>> But you don't.
>
> I do.  I put up the numbers.  And that is sufficient.  You see:  I don't
> have to "prove my claim" to you.  If you don't believe what I wrote,
> then that's entirely, 100%, your problem.
>

You writing numbers in a Usenet post is just a nothing, sunshine.

And you certainly don't HAVE to do anything...

....but we're all free to draw the conclusion that if your "numbers"
weren't all bullshit, you'd have simply posted a couple of screenshots
by now.

On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.
>>>>>
>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>
>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>
>>> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
>>> yourself.
>>
>> I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
>> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
>>
>> I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had that
>> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
>>
>> Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're not
>
> It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
> allocation shows.
>
> Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main memory
> on the order of 1 - 2 GB.  Other devices used memory mapped IO to some
> extent.  Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high, so that is
> good.
>
> Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

Testing you won't actually show...

On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to
>>>>>> see.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>>
>>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>
>>>> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
>>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
>>> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
>>>
>>> I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had that
>>> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
>>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
>>>
>>> Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're not
>>
>> It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
>> allocation shows.
>>
>> Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main memory
>> on the order of 1 - 2 GB.  Other devices used memory mapped IO to some
>> extent.  Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high, so that
>> is good.
>>
>> Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.
>
> Testing you won't actually show...

Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-11 14:53, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to
>>>>>>> see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife finds it
>>>> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
>>>>
>>>> I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had
>>>> that
>>>> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
>>>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
>>>>
>>>> Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
>>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but we're
>>>> not
>>>
>>> It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
>>> allocation shows.
>>>
>>> Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
>>> memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB.  Other devices used memory mapped IO
>>> to some extent.  Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high,
>>> so that is good.
>>>
>>> Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
>>> testing.
>>
>> Testing you won't actually show...
>
> Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
>

Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?

On 2024-03-11 18:50, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 14:53, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain
>>>>>>>> to see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife
>>>>> finds it
>>>>> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only had
>>>>> that
>>>>> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
>>>>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
>>>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but
>>>>> we're not
>>>>
>>>> It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
>>>> allocation shows.
>>>>
>>>> Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
>>>> memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB.  Other devices used memory mapped
>>>> IO to some extent.  Of course the current memory bandwidth is very
>>>> high, so that is good.
>>>>
>>>> Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
>>>> testing.
>>>
>>> Testing you won't actually show...
>>
>> Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
>>
>
> Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?

I guess you don't.

I could post the screen shots. Certainly. Am I obliged?

No. Because: Get over yourself.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-11 16:29, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 18:50, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 14:53, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain
>>>>>>>>> to see.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>>>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife
>>>>>> finds it
>>>>>> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only
>>>>>> had that
>>>>>> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
>>>>>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
>>>>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but
>>>>>> we're not
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v.
>>>>> memory allocation shows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
>>>>> memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB.  Other devices used memory mapped
>>>>> IO to some extent.  Of course the current memory bandwidth is very
>>>>> high, so that is good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
>>>>> testing.
>>>>
>>>> Testing you won't actually show...
>>>
>>> Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
>>>
>>
>> Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?
>
> I guess you don't.
>
> I could post the screen shots.  Certainly.  Am I obliged?
>
> No.  Because: Get over yourself.

"Obliged"? Where did I ever suggest you were "obliged", sunshine?

But you are JUDGED on what you do.

On 2024-03-11 20:38, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 16:29, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 18:50, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-11 14:53, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2024-03-11 12:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-09 07:27, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-03-09 07:49, Bud Frede wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 17:24, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-06 14:14, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>>> claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Imagine my consternation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain
>>>>>>>>>> to see.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
>>>>>>>>> ...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no obligation to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for
>>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I myself would not find 8GB RAM to be enough. However, my wife
>>>>>>> finds it
>>>>>>> to be quite usable on her M1 Macbook Air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do prefer more storage than 256GB, but my work MBPs have only
>>>>>>> had that
>>>>>>> much the past several iterations and it's been fine. (I store most
>>>>>>> things for work in cloud storage that my workplace provides.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theoretically, the tight coupling of CPU, GPU, RAM, and SSD on Apple
>>>>>>> Silicon makes it less sensitive to limited amounts of RAM, but
>>>>>>> we're not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v.
>>>>>> memory allocation shows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
>>>>>> memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB.  Other devices used memory mapped
>>>>>> IO to some extent.  Of course the current memory bandwidth is very
>>>>>> high, so that is good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
>>>>>> testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing you won't actually show...
>>>>
>>>> Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?
>>
>> I guess you don't.
>>
>> I could post the screen shots.  Certainly.  Am I obliged?
>>
>> No.  Because: Get over yourself.
>
> "Obliged"? Where did I ever suggest you were "obliged", sunshine?
>
> But you are JUDGED on what you do.

You're not qualified.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2024-03-12 15:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood
>>>>>>> testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Testing you won't actually show...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes or no: Do you have an Apple Si Mac?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes or no: could you post screenshots of what you claim you have seen?
>>>
>>> I guess you don't.
>>>
>>> I could post the screen shots.  Certainly.  Am I obliged?
>>>
>>> No.  Because: Get over yourself.
>>
>> "Obliged"? Where did I ever suggest you were "obliged", sunshine?
>>
>> But you are JUDGED on what you do.
>
> You're not qualified.

I thought you were "done".

:-)

Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive

An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

https://eclecticlight.co/2024/03/13/desktop-documents-folders-in-icloud-drive/

I hope this helps!

--
David

On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>
> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will, dumbo.

> I hope this helps!

Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic. Fuck off.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 13 Mar 2024 at 16:40:07 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>>
>> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!
>
> I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.

I didn't write the article. Do you think you know as much as Howard Oakley?

>> I hope this helps!
>
> Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic.

Then help me with this, please.

In Terminal, type " system_profiler " (no quotes)
and let it run.

In the generated output do you see an entry like this?

/Library/HTTPStorages/com.apple.ctcategories.service

And/or

/Library/HTTPStorages/com.apple.ctcategories.service

Please advise.

Thanks.

On 2024-03-13 10:10, dgb (David) wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2024 at 16:40:07 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
>>> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>>>
>>> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!
>>
>> I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.
>
> I didn't write the article. Do you think you know as much as Howard Oakley?
>
>>> I hope this helps!
>>
>> Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic.
>
> Then help me with this, please.

Why would anyone help an asshole like you?

On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2024 at 16:40:07 GMT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-13, dgb <david@nomale.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
>>>
>>> An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!
>>
>> I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.
>
> I didn't write the article.

I don't give a shit.
>
>>> I hope this helps!
>>
>> Your link doesn't dispute anything I've said about the topic.
>
> Then help me with this, please.

Nah. Fuck off.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR