A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
On 2025-03-18 15:12, Joel wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
What do you do that you would need a Mac Mini configured to cost that much?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
What do you do that you would need a Mac Mini configured to cost that much?
I use the capacity of my CPU and RAM under Linux, it would only be
more burdened under macOS with needing to run WinARM in a VM, rather
than having native Wine with an x86-64 PC with Linux.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
What do you do that you would need a Mac Mini configured to cost that much?
I use the capacity of my CPU and RAM under Linux, it would only be
more burdened under macOS with needing to run WinARM in a VM, rather
than having native Wine with an x86-64 PC with Linux.
Sorry, but that is completely dodging the question.
OK, let me explain, the device would need to have Windows 11 running
in a VM, and mind you that isn't a complaint because remaining with
x86 just for Wine wouldn't make sense, Apple was smart to dump
IntelAMD. It's convenient that I can operate this app under Wine,
with Linux and x86 hardware, but in the future I would love to see
Linux for ARM on a new device.
To address your question, directly, I upped the specs to give me 32 GBBut since that proceeded from a false assumption...
RAM and such. That which would give me what's needed to make macOS
shine as a driver OS.
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
What do you do that you would need a Mac Mini configured to cost that much? >>
I use the capacity of my CPU and RAM under Linux, it would only be
more burdened under macOS with needing to run WinARM in a VM, rather
than having native Wine with an x86-64 PC with Linux.
Then don't buy hardware (you can't afford?) that isn't suitable for your workload.
Note that WINE works on Arm Macs. No need for VMs if the you the software works with WINE.
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Doesn't help me, I need the x86 emulation of Win11ARM under Parallels.
[as opposed to using Wine]
I was being very careless, here, not having merely seen that Apple's emulation indeed works with Wine.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>>>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
What do you do that you would need a Mac Mini configured to cost that much?
I use the capacity of my CPU and RAM under Linux, it would only be
more burdened under macOS with needing to run WinARM in a VM, rather >>>>> than having native Wine with an x86-64 PC with Linux.
Sorry, but that is completely dodging the question.
OK, let me explain, the device would need to have Windows 11 running
in a VM, and mind you that isn't a complaint because remaining with
x86 just for Wine wouldn't make sense, Apple was smart to dump
IntelAMD. It's convenient that I can operate this app under Wine,
with Linux and x86 hardware, but in the future I would love to see
Linux for ARM on a new device.
As was already explained to you, that's false.
WiNE is available to run ARM Windows apps on the Mac.
To address your question, directly, I upped the specs to give me 32 GBBut since that proceeded from a false assumption...
RAM and such. That which would give me what's needed to make macOS
shine as a driver OS.
I would as it turns out be fine using Wine under macOS, you were rightAnd I ask again:
about that part of it, but it doesn't change the desired specs of my theoretical Mac mini, they just go from "pretty good" to "really
good".
On 2025-03-21 09:29, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:And I ask again:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that isWhat do you do that you would need a Mac Mini configured to cost >>>>>>> that much?
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does >>>>>>>> OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first. >>>>>>>
I use the capacity of my CPU and RAM under Linux, it would only be >>>>>> more burdened under macOS with needing to run WinARM in a VM, rather >>>>>> than having native Wine with an x86-64 PC with Linux.
Sorry, but that is completely dodging the question.
OK, let me explain, the device would need to have Windows 11 running
in a VM, and mind you that isn't a complaint because remaining with
x86 just for Wine wouldn't make sense, Apple was smart to dump
IntelAMD. It's convenient that I can operate this app under Wine,
with Linux and x86 hardware, but in the future I would love to see
Linux for ARM on a new device.
As was already explained to you, that's false.
WiNE is available to run ARM Windows apps on the Mac.
To address your question, directly, I upped the specs to give me 32 GB >>>> RAM and such. That which would give me what's needed to make macOSBut since that proceeded from a false assumption...
shine as a driver OS.
I would as it turns out be fine using Wine under macOS, you were right
about that part of it, but it doesn't change the desired specs of my
theoretical Mac mini, they just go from "pretty good" to "really
good".
What actual task makes you need such an extreme machine?
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
What do you do that you would need a Mac Mini configured to cost that >>>>> much?
I use the capacity of my CPU and RAM under Linux, it would only be
more burdened under macOS with needing to run WinARM in a VM, rather >>>> than having native Wine with an x86-64 PC with Linux.
Then don't buy hardware (you can't afford?) that isn't suitable for your >>> workload.
The point is that I should be able to afford a Mac mini that would
work for me,
Why?
If Apple wasn't a gimmick.
but they price the upgrades so high that it just tells us
they're a high-end brand name, not actually better than any other OS.
That's not everyone's experience, but yeah Apple doesn't do cheap.
Your experience with their OS may be fabulous, but I promise you Linux
is better than people think.
So they run a Mac or a Dell or an HP. "OS" has no meaning to most
people.
Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
Linux is fun if you like to tinker with OSes. Windows is fine if you
need it for work. Macs are easy to use and fit right in with iPhones
and iPads.
But in general, most people have no real use for "computers" these days.
A phone and a maybe tablet are really all most people need for personal,
every day use.
So arguing about "how good (Linux/Mac/Windows) really is" is an argument
that is years out of date.
"I promise you Linux is better than people think" does not matter. No
one today cares. I promise you that a Beta VCR was better than a VHS
VCR.
If you don't want to learn anything, I get it.You really don't.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I would as it turns out be fine using Wine under macOS, you were rightAnd I ask again:
about that part of it, but it doesn't change the desired specs of my
theoretical Mac mini, they just go from "pretty good" to "really
good".
What actual task makes you need such an extreme machine?
It would match what I have with Linux.What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Except that most people don't even know what "Linux" or "MacOS" or
"Windows" are. Most people are not computer geeks and have no desire
to become one.
So they run a Mac or a Dell or an HP. "OS" has no meaning to most
people.
Linux is fun if you like to tinker with OSes. Windows is fine if you
need it for work. Macs are easy to use and fit right in with iPhones
and iPads.
But in general, most people have no real use for "computers" these days.
A phone and a maybe tablet are really all most people need for personal, >every day use.
So arguing about "how good (Linux/Mac/Windows) really is" is an argument
that is years out of date.
"I promise you Linux is better than people think" does not matter. No
one today cares. I promise you that a Beta VCR was better than a VHS
VCR.
No one cares today.
I used linux for 10-15 years at work and home, and macos is better in
almost every way. Mostly because it is unix.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?I would as it turns out be fine using Wine under macOS, you were right >>>>> about that part of it, but it doesn't change the desired specs of my >>>>> theoretical Mac mini, they just go from "pretty good" to "reallyAnd I ask again:
good".
What actual task makes you need such an extreme machine?
It would match what I have with Linux.
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
On 2025-03-22 14:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle.
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [inWhat actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
support of needed apps and use].
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
On 2025-03-23 03:15:14 +0000, vallor said:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 19:17:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<vrnqva$18oag$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-03-22 14:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [inWhat actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
support of needed apps and use].
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle.
I've owned two Mac Minis -- it's notebook hardware that runs slow as
molasses.
We have a Mac Studio now, which was _way_ overpriced for what we got.
Probably the most intensive application I've tried on it is Fooocus
(which uses pyTorch), and I'd roughly estimate it is 1/4 the speed
of my Linux workstation.
(You might blame pyTorch for that, as perhaps it doesn't use
the GPU/NPU --
Almost certainly.
If it's an older version of PyTorch, then possibly you are running the
Intel Mac version on the Mac Studio via Rosetta x86 emulation, which
would be slower than running a newer Apple Silicon version.
Enable the GPU on Apple Silicon Macs means making changes to the
PyTorch settings, which you may already have done: <https://wiki.cci.arts.ac.uk/books/how-to-guides/page/enable-gpu-support-with-pytorch-macos>
<https://medium.com/@mustafamujahid01/pytorch-for-mac-m1-m2-with-gpu-acceleration-2023-jupyter-and-vs-code-setup-for-pytorch-included-100c0d0acfe2>
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 19:17:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <vrnqva$18oag$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-03-22 14:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [inWhat actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
support of needed apps and use].
