people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Joel W. Crump wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be.
Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with
little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a >career, not just "a job".
I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me. >That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical >ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just buy a >computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
Tyrone wrote:
Joel W. Crump wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be.
Yes, because Windows doesn't require any thinking. It comes
pre-installed and has all the industry support.
Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with
little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a
career, not just "a job".
It's got nothing to do with money. It's got everything to do with
people already having experience with Windows. And, yes, all the
industry support does result in a somewhat slicker, prettier
experience.
I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me.
That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
An insignificant fraction of Linux users compile their kernel. If
they compile anything at all, it's because they are a software
developer.
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical
ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just buy a
computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
Other than needing to install it yourself, it requires no more, and
possibly less, hoops than Windows does. Many users don't require much
more than a Web browser, and Linux is more private and secure. See
how nice it is to have a computer and have it work without having your
data harvested?
I sweated in the heat, genius, it's not "technical ineptitude". I was
kind of strung out on DXM and careless, but I know how to put together
computers.
Plugging a plugging into the wall socket is not putting it together.
On 8/30/2025 12:41 AM, Tyrone wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks
with
little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I
have a
career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling the
latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me. >> That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
Even you - after you trashed your Linux box due to complete technical
ineptitude - are now running Windows 11. See how nice it is to just buy a
computer and have it work without jumping through hoops?
I sweated in the heat, genius, it's not "technical ineptitude". I was
kind of strung out on DXM and careless, but I know how to put together computers.
On 2025-08-30, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2025 12:41 AM, Tyrone wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with >>> little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a
career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me. >>> That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
On 8/30/2025 12:41 AM, Tyrone wrote:
people who run Linux tend to be more motivated.
Because they have to be. Desktop Linux mainly appeals to young geeks with >> little/no money. Nothing wrong with that. I used to be one.
But that was 25 years ago. Now I am older and I have money. Because I have a
career, not just "a job". I am no longer interested in "compiling the latest
kernel". I am perfectly fine with paying someone else to do that for me.
That's why I moved on from Linux to Windows to Macs.
Because I have more important things to do.
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the
China-based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what
they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got
with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit license),
but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got with my
new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doingThe irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
the right thing, sheesh.
On 2025-08-31, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion
dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the
China-based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what
they produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got
with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when
Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
It's better than being a fool like you Joel.
Why pay $200.00 for something that can be purchased legally for $20?
And seeing as you seem to have troubles with Windows and accused Microsoft of somehow disabling your license, how is that $200 "doing the right thing" license
working out for you?
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the
time and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from
my 2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads
I'm not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a
billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not
selling their wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they
produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I
got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when
Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected
and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the
screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
On 9/1/2025 8:29 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-08-31 3:37 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2025-08-31, Joel W. Crump <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
It's better than being a fool like you Joel.
Why pay $200.00 for something that can be purchased legally for $20?
The legality of those $20 licenses is up for debate.
The one I have will hold up, but it isn't movable to another machine.
And seeing as you seem to have troubles with Windows and accused
Microsoft of
somehow disabling your license, how is that $200 "doing the right
thing" license
working out for you?
Admittedly, when I used this Windows 10 license on my old MSI GT72,
the operating system would routinely deactivate the license every two
months or so. I imagine that it's because the machine came with its
own Windows 8.1 license and the Pro one I used atop it caused some
sort of conflict. Meanwhile, on this machine, the same license works
without issue. There is a possibility that Joel is right about the
license being deactivated for no reason.
I have admitted long ago that alcohol was adding to confusion in that instance, that I solved the problem.
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've donated >>>> money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the time
and while it turned out my existing license was transferable from my
2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased with its
parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate fuckwads I'm
not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company "with a billion
dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by not selling their
wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they
produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit license),
but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I got with my
new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't purchase the
license myself, so it's not really my responsibility when Microsoft is
tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
On 9/1/2025 4:29 PM, pothead wrote:
And BTW, Microsoft takes no issue with using a resellers key.
