[NEWS] Apple releases M3 MacBook Air models

The differentiator has never been the CPU.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Alan Browne

2024-03-05 14:12:45 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
   Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
   <https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
   Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.

The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.

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

Joerg Lorenz

2024-03-05 14:26:58 UTC

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

--
"Manus manum lavat."

Alan Browne

2024-03-05 19:52:40 UTC

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

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

dgb (David)

2024-03-05 20:42:04 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
Apple Store.

When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?

Alan Browne

2024-03-05 21:17:11 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?

Hard to answer.

The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.

It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.

4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.

I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.

Still a killer processor. But.

When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).

At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.

So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).

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

dgb (David)

2024-03-05 22:07:29 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?

Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).

Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.

My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change
it.
However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop
computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
Mint and it does this quite well.
I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
Good for you! :-)

(ACW added for info to others)

--
David

Alan Browne

2024-03-05 23:08:04 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?

Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).

Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.

Hope it helps you.

Post by dgb (David)
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change
it.

I'd consider that to be a pretty good rig.

There are ways to load up to date OS' on older machines such as:
https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/

(I'm not sure if that is the best way - do YOUR research before diving
in. More importantly do a full backup first!).

Post by dgb (David)
However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop
computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
Mint and it does this quite well.

I'm out of Linux projects at present. OTOH, I can't get Ubuntu to run
properly on the M3 under Fusion. (It works - but I can't drag files
into or out of it. Will need to network it instead).

My Pi project can be cross-compiled on the i7 or M3, so don't need Linux
much.

Post by dgb (David)
I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
Good for you! :-)

It's a nice display! And maybe someone will want the motherboard and
RAM from the iMac. (I doubt it...).

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

Your Name

2024-03-06 04:45:43 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?

Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).

Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change
it.
However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop
computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
Mint and it does this quite well.
I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
Good for you! :-)
(ACW added for info to others)

The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.

dgb (David)

2024-03-06 08:07:38 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our local
Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of? How does
each make you /feel/ please?

Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).

Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to change
it.
However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on to Sonoma.
I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide another 27 inch desktop
computer before this one dies! I'm also using an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux
Mint and it does this quite well.
I'm impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac!
Good for you! :-)
(ACW added for info to others)

The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

That is my understanding too.

Post by Your Name
You could of course buy a Mac Mini or Mac Studio and add whatever
screen size you want. Not an "all-in-one", but depending on the
screen's base or using a display stand, it can almost be.

My Professor friend has done exactly that!
The Studio Display is just wonderful - but expensive!
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need to have
lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Jolly Roger

2024-03-06 16:23:38 UTC

Post by Your Name
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio Display
is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle, backlight
consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and camera quality.
It's worth every penny I paid for it.

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

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

JR

pothead

2024-03-06 17:25:25 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

It's an amazing display. Super clear, bright vivid colors and easy on the eyes. Even looking at
monitors in the big box stores where nothing tends to be adjusted properly, Apple monitors look
fantastic. I do think part of it has to do with the fonts Apple uses. I don't know for sure though.

--
pothead
Tommy Chong For President 2024.
Crazy Joe Biden Is A Demented Imbecile.
Impeach Joe Biden 2022.

dgb (David)

2024-03-06 21:40:42 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so much
internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage place of choice.
(I'm assuming you have a really good Internet connection.)

Your Name

2024-03-06 22:59:46