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle.
I've owned two Mac Minis -- it's notebook hardware that runs slow as molasses.
We have a Mac Studio now, which was _way_ overpriced for what we got. Probably the most intensive application I've tried on it is Fooocus
(which uses pyTorch), and I'd roughly estimate it is 1/4 the speed
of my Linux workstation.
(You might blame pyTorch for that, as perhaps it doesn't use
the GPU/NPU --
but I blame Apple for not ensuring that such things are integrated immediately.)
It does have acceptable performance for everything Mrs. vallor uses
it for, but that's not much. Nevertheless, it's better than we
saw with either of the Mac minis. (The first Mac mini we owned
had a 5400RPM spinner for its main drive! Ugh.)
TL;DR: The Mac Studio is a certified UNIX(r) workstation -- and has
the price tag to prove it. But it doesn't chooch very well.
(note addition of csma)
On 2025-03-23 05:01:09 +0000, Your Name said:
On 2025-03-23 03:15:14 +0000, vallor said:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 19:17:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in
<vrnqva$18oag$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-03-22 14:52, Joel wrote:I've owned two Mac Minis -- it's notebook hardware that runs slow as
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in >>>>>>>>> support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle. >>>
molasses.
We have a Mac Studio now, which was _way_ overpriced for what we got.
Probably the most intensive application I've tried on it is Fooocus
(which uses pyTorch), and I'd roughly estimate it is 1/4 the speed
of my Linux workstation.
(You might blame pyTorch for that, as perhaps it doesn't use
the GPU/NPU --
Almost certainly.
If it's an older version of PyTorch, then possibly you are running the
Intel Mac version on the Mac Studio via Rosetta x86 emulation, which
would be slower than running a newer Apple Silicon version.
Enable the GPU on Apple Silicon Macs means making changes to the
PyTorch settings, which you may already have done:
<https://wiki.cci.arts.ac.uk/books/how-to-guides/page/enable-gpu-support-with-pytorch-macos>
<https://medium.com/@mustafamujahid01/pytorch-for-mac-m1-m2-with-gpu-acceleration-2023-jupyter-and-vs-code-setup-for-pytorch-included-100c0d0acfe2>
Apparently there are also speed differences depending on how you
installed the MacOS version of PyTorch (conda vs PyPI): <https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/2163>
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 3/22/25 17:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't
mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.13.6)
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-22 16:23, Joel wrote:[...]
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
You're...
..."an Internet presence"???
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
?????
He's more like scabies: really irritating and difficult to get rid of.
OK, Mac user.
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.13.6)
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-22 16:23, Joel wrote:[...]
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
You're...
..."an Internet presence"???
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
?????
He's more like scabies: really irritating and difficult to get rid of.
OK, Mac user.
You might have as well said "air breather".
If you need assistance with insults, I can help.
Can and will aren't equal.
I think your nym as "Buffy" would be more insightful.
The point is, Sn!pe can't talk high-and-mighty about me, a Linux user.
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.13.6)OK, Mac user.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-22 16:23, Joel wrote:[...]
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it. >>>>>>>You're...
..."an Internet presence"???
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
?????
He's more like scabies: really irritating and difficult to get rid of. >>>>>
You might have as well said "air breather".
If you need assistance with insults, I can help.
Can and will aren't equal.
I think your nym as "Buffy" would be more insightful.
The point is, Sn!pe can't talk high-and-mighty about me, a Linux user.
A Linux user would need additional accolades to be high-and-mighty.
I'm only 5'10" but I'm somewhat strong.
Tough to be everything at once.
Sn!pe gives me no reason to believe she uses the command line.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 3/22/25 17:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in >>>>>>>>> support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't >>>> mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude.
I can guarantee you that most will be idling or backgrounded by the OS. >>Plus, that's nothing that a mid-range PC or base mac couldn't handle >>easily.
Come back when you have some real demanding computing requirements.
ROFL, "come back when you", uh huh, no this is crossposted to a
newsgroup populated by people with a pulse. What I showed in the
image was actually not as loaded as it will get with my system. GIMP
was the only extra thing running, not LibreOffice or any array of PDF
windows or something. I can eat up RAM.
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:A Linux user would need additional accolades to be high-and-mighty.
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
He's [JWC is] more like scabies: really irritating and difficult to get rid of.
OK, Mac user.
You might have as well said "air breather".
If you need assistance with insults, I can help.
Can and will aren't equal.
I think your nym as "Buffy" would be more insightful.
The point is, Sn!pe can't talk high-and-mighty about me, a Linux user. >>>>
I'm only 5'10" but I'm somewhat strong.
Tough to be everything at once.
Sn!pe gives me no reason to believe she uses the command line.
I used vim to type this.
It's up to the "user" to "use" what works for them.
That's real equality.
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine, but you see, that's for Usenet, I'm
not living in 1987, or something. There are things I have on my
system that Debian doesn't just hand you on a silver platter. Whereas
Sn!pe uses MacSOUP FFS.
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
ROFL, "come back when you", uh huh, no this is crossposted to a
newsgroup populated by people with a pulse. What I showed in the
image was actually not as loaded as it will get with my system. GIMP
was the only extra thing running, not LibreOffice or any array of PDF
windows or something. I can eat up RAM.
Are people still rolling on the floor laughing?
I think even iPhone users stopped rolling on the floor.
RMES= rolling my eyes, snickering is the new funny.
RMES= rolling my eyes sneering is avant-garde, considered a compliment
and sexual inuendo simutaniously.
You have to realize, I'm speaking to any sane lurkers and the cool
posters, not to the throwback posters.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't >>>> mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
Sorry, don't buy it. Show the RAM processes usage page, not the Dock,
for that claim.
Similarly, even if it was true, to go identify just what the workflow is
which actually needs to have 20+ diverse apps running concurrently.
Do the math.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png >>>>>>Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't >>>>>> mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
Sorry, don't buy it. Show the RAM processes usage page, not the Dock, >>>> for that claim.
Similarly, even if it was true, to go identify just what the workflow is >>>> which actually needs to have 20+ diverse apps running concurrently.
Do the math.
I have. That's precisely why I'm asking for what possible workflow
could require so many concurrent open Apps for one human to allegedly be >>rapidly swapping between.
Workflows are subject to the Laws of Diminishing Returns. For any
modern system with fast storage (eg, NVMe), the pretense of a
productivity gains from leaving Apps resident in RAM has functionally
ended for the Pareto Principle 80% portion.
My "workflow" is just revolving through different apps for various
functions.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png >>>>>>Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't >>>>>> mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
Sorry, don't buy it. Show the RAM processes usage page, not the Dock, >>>> for that claim.
Similarly, even if it was true, to go identify just what the workflow is >>>> which actually needs to have 20+ diverse apps running concurrently.
Do the math.
I have. That's precisely why I'm asking for what possible workflow
could require so many concurrent open Apps for one human to allegedly be
rapidly swapping between.
Workflows are subject to the Laws of Diminishing Returns. For any
modern system with fast storage (eg, NVMe), the pretense of a
productivity gains from leaving Apps resident in RAM has functionally
ended for the Pareto Principle 80% portion.
My "workflow" is just revolving through different apps for various
functions.
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
My "workflow" is just revolving through different apps for various
functions.
workflows not involving "work" are just flows, any tampon will do.
I work extremely hard.
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.13.6)
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
He's [JWC is] more like scabies:
really irritating and difficult to get rid of.
OK, Mac user.
You might have as well said "air breather".
If you need assistance with insults, I can help.
Can and will aren't equal.
I think your nym as "Buffy" would be more insightful.
The point is, Sn!pe can't talk high-and-mighty about me,
a Linux user.
[FTAOD, what follows is addressed to Joel]
Excuse me, I wasn't talking high and mighty about you as a Linux user
even though I happen to prefer macOS; I was criticising your behaviour
as a Usenet user.
You don't believe I'm Jesus, we know.