Joel is just a sucker. In more ways than one :)
You are just a useless brain-damaged goon who should shut up, and leave debate of this to people with some sense of reality. Of course they
"take no issue", I take issue, I know what I'm doing and why I'm doing
it. In the recent instance, it means accepting the low cost.
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than
expected and they might have less RAM than computers at the same
price, but the screen quality and battery life need to be considered.
However, upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since
one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
Then it is basically like the product keys that are tied to the
motherboard, allowing you to install and reinstall Windows without the
need to enter the product key at installation time. As far as I know,
they are still called OEM keys. If you don't mind buying another
license the moment you change computers, there is nothing wrong with
them. Nevertheless, I don't believe that Microsoft charges
manufacturers as little as $20 to put Windows on their hardware
legally. That's why the fact that they can be purchased for so little
is sketchy to me.
They go through large organizations that eventually sell unused licenses.
I stand by what I said. It might have actually gotten deactivated
through no fault of your own.
I had my TV hooked up to the computer's video and didn't see relevant
output sent to it in the OS-installation process.
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected
and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the
screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since
one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
On Mon, 1 Sep 2025 13:23:18 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1094kq6$3snn8$3@dont-email.me>:
On 9/1/25 08:34, CrudeSausage wrote:
...
To be fair, Apple's devices can be obtained for a fair price in their
default configurations. Sure, the storage might be smaller than expected >>> and they might have less RAM than computers at the same price, but the
screen quality and battery life need to be considered. However,
upgrading that default configuration is prohibitively expensive.
"Expensive" ... if one only focuses on "TB of Storage" and ignores the
net performance levels obtained.
A classical example is assuming that all SSDs perform the same, so since
one can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $25 at WalMart, that therefore any other
SSD configuration must be a 'rip off'///
No matter how much higher its bandwidth is:
SATA-3 SSD: ~550MB/sec
NVMe PCIe Gen 3 SSD: ~3,500MB/sec
2022 Mac Studio M1 Max: ~5000(R) to 6,500(W) MB/sec
-hh
Have you priced out 10Gbit/s Ethernet NICs for Macs?
Maybe I'm missing something, but most are over $100.
Can get one for PC for consumer prices, some less than $50:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LWU8BEB
On 8/31/2025 10:13 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-31 14:37, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/30/2025 8:22 PM, pothead wrote:
I gave away a $200 Windows license to switch to Linux, and I've
donated
money to a distro.
You paid $200 for a Windows license?
That's the retail price of Windows Pro, yes, I had the money at the
time and while it turned out my existing license was transferable
from my 2010 computer (just using the Win7 Pro key I had purchased
with its parts), it doesn't bother me because unlike some cheapskate
fuckwads I'm not afraid of paying my way, even if it's to a company
"with a billion dollars" or whatever, they didn't make a billion by
not selling their wares, FFS.
You can get it legally for ~$20.
Those licenses work, and my new mini PC basically has one (the China-
based manufacturer used multiple activation key to activate what they
produced, not a true Microsoft OEM therefore but it is a legit
license), but I would never buy from the people selling them, what I
got with my new device is OK for what it is, but in its case I didn't
purchase the license myself, so it's not really my responsibility
when Microsoft is tolerating the practice.
Too many red pills mixed with the blue ones?
You're free to be a cheapskate all you want, don't judge me for doing
the right thing, sheesh.
The irony of someone who complains about the cost of Apple's devices
calling someone else a "cheapskate"...
If overpaying for hardware to get great software support is a plus for
Apple, good for them. I prefer to think of Windows and Linux as being intended to reach a range of hardware, I can switch to Linux any time,
but Microsoft is giving me a real choice that makes me want to
indefinitely wait on that.
For example, my 2008 Sony 32" LCD TV is 720p/1080i but supports
1080p (even though it isn't advertised). Nevertheless, if you run
720p or 1080p content on it, you'll notice that some of the content
isn't on the screen. The sides are missing some content.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 48:23:32 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,283 |
| Posted today: | 1 |