A Linux user would need additional accolades to be high-and-mighty. >>>>>>>> I'm only 5'10" but I'm somewhat strong.
Tough to be everything at once.
Sn!pe gives me no reason to believe she uses the command line.
Please! Upon what grounds do you impute my sex, you person of
distinctly ambiguous gender? That is completely irrelevant, merely
gratuitously offensive.
I thought I remembered you being female, I admit I don't know quite
where that's from.
I was going to leave this but, glutton for punishment that i am:
misgendering is considered unforgiveable among some sections
of society. It seems that some of those think it's permissible.
I used vim to type this.
It's up to the "user" to "use" what works for them.
That's real equality.
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine, but you see, that's for Usenet,
I'm not living in 1987, or something. There are things I have on my >>>>> system that Debian doesn't just hand you on a silver platter.
Whereas Sn!pe uses MacSOUP FFS.
[...]
In what way does my fondness for my antediluvian News reader
make me inferior, if you please?
You're using an OS released in 2017. On Intel. And it's Apple.
Just tacky.
OMG, I feel so inferior. I wasn't going to rise to this but WTH,
I haven't anything better to do this evening other than watch TV,
so it's willy-waving time:
My daily driver is a 2021 16" MacBook Pro M1 Max running macOS
Sequoia 15.3.2, the latest revision and fully updated. I'll leave the
full spec. out of this as it would be unseemly to brag but it's 64 bit
only.
Yes, I use a legacy machine; it's a 2009 iMac which I keep because some
of my legacy software (including the last revision of MacSOUP and my
printer driver) requires a 32 bit machine. It runs macOS High Sierra 10.13.6, fully updated, the last revision it can handle. I VNC into it
with Mac 'Screen Sharing' from my MBP.
I started on Usenet in 1994 with KA9Q under MS DOS; it's 'command line'
s/w. Then I used Trumpet Winsock and later Forté (Free) Agent v. 0.37a
when it first saw the light of day. I bought a license for Agent when
it came out of beta; it dates from ~1997, not 1987
I could give you my entire PC history from MS DOS 2.4 in 1984 via
'Doze 3.0 to NT4, then Mandrake Linux for several years before I saw the light, put away my screwdrivers and switched to macOS 10.3 "Panther".
I've stuck with Macs ever since; they just *work*, you know?
I could go on but it would be even boring than the above.
On 3/22/25 19:23, Joel wrote:
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 3/22/25 17:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't
mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
Sorry, don't buy it. Show the RAM processes usage page, not the Dock,
for that claim.
Similarly, even if it was true, to go identify just what the workflow is which actually needs to have 20+ diverse apps running concurrently.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
[I wrote]
I could give you my entire PC history from MS DOS 2.4 in 1984 via 'Doze
3.0 to NT4, then Mandrake Linux for several years before I saw the
light, put away my screwdrivers and switched to macOS 10.3 "Panther".
I've stuck with Macs ever since; they just *work*, you know?
I could go on but it would be even boring than the above.
I recall having a Mac running X.1.5 and then x.2 at a time when decent
browsers for that operating system didn't exist. It was Internet
Explorer or some independent browser whose name I can't remember.
Eventually, Apple released Safari and made things a little better. I
don't believe that even Firefox was around at the time. This was
definitely a period when the Mac didn't "just work."
I can't speak to that, I began with Macs at OS X 10.3 "Panther".
I had no difficulties with that at all.
I suppose you might equate Mac OS X 10.1 and 10.2 with
Windoze 1 and 2. I imagine that you will remember what
early 'Doze was like. . .
What was early Linux like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZjxyszn44Q
Is Linux Ready for Video Pros? A 2025 Deep Dive
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:A Linux user would need additional accolades to be high-and-mighty.
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
He's [JWC is] more like scabies: really irritating and difficult to get rid of.
OK, Mac user.
You might have as well said "air breather".
If you need assistance with insults, I can help.
Can and will aren't equal.
I think your nym as "Buffy" would be more insightful.
The point is, Sn!pe can't talk high-and-mighty about me, a Linux user. >>>>
I'm only 5'10" but I'm somewhat strong.
Tough to be everything at once.
Sn!pe gives me no reason to believe she uses the command line.
I used vim to type this.
It's up to the "user" to "use" what works for them.
That's real equality.
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine, but you see, that's for Usenet,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png >>>>>>Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't >>>>>> mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude. I'm an Internet presence. Deal with it.
Sorry, don't buy it. Show the RAM processes usage page, not the Dock, >>>> for that claim.
Similarly, even if it was true, to go identify just what the workflow is >>>> which actually needs to have 20+ diverse apps running concurrently.
Do the math.
I have. That's precisely why I'm asking for what possible workflow
could require so many concurrent open Apps for one human to allegedly be
rapidly swapping between.
Workflows are subject to the Laws of Diminishing Returns. For any
modern system with fast storage (eg, NVMe), the pretense of a
productivity gains from leaving Apps resident in RAM has functionally
ended for the Pareto Principle 80% portion.
My "workflow" is just revolving through different apps for various
functions.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 3/22/25 17:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in >>>>>>>>> support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't >>>> mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
They are running, dude.
I can guarantee you that most will be idling or backgrounded by the OS.
Plus, that's nothing that a mid-range PC or base mac couldn't handle
easily.
Come back when you have some real demanding computing requirements.
ROFL, "come back when you", uh huh, no this is crossposted to a
newsgroup populated by people with a pulse. What I showed in the
image was actually not as loaded as it will get with my system. GIMP
was the only extra thing running, not LibreOffice or any array of PDF
windows or something. I can eat up RAM.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 19:17:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote in <vrnqva$18oag$4@dont-email.me>:
On 2025-03-22 14:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle.
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [inWhat actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
support of needed apps and use].
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
I've owned two Mac Minis -- it's notebook hardware that runs slow as molasses.
We have a Mac Studio now, which was _way_ overpriced for what we got. Probably the most intensive application I've tried on it is Fooocus
(which uses pyTorch), and I'd roughly estimate it is 1/4 the speed
of my Linux workstation.
(You might blame pyTorch for that, as perhaps it doesn't use
the GPU/NPU -- but I blame Apple for not ensuring
that such things are integrated immediately.)
It does have acceptable performance for everything Mrs. vallor uses
it for, but that's not much. Nevertheless, it's better than we
saw with either of the Mac minis. (The first Mac mini we owned
had a 5400RPM spinner for its main drive! Ugh.)
TL;DR: The Mac Studio is a certified UNIX(r) workstation -- and has
the price tag to prove it. But it doesn't chooch very well.
(note addition of csma)
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
[A souped up Mac mini] would match what I have with Linux [in support of needed apps and use].What actual tasks do you use the computer to complete?
Keeping everything I run loaded at once.
What do you run, and what resources does each use?
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png
So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle.
Incorrect, I use beyond 16 GB RAM and even puke out a little over 32
at times having these tiny uses of swap.
On 2025-03-23 11:54, Joel wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
He's [JWC is] more like scabies: really irritating and
difficult to get rid of.
OK, Mac user.
You might have as well said "air breather".
If you need assistance with insults, I can help.
Can and will aren't equal.
I think your nym as "Buffy" would be more insightful.
The point is, Sn!pe can't talk high-and-mighty about me, a Linux
user.
A Linux user would need additional accolades to be high-and-mighty.
I'm only 5'10" but I'm somewhat strong.
Tough to be everything at once.
Sn!pe gives me no reason to believe she uses the command line.
I used vim to type this.
It's up to the "user" to "use" what works for them.
That's real equality.
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine, but you see, that's for Usenet,
Which is basically an admission that Linux isn't up to the job.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine [in Linux], but you see, that's for Usenet,
Which is basically an admission that Linux isn't up to the job.
Nope.
There are GUI newsreaders for Linux, but also console ones that
are superb.
I like Agent because I used it for years and years before
using Linux all the time. It doesn't imply Linux can't run something
equally good, in fact it's running Agent itself thanks to Wine. How
is that "not up to the job", pray tell, Alan
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-23 11:51, Joel wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
On 3/22/25 17:52, Joel wrote:
Um...yeah, so? That you have ~25 Apps on your machine's Dock doesn't >>>>>> mean that you have 25 Apps running concurrently.
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png >>>>>>
They are running, dude.
I can guarantee you that most will be idling or backgrounded by the OS. >>>> Plus, that's nothing that a mid-range PC or base mac couldn't handle
easily.
Come back when you have some real demanding computing requirements.
ROFL, "come back when you", uh huh, no this is crossposted to a
newsgroup populated by people with a pulse. What I showed in the
image was actually not as loaded as it will get with my system. GIMP
was the only extra thing running, not LibreOffice or any array of PDF
windows or something. I can eat up RAM.
And yet you won't show the proof...
I don't have a need to prove to you that I'm telling the truth.
ISo show it.
have used a hair of swap, with 32 GB, it happens after a while of
running the computer and using things that use RAM.
On 2025-03-24 16:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Incorrect, I use beyond 16 GB RAM and even puke out a little over 32Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png >>>>>So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle. >>>>
at times having these tiny uses of swap.
Funny you won't show it, huh?
I'm including the use of cache in overall RAM use, the use of swap
when all 32 GB is used up to demonstrate that I really need the
resources I've provided my system.
And you STILL won't show it.
On 2025-03-24 5:42 p.m., Alan wrote:
On 2025-03-23 11:54, Joel wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
He's [JWC is] more like scabies: really irritating and
difficult to get rid of.
OK, Mac user.
You might have as well said "air breather".
If you need assistance with insults, I can help.
Can and will aren't equal.
I think your nym as "Buffy" would be more insightful.
The point is, Sn!pe can't talk high-and-mighty about me, a Linux >>>>>>> user.
A Linux user would need additional accolades to be high-and-mighty. >>>>>> I'm only 5'10" but I'm somewhat strong.
Tough to be everything at once.
Sn!pe gives me no reason to believe she uses the command line.
I used vim to type this.
It's up to the "user" to "use" what works for them.
That's real equality.
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine, but you see, that's for Usenet,
Which is basically an admission that Linux isn't up to the job.
He prefers the Forte Agent interface for some reason, I believe that
chrisv here does too. There's nothing wrong with that. There are decent Usenet readers in Linux, but some might just be used to whatever they
first used.
On 2025-03-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:And there are GUI options as well (I assume).
On 2025-03-24 16:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Incorrect, I use beyond 16 GB RAM and even puke out a little over 32 >>>>> at times having these tiny uses of swap.Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png >>>>>>So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle. >>>>>
Funny you won't show it, huh?
I'm including the use of cache in overall RAM use, the use of swap
when all 32 GB is used up to demonstrate that I really need the
resources I've provided my system.
And you STILL won't show it.
swapon -s
free -m
top
Are just a couple of methods.
There are more.
On 2025-03-24 15:57, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine [in Linux], but you see, that's for Usenet,
Which is basically an admission that Linux isn't up to the job.
Nope.
Yup.
There are GUI newsreaders for Linux, but also console ones that
are superb.
And yet you choose not to use them.
I like Agent because I used it for years and years before
using Linux all the time. It doesn't imply Linux can't run something
equally good, in fact it's running Agent itself thanks to Wine. How
is that "not up to the job", pray tell, Alan
It's running it under emulation.
You're using computer resources to emulate Windows...
...and you can't see how that relates to your need to spend more on RAM,
etc.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
this [thread] is crossposted to a
newsgroup populated by people with a pulse. What I showed in the
image was actually not as loaded as it will get with my system. GIMP >>>>> was the only extra thing running, not LibreOffice or any array of PDF >>>>> windows or something. I can eat up RAM.
And yet you won't show the proof...
I don't have a need to prove to you that I'm telling the truth.
Yeah, actually:
you do.
ISo show it.
have used a hair of swap, with 32 GB, it happens after a while of
running the computer and using things that use RAM.
Why? What do I need to prove I'm telling you the truth about such a
simple matter?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine [in Linux], but you see, that's for Usenet,
Which is basically an admission that Linux isn't up to the job.
Nope.
Yup.
There are GUI newsreaders for Linux, but also console ones that
are superb.
And yet you choose not to use them.
I like Agent because I used it for years and years before
using Linux all the time. It doesn't imply Linux can't run something
equally good, in fact it's running Agent itself thanks to Wine. How
is that "not up to the job", pray tell, Alan
It's running it under emulation.
You're using computer resources to emulate Windows...
...and you can't see how that relates to your need to spend more on RAM,
etc.
You have a very small mind, Alan.
On 2025-03-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-24 15:57, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine [in Linux], but you see, that's for Usenet,
Which is basically an admission that Linux isn't up to the job.
Nope.
Yup.
There are GUI newsreaders for Linux, but also console ones that
are superb.
And yet you choose not to use them.
I like Agent because I used it for years and years before
using Linux all the time. It doesn't imply Linux can't run something
equally good, in fact it's running Agent itself thanks to Wine. How
is that "not up to the job", pray tell, Alan
It's running it under emulation.
You're using computer resources to emulate Windows...
...and you can't see how that relates to your need to spend more on RAM,
etc.
At one time Agent was a good program but it's a fossil these days.
The spell checker is way behind the times.
The configuration in the latest version is a nightmare and spread out all over
the place and basic items are not easy to find.
Why run a very outdated program when Linux offers better alternatives?
Try PAN or Thunderbird.
p.s I get it if the OP has a zillion messages saved and wants access to them.
On 2025-03-24 17:59, pothead wrote:
On 2025-03-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-24 15:57, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I'm using Forte Agent under Wine [in Linux], but you see, that's for Usenet,
Which is basically an admission that Linux isn't up to the job.
Nope.
Yup.
There are GUI newsreaders for Linux, but also console ones that
are superb.
And yet you choose not to use them.
I like Agent because I used it for years and years before
using Linux all the time. It doesn't imply Linux can't run something
equally good, in fact it's running Agent itself thanks to Wine. How
is that "not up to the job", pray tell, Alan
It's running it under emulation.
You're using computer resources to emulate Windows...
...and you can't see how that relates to your need to spend more on RAM, >>> etc.
At one time Agent was a good program but it's a fossil these days.
The spell checker is way behind the times.
The configuration in the latest version is a nightmare and spread out all over
the place and basic items are not easy to find.
Why run a very outdated program when Linux offers better alternatives?
Try PAN or Thunderbird.
p.s I get it if the OP has a zillion messages saved and wants access to them.
Migrating such data CAN be a pain...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
this [thread] is crossposted to a
newsgroup populated by people with a pulse. What I showed in the >>>>>>> image was actually not as loaded as it will get with my system. GIMP >>>>>>> was the only extra thing running, not LibreOffice or any array of PDF >>>>>>> windows or something. I can eat up RAM.
And yet you won't show the proof...
I don't have a need to prove to you that I'm telling the truth.
Yeah, actually:
you do.
ISo show it.
have used a hair of swap, with 32 GB, it happens after a while of
running the computer and using things that use RAM.
Why? What do I need to prove I'm telling you the truth about such a
simple matter?
Because it's easy, and if you could show it, you would.
Not showing it makes you look like a liar.
Do you think my collection of concurrently running apps would not use
any RAM, or something?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-24 17:59, pothead wrote:
At one time Agent was a good program but it's a fossil these days.
The spell checker is way behind the times.
The configuration in the latest version is a nightmare and spread out all over
the place and basic items are not easy to find.
Why run a very outdated program when Linux offers better alternatives?
Try PAN or Thunderbird.
p.s I get it if the OP has a zillion messages saved and wants access to them.
Migrating such data CAN be a pain...
I could use Agent simply for its archives of old messages, and use
another app for live Usenet functions, but I *like* using Agent, for
all its datedness, it still does what I like it to do.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I could use Agent simply for its archives of old messages, and use
another app for live Usenet functions, but I *like* using Agent, for
all its datedness, it still does what I like it to do.
Right.
Meaning that Linux cannot fulfill all of your needs.
That's patently stupid. I could use something other than Agent. I am
using Agent under Linux. Deal with that.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
ISo show it.
have used a hair of swap, with 32 GB, it happens after a while of >>>>>>> running the computer and using things that use RAM.
Why? What do I need to prove I'm telling you the truth about such a >>>>> simple matter?
Because it's easy, and if you could show it, you would.
Not showing it makes you look like a liar.
Do you think my collection of concurrently running apps would not use
any RAM, or something?
I think you could show us...
...if you didn't have something to hide.
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I could use Agent simply for its archives of old messages, and use
another app for live Usenet functions, but I *like* using Agent, for >>>>> all its datedness, it still does what I like it to do.
Right.
Meaning that Linux cannot fulfill all of your needs.
That's patently stupid. I could use something other than Agent. I am
using Agent under Linux. Deal with that.
No. You're using Agent in an emulator under Linux;
Not exactly, no, it's not emulating anything, it's literally providing
the answers to API calls as if it were really Winblows.
costing you
performance, when you claim that your needs for performance are so high.
Not really, I have a great system.So you say...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
ISo show it.
have used a hair of swap, with 32 GB, it happens after a while of >>>>>>>>> running the computer and using things that use RAM.
Why? What do I need to prove I'm telling you the truth about such a >>>>>>> simple matter?
Because it's easy, and if you could show it, you would.
Not showing it makes you look like a liar.
Do you think my collection of concurrently running apps would not use >>>>> any RAM, or something?
I think you could show us...
...if you didn't have something to hide.
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
Are you that dumb?
It was using over 25 billion bytes of RAM,
including cache. 16 GB would be far below that.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I could use Agent simply for its archives of old messages, and use >>>>>>> another app for live Usenet functions, but I *like* using Agent, for >>>>>>> all its datedness, it still does what I like it to do.
Right.
Meaning that Linux cannot fulfill all of your needs.
That's patently stupid. I could use something other than Agent. I am >>>>> using Agent under Linux. Deal with that.
No. You're using Agent in an emulator under Linux;
Not exactly, no, it's not emulating anything, it's literally providing
the answers to API calls as if it were really Winblows.
Which is precisely what "emulation" means.
A process makes an API call that would normally be made to the Windows OS... >>
...and WiNE emulates the response.
Nope. It translates it into something Linux or macOS understands.
So you say...costing youNot really, I have a great system.
performance, when you claim that your needs for performance are so high. >>>
...but you need to use Windows applications to fulfill all your needs.
I could run Windows 11, on this machine. It would simply be inferiorAnd yet you need Windows applications to make your computing experience whole...
to running Linux, and using Wine sparingly.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Do you think my collection of concurrently running apps would not use >>>>>>> any RAM, or something?
I think you could show us...
...if you didn't have something to hide.
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
Are you that dumb?
Not as dumb as you...
It was using over 25 billion bytes of RAM,
including cache. 16 GB would be far below that.
1. It was only "using over 25 billion bytes of RAM" because you're
counting caching; which is what smart systems do when there's RAM lying
around free.
And it's good to have ample RAM for it, is the point.
2. You seem to think that the next step below having 32GB of RAM is 16GB.
ROFL. You are proving that you have a small mind. Yes, Alan, II only mentioned it to show your limited thinking.
could've installed an additional 8 GB to the original 16, for 24. I
could also drink a fuckin' Pepsi and realize how overanalyzed that
would be, I bought the same pair I originally had, to make four times
8 GB instead of two times 8 GB, it was a very sensible and affordable decision, because in the ensuing years since I assembled the machine,
the prices of RAM had declined.
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And
steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
It just seems stupid, I'm intelligent enough to handle Linux, why
would I screw around with Apple?
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
More on the hardware side, the Mac mini is a pretty nifty solution toHave you actually expanded your "real" tower desktop?
the "regular desktop" demand for an Apple device, and I could use one,
but it nevertheless lacks the expandability of my real tower desktop
system.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
No. You're using Agent in an emulator under Linux;
Not exactly, no, it's not emulating anything, it's literally providing >>>>> the answers to API calls as if it were really Winblows.
Which is precisely what "emulation" means.
A process makes an API call that would normally be made to the Windows OS...
...and WiNE emulates the response.
Nope. It translates it into something Linux or macOS understands.
That is what "emulation" means.
Hint: Wine is "Wine Is Not an Emulator", in name. Because it really
isn't one - it's a compatibility layer, as it calls itself, making
real Linux or macOS calls to provide the services of the Microsoft
APIs.
And yet you need Windows applications to make your computing experienceSo you say...costing youNot really, I have a great system.
performance, when you claim that your needs for performance are so high. >>>>>
...but you need to use Windows applications to fulfill all your needs.
I could run Windows 11, on this machine. It would simply be inferior
to running Linux, and using Wine sparingly.
whole...
The few Windows apps I have under Wine are small, serving specificYou think that disproves my point?
purposes the way *I* happen to be used to, being a former Winblows
user.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I only mentioned it to show your limited thinking.2. You seem to think that the next step below having 32GB of RAM is 16GB. >>>ROFL. You are proving that you have a small mind. Yes, Alan, I
could've installed an additional 8 GB to the original 16, for 24. I
could also drink a fuckin' Pepsi and realize how overanalyzed that
would be, I bought the same pair I originally had, to make four times
8 GB instead of two times 8 GB, it was a very sensible and affordable
decision, because in the ensuing years since I assembled the machine,
the prices of RAM had declined.
OK, but seriously, if I started with two times 8 GB, why would the
next step be to add two times 4 GB? A mere 50% increase, not even
using as large a size as the first two? Doesn't that seem kinda gay?
It's an admission that you can't use Linux without making compromises.
Doesn't that seem kinda gay?
On 2025-03-24 19:28, Joel wrote:
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-25, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-24 16:13, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/
yPGDm6a.png
So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily >>>>>>>> handle.
Incorrect, I use beyond 16 GB RAM and even puke out a little over 32 >>>>>>> at times having these tiny uses of swap.
Funny you won't show it, huh?
I'm including the use of cache in overall RAM use, the use of swap
when all 32 GB is used up to demonstrate that I really need the
resources I've provided my system.
And you STILL won't show it.
swapon -s
free -m
top
Are just a couple of methods.
There are more.
But there's a larger point here, that Alan can't perceive, which is
that I'm not subject to Apple's ridiculous prices for hardware, I paid
a little over a hundred in 2021 for a 1 TB NVMe SSD, something still
to covet in an Apple machine in 2025. Upgrading to 32 GB RAM,
installing the WiFi adapter and second SSD, even my video card, were
all inexpensive upgrades. My computer rocks, because I made it, and
that includes installing Linux, instead of being hand-held by Apple.
And now you're trying to dodge the subject.
You claimed you NEEDED these high specs...
...but you won't show that it's actually so.
In article <uorjtj1svg4iel6a1il22vrqbe394idovc@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And >steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
It just seems stupid, I'm intelligent enough to handle Linux, why
would I screw around with Apple?
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
More on the hardware side, the Mac mini is a pretty nifty solution to
the "regular desktop" demand for an Apple device, and I could use one,
but it nevertheless lacks the expandability of my real tower desktop
system.
On 2025-03-25 00:00, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <uorjtj1svg4iel6a1il22vrqbe394idovc@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I
think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
He's suggesting that in addition to Apple devices being more or less a
walled garden (not really since you can install from outside the Apple
Store even though the operating system makes that needlessly annoying
for some applications like Betterbird), you lose control in that your hardware is abandoned after a number of years. On an x86-64 machine,
this isn't a problem since you can go ahead and install Linux. However,
once Apple decides not to supply you with MacOS anymore, you're stuck.
You /CAN/ continue to use it, but the lack of updates might make its use
a danger if you are connecting to the Internet.
In article <KBxEP.1621523$TBhc.513900@fx16.iad>,
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-03-25 00:00, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <uorjtj1svg4iel6a1il22vrqbe394idovc@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And >>> steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
He's suggesting that in addition to Apple devices being more or less a
walled garden (not really since you can install from outside the Apple
Store even though the operating system makes that needlessly annoying
for some applications like Betterbird), you lose control in that your
hardware is abandoned after a number of years. On an x86-64 machine,
this isn't a problem since you can go ahead and install Linux. However,
once Apple decides not to supply you with MacOS anymore, you're stuck.
You /CAN/ continue to use it, but the lack of updates might make its use
a danger if you are connecting to the Internet.
Macs continue to run fine.
I have an 11 year old Mini that works fine. I have this ancient Dual
G5 tower (20 years old) that runs fine. I am using screen sharing (the equivalent to remote desktop on Windows) from my M2 Macbook Pro to type
this message on the PPC G5 tower because I like MT-NewsWatcher.
I have an even older Dual G4 tower (23 years old, the wind tunnel box
AKA Mirror Drive Door) that also runs fine.
No "loss of control" here. And if installing Linux means you are "in control" then I would rather be "out of control".
In article <cna4uj9rqu12nhgg4r74cne6jo0uacgis2@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And >>> steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
It just seems stupid, I'm intelligent enough to handle Linux, why
would I screw around with Apple?
I can "handle Linux" too. I just no longer want to waste my time on
that. I have better things to do with my time.
Because in the long run, money is easier to accumulate than time. For
all of us.
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
More on the hardware side, the Mac mini is a pretty nifty solution to
the "regular desktop" demand for an Apple device, and I could use one,
but it nevertheless lacks the expandability of my real tower desktop
system.
Ah yes. The old "expandability" thing.
Yeah, that used to be important to me too. But I no longer care about that. I just buy what I need. If I need more later, then I buy a new
one and sell the old one.
Just like we do with cars, microwave ovens, TVs, phones and every other consumer product on the planet. You can't "expand" any of those. So
why worry about "expanding" something as common as a modern computer
that costs less than $700?
Back in the days when $1,500 got you 8K of RAM (yes K), no hard drive
(hard drives alone were once $5,000 for 10 MB. Yes Megabytes), no green screen monitor (that was another $500), one 5" floppy drive and no
software except maybe a primitive DOS and a BASIC interpreter,
expandability was very important. You had to protect your initial investment.
And that was 1980 dollars. That's like spending $6,000 today on a computer. Or $8,000 including a monitor and some software. Or
$28,000 including that 10MB hard drive.
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Incorrect, I use beyond 16 GB RAM and even puke out a little over 32 >>>>>> at times having these tiny uses of swap.Take a look at my Cinnamon taskbar: https://i.imgur.com/yPGDm6a.png >>>>>>>So nothing a Mac Mini with a base configuration couldn't easily handle. >>>>>>
Funny you won't show it, huh?
I'm including the use of cache in overall RAM use, the use of swap
when all 32 GB is used up to demonstrate that I really need the
resources I've provided my system.
Not at all. It just means the OS is being efficient and using the fastest >>> local storage available to it as much as possible. RAM is mostly used for >>> caches.
If you were brave enough to show your memory usage you'd see it for
yourself.
I have been monitoring it for months, I know how it goes. I have
reached the point of the OS using swap, when main RAM and cache
saturated the 32 GB.
That doesn't actually mean you *need* 32GB.
On 2025-03-25 10:35, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <KBxEP.1621523$TBhc.513900@fx16.iad>,
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-03-25 00:00, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <uorjtj1svg4iel6a1il22vrqbe394idovc@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And >>>> steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
He's suggesting that in addition to Apple devices being more or less a
walled garden (not really since you can install from outside the Apple
Store even though the operating system makes that needlessly annoying
for some applications like Betterbird), you lose control in that your
hardware is abandoned after a number of years. On an x86-64 machine,
this isn't a problem since you can go ahead and install Linux. However,
once Apple decides not to supply you with MacOS anymore, you're stuck.
You /CAN/ continue to use it, but the lack of updates might make its use >>> a danger if you are connecting to the Internet.
Macs continue to run fine.
I have an 11 year old Mini that works fine. I have this ancient Dual
G5 tower (20 years old) that runs fine. I am using screen sharing (the
equivalent to remote desktop on Windows) from my M2 Macbook Pro to type
this message on the PPC G5 tower because I like MT-NewsWatcher.
I have an even older Dual G4 tower (23 years old, the wind tunnel box
AKA Mirror Drive Door) that also runs fine.
No "loss of control" here. And if installing Linux means you are "in
control" then I would rather be "out of control".
On this old Mac, the only advantage I would get from using MacOS is
that the webcam would work without issue. It is possible to get it
working in Linux, but it will stop working one kernel update later. The choice is therefore between using an outdated MacOS which becomes less
secure with every passing day
but properly supports the hardware or a secure Linux which doesn't
allow every component to work out of the box. I chose Linux since I
don't need to be seen through this camera anyway.
In article <KBxEP.1621523$TBhc.513900@fx16.iad>,
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-03-25 00:00, Johnny LaRue wrote:
In article <uorjtj1svg4iel6a1il22vrqbe394idovc@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
A Mac mini would be $1400. What I could build for that is
unbelievable. Getting macOS to me isn't so amazing, Linux does OK. I >>>> think Apple is like M$ selling products to high-end users first.
Yes, Apple costs more than Dell. And BMWs cost more than Chevys. And >>> steak costs more than chicken.
What is your point?
But what is the alleged "sacrifice of control"? What does that even
mean? My Macs are somehow "out of control"?
He's suggesting that in addition to Apple devices being more or less a
walled garden (not really since you can install from outside the Apple
Store even though the operating system makes that needlessly annoying
for some applications like Betterbird), you lose control in that your
hardware is abandoned after a number of years. On an x86-64 machine,
this isn't a problem since you can go ahead and install Linux. However,
once Apple decides not to supply you with MacOS anymore, you're stuck.
You /CAN/ continue to use it, but the lack of updates might make its use
a danger if you are connecting to the Internet.
Macs continue to run fine.
I have an 11 year old Mini that works fine. I have this ancient Dual
G5 tower (20 years old) that runs fine. I am using screen sharing (the equivalent to remote desktop on Windows) from my M2 Macbook Pro to type
this message on the PPC G5 tower because I like MT-NewsWatcher.
I have an even older Dual G4 tower (23 years old, the wind tunnel box
AKA Mirror Drive Door) that also runs fine.
No "loss of control" here. And if installing Linux means you are "in control" then I would rather be "out of control".
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:27:03 -0400, Johnny LaRue wrote:
So they run a Mac or a Dell or an HP. "OS" has no meaning to most
people.
It's rather hard to miss running on a Windows box. If nothing else the self-advertising popups will remind you.
On 2025-03-21 18:49, Joel wrote:
Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
Linux is fun if you like to tinker with OSes. Windows is fine if you
need it for work. Macs are easy to use and fit right in with iPhones
and iPads.
But in general, most people have no real use for "computers" these days. >> A phone and a maybe tablet are really all most people need for personal, >> every day use.
So arguing about "how good (Linux/Mac/Windows) really is" is an argument >> that is years out of date.
"I promise you Linux is better than people think" does not matter. No
one today cares. I promise you that a Beta VCR was better than a VHS
VCR.
If you don't want to learn anything, I get it.You really don't.
Do you want to know every detail of how to construct a car...
...or do you just want to drive one?
Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:
Linux is fun if you like to tinker with OSes. Windows is fine if you
need it for work. Macs are easy to use and fit right in with iPhones
and iPads.
But in general, most people have no real use for "computers" these days.
A phone and a maybe tablet are really all most people need for personal, >every day use.
So arguing about "how good (Linux/Mac/Windows) really is" is an argument >that is years out of date.
"I promise you Linux is better than people think" does not matter. No
one today cares. I promise you that a Beta VCR was better than a VHS
VCR.
If you don't want to learn anything, I get it.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
the [Linux] OS us[ed] swap, when main RAM and cache
saturated the 32 GB.
That doesn't actually mean you *need* 32GB.
Oh sure, I'll just rely on swap! Great, back to the 1990s, heh.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-25 11:54, Joel wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
the [Linux] OS us[ed] swap, when main RAM and cache
saturated the 32 GB.
That doesn't actually mean you *need* 32GB.
Oh sure, I'll just rely on swap! Great, back to the 1990s, heh.
What you showed was 25GB usage and some of that was caching.
You were nowhere NEAR needing swap space.
But if I *didn't* have the whole 32 GB, Alan, the RAM would getAnd yet you weren't able to show that.
saturated rather quickly, leading to use of swap.
I feel bad for anyone who spent that much money on a computer back in
the day, only to be told that it was obsolete a year or two later. The
only affordable options for most people were Atari 800s, Commodore 64s
or TI994/As, everything else seemed to require us to take a second
mortgage on our homes.
Whether he needs it or not, 32GB is going to be a minimum before we know
it. I imagine that people in 1995 were telling others that they didn't
*need* 16MB too.
Yes, I actually did that in 1988 or so. On Slackware Linux I think.
Or maybe it was Coherent Unix.
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
the [Linux] OS us[ed] swap, when main RAM and cache
saturated the 32 GB.
That doesn't actually mean you *need* 32GB.
Oh sure, I'll just rely on swap! Great, back to the 1990s, heh.
The OS will always try to maximise RAM usage regardless of how much you
have. In and of itself is not evidence of the need for that amount of RAM.
In modern systems there's no noticeable difference when dipping into swap. Certainly not when flushing caches. PCI SSD and NVMe hardware are a world away from slow spinners of the 90s.
Despite building your own PC (big deal!) you seem quite ignorant on how it works. Sounds like a Mac would actually be better for you. lol.
On 2025-03-26 03:40, Chris wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
the [Linux] OS us[ed] swap, when main RAM and cache
saturated the 32 GB.
That doesn't actually mean you *need* 32GB.
Oh sure, I'll just rely on swap! Great, back to the 1990s, heh.
The OS will always try to maximise RAM usage regardless of how much you
have. In and of itself is not evidence of the need for that amount of RAM. >>
In modern systems there's no noticeable difference when dipping into swap. >> Certainly not when flushing caches. PCI SSD and NVMe hardware are a world
away from slow spinners of the 90s.
Despite building your own PC (big deal!) you seem quite ignorant on how it >> works. Sounds like a Mac would actually be better for you. lol.
I have to admit that I find it strange how Windows 11 uses 10GB of RAM
to run the exact same software I use on Linux. In Linux, having Brave, Betterbird and Telegram open needs about 3GB. I understand that the
operating system will use up as much RAM as it can but how the heck do
those three applications need 10GB?
You really overstepped, with this one, Winblows is far more advanced
than anything Apple actually created in their OS, they borrowed BSD's
brain for the hard parts. The Apple-specific features of macOS are
fairly laughable, in truth, although I can understand some people just
prefer the platform, flushing money down the toilet to get it.
In article <b2t8uj1mt9jkrvhhqrbo3i1909bmn908g9@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
You really overstepped, with this one, Winblows is far more advanced
than anything Apple actually created in their OS, they borrowed BSD's
brain for the hard parts. The Apple-specific features of macOS are
fairly laughable, in truth, although I can understand some people just
prefer the platform, flushing money down the toilet to get it.
So what then is Linux? That also "borrowed Unix's brain for the hard parts".
The GUIs that Linux has come up with ARE laughable. Mostly bad copies
of Windows. MacOS GUI is totally unique.
Windows is an extremely primitive OS. In fact, it is the only fully proprietary OS remaining. Everything else is Unix-based. Linux,
Android, iOS, MacOS, Apple watches. Linux/Unix even runs on
mainframes.
Windows runs only on Windows PC. Nothing else. Because it is neither portable nor scalable. Unix was both from the very beginning. Look
how long it has taken to get Windows running on Arm. And it is still
not perfect.
But MacOS has gone thru 3 processor changes. PPC to Intel to Arm. All
very well done. Because Unix is scalable and portable.
And you flush money down the toilet to buy a Windows PC and then flush
time down the toilet installing Linux. What is your point?
but how do you see jpegs
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Despite building your own PC (big deal!) you seem quite ignorant on how it
works. Sounds like a Mac would actually be better for you. lol.
The point is, I could run with less RAM, but it'd use swap heavily.
There's no evidence of that. Especially given the types of apps you run. >>>
32
GB is about right, for how I use a PC.
I have a mac with 32GB - not my choice - and use much more resource
demanding apps than you which I almost never use all of it.
You have concluded this all from reading my Usenet posts, you must be
psychic, heh.
Nope. You've given enough info to confirm that you're not a power user so a basic spec machine will be fine for your *needs*. Whether you want more is
up to you.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-03-27 03:45, Chris wrote:
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
32
GB is about right, for how I use a PC.
I have a mac with 32GB - not my choice - and use much more resource
demanding apps than you which I almost never use all of it.
You have concluded this all from reading my Usenet posts, you must be
psychic, heh.
Nope. You've given enough info to confirm that you're not a power user so a >>> basic spec machine will be fine for your *needs*. Whether you want more is >>> up to you.
Realistically, Joel would be fine using a Celeron with no more than 8GB
of RAM.
Ridiculous, that would function more or less, but not very *well*.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
32
GB is about right, for how I use a PC.
I have a mac with 32GB - not my choice - and use much more resource
demanding apps than you which I almost never use all of it.
You have concluded this all from reading my Usenet posts, you must be
psychic, heh.
Nope. You've given enough info to confirm that you're not a power user so a >>basic spec machine will be fine for your *needs*. Whether you want more is >>up to you.
You're a fucking moron, I'm beyond a "power user". You just ASSume
shit, about me and my computer. And wrongly.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-27, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:Some people should not be allowed anywhere near a computer.
Realistically, Joel would be fine using a Celeron with no more than 8GB >>>> of RAM.
Ridiculous, that would function more or less, but not very *well*.
You are one of them.
That's just spew, I'm a fairly accomplished computer user, you aren't
better than me, you aren't so great. You're just a leftover from
times past, which is why you make such idiotic political statements.
You're an emotional thinker.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2025-03-27, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:Some people should not be allowed anywhere near a computer.
Realistically, Joel would be fine using a Celeron with no more than 8GB >>>>of RAM.
Ridiculous, that would function more or less, but not very *well*.
You are one of them.
That's just spew, I'm a fairly accomplished computer user, you aren't
better than me, you aren't so great. You're just a leftover from
times past, which is why you make such idiotic political statements.
You're an emotional thinker.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I'm a fairly accomplished computer user, you [pothead] aren't
better than me, you aren't so great. You're just a leftover from
times past, which is why you make such idiotic political statements.
You're an emotional thinker.
So it is "fairly accomplished"...
...or 'I'm beyond a "power user".'
I stand by what I've claimed. I am a fairly masterful user of
computers.
On 2025-03-27, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
32
GB is about right, for how I use a PC.
I have a mac with 32GB - not my choice - and use much more resource
demanding apps than you which I almost never use all of it.
You have concluded this all from reading my Usenet posts, you must be
psychic, heh.
Nope. You've given enough info to confirm that you're not a power user so a >>> basic spec machine will be fine for your *needs*. Whether you want more is >>> up to you.
You're a fucking moron, I'm beyond a "power user". You just ASSume
shit, about me and my computer. And wrongly.
You can't be serious Joel.
You have flip flopped between Windows and Linux for years.
You screwed up your last PC build.
You claimed that Microsoft had somehow infected your computer so it could not be registered.
You are a total incompetent just like your motel room fruitcake buddy snit Michael
Glasser of Prescott Arizona.
BTW where is that idiot snit?
Is he in jail again for spousal abuse?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
(and that Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
https://i.imgur.com/4jItMI0.png
As you can see, today, I have puked out a little into swap.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
(and that Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
https://i.imgur.com/4jItMI0.png
As you can see, today, I have puked out a little into swap.
Dude: give it up.
You've got 33.5 decimal gigabytes of RAM.
19.2GB is in use with the other 14.3GB used for cache.
And 3.7MB...
...one HUNDREDTH of one percent of it...
...is swapped out...
...and you think that's a solid argument?
Linux has 14.3GB used for caching and for some reason chooses to swap a
tiny, TINY fraction of data rather than use a little less for cache...
...and you think you're proving something good?
So let me get this straight, your argument is that cache isn'tI'm arguing that you've yet to show your system actually using close to
actually needed?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I'm arguing that you've yet to show your system actually using close tohttps://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
(and that Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
https://i.imgur.com/4jItMI0.png
As you can see, today, I have puked out a little into swap.
Dude: give it up.
You've got 33.5 decimal gigabytes of RAM.
19.2GB is in use with the other 14.3GB used for cache.
And 3.7MB...
...one HUNDREDTH of one percent of it...
...is swapped out...
...and you think that's a solid argument?
Linux has 14.3GB used for caching and for some reason chooses to swap a >>>> tiny, TINY fraction of data rather than use a little less for cache... >>>>
...and you think you're proving something good?
So let me get this straight, your argument is that cache isn't
actually needed?
all the RAM you say you need.
It's not using it *for main RAM*, but including cache, it literally isNope.
using it all as the image shows, requiring the use of swap.
On 2025-03-24 19:54, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
ISo show it.
have used a hair of swap, with 32 GB, it happens after a while of >>>>>>>> running the computer and using things that use RAM.
Why? What do I need to prove I'm telling you the truth about such a >>>>>> simple matter?
Because it's easy, and if you could show it, you would.
Not showing it makes you look like a liar.
Do you think my collection of concurrently running apps would not use
any RAM, or something?
I think you could show us...
...if you didn't have something to hide.
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
(and that Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
On 2025-04-04 17:21, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:Nope.
I'm arguing that you've yet to show your system actually using close tohttps://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
(and that Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
https://i.imgur.com/4jItMI0.png
As you can see, today, I have puked out a little into swap.
Dude: give it up.
You've got 33.5 decimal gigabytes of RAM.
19.2GB is in use with the other 14.3GB used for cache.
And 3.7MB...
...one HUNDREDTH of one percent of it...
...is swapped out...
...and you think that's a solid argument?
Linux has 14.3GB used for caching and for some reason chooses to swap a >>>>> tiny, TINY fraction of data rather than use a little less for cache... >>>>>
...and you think you're proving something good?
So let me get this straight, your argument is that cache isn't
actually needed?
all the RAM you say you need.
It's not using it *for main RAM*, but including cache, it literally is
using it all as the image shows, requiring the use of swap.
For whatever reason, Linux is prioritizing caching over keeping data in
RAM to avoid swapping out.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
(and that Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
https://i.imgur.com/4jItMI0.png
As you can see, today, I have puked out a little into swap.
Dude: give it up.
You've got 33.5 decimal gigabytes of RAM.
19.2GB is in use with the other 14.3GB used for cache.
And 3.7MB...
...one HUNDREDTH of one percent of it...
...is swapped out...
...and you think that's a solid argument?
Linux has 14.3GB used for caching and for some reason chooses to swap a >tiny, TINY fraction of data rather than use a little less for cache...
...and you think you're proving something good?
So let me get this straight, your argument is that cache isn't
actually needed?
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Alan wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
[...] Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
:-D
That's not "Linux", that's just one GUI tool to measure RAM. For
example,
from "man free":
free [options]
OPTIONS
-b, --bytes
Display the amount of memory in bytes.
-k, --kibi
Display the amount of memory in kibibytes. This is the
default.
-m, --mebi
Display the amount of memory in mebibytes.
-g, --gibi
Display the amount of memory in gibibytes.
--tebi Display the amount of memory in tebibytes.
--pebi Display the amount of memory in pebibytes.
--kilo Display the amount of memory in kilobytes. Implies --si.
--mega Display the amount of memory in megabytes. Implies --si.
--giga Display the amount of memory in gigabytes. Implies --si.
--tera Display the amount of memory in terabytes. Implies --si.
--peta Display the amount of memory in petabytes. Implies --si.
-h, --human
Show all output fields automatically scaled to shortest
three digit unit and display the units of print out.
Following units are used.
B = bytes Ki = kibibyte Mi = mebibyte Gi = gibibyte Ti =
tebibyte Pi = pebibyte
The "top" command (to show memory usage by process) has similar options.
But Alan can just let Apple think for him, no need to explain, zzz.
Joel wrote:
Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> wrote:and what will you do with this great creation
In article <b1t0vj53njfgitf5ntdl8ssvv4e40vlli9@4ax.com>,
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
https://i.imgur.com/bNZVr8U.png
You've just shown that you DO NOT need 32GB of RAM...
(and that Linux isn't smart enough to count RAM in base-2).
https://i.imgur.com/4jItMI0.png
As you can see, today, I have puked out a little into swap.
Dude: give it up.
You've got 33.5 decimal gigabytes of RAM.
19.2GB is in use with the other 14.3GB used for cache.
And 3.7MB...
...one HUNDREDTH of one percent of it...
...is swapped out...
...and you think that's a solid argument?
Linux has 14.3GB used for caching and for some reason chooses to
swap a
tiny, TINY fraction of data rather than use a little less for cache... >>>>>
...and you think you're proving something good?
So let me get this straight, your argument is that cache isn't
actually needed?
Correct. Cache is not actually NEEDED.
Yes, it is VERY nice to have spare RAM to use as system cache. But if
you were really using all of your RAM for applications, there would be
very little cache. Or maybe even no cache at all.
Cache is the first thing to go when YOU need more RAM, for whatever
reason. When you finish editing your 3 hour, 4K movie there will again >>> be free RAM and various things will be cached again.
If you had 48GB of RAM, you will initially have an even bigger system
cache. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, so the system will cache everything >>> it can.
That is, until YOU need it for whatever.
For example. This 32GB Mac currently has 15GB used and 17GB in cache. >>> No swap at all. I started up VMware to run Windows, which has 10GB
assigned to Windows. As expected, I now have 25GB used and 7GB in
cache. Still no swap used at all.
That is exactly how RAM/cache/swap is supposed to work. Cache
everything possible, but release it when it is needed by the user.
So, the fact that you are using 19GB and have 14GB in cache means YOU
are not "using all the RAM". The system IS using all the RAM, and that >>> is a good thing. But YOU have 14GB of RAM that YOU are not using.
Clearly, though, what I have makes my system more responsive, well
worth the meager investment in the RAM.
On 2025-03-24 19:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I could use Agent simply for its archives of old messages, and use
another app for live Usenet functions, but I *like* using Agent, for
all its datedness, it still does what I like it to do.
Right.
Meaning that Linux cannot fulfill all of your needs.
That's patently stupid. I could use something other than Agent. I am
using Agent under Linux. Deal with that.
No. You're using Agent in an emulator under Linux; costing you
performance, when you claim that your needs for performance are so high.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote at 03:16 this Tuesday (GMT):
On 2025-03-24 19:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I could use Agent simply for its archives of old messages, and use
another app for live Usenet functions, but I *like* using Agent, for >>>>> all its datedness, it still does what I like it to do.
Right.
Meaning that Linux cannot fulfill all of your needs.
That's patently stupid. I could use something other than Agent. I am
using Agent under Linux. Deal with that.
No. You're using Agent in an emulator under Linux; costing you
performance, when you claim that your needs for performance are so high.
Wine Is Not an Emulator
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote at 03:16 this Tuesday (GMT):
On 2025-03-24 19:52, Joel wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
I could use Agent simply for its archives of old messages, and use
another app for live Usenet functions, but I *like* using Agent, for >>>>> all its datedness, it still does what I like it to do.
Right.
Meaning that Linux cannot fulfill all of your needs.
That's patently stupid. I could use something other than Agent. I am
using Agent under Linux. Deal with that.
No. You're using Agent in an emulator under Linux; costing you
performance, when you claim that your needs for performance are so high.
Wine Is Not an Emulator
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 161:44:27 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,500 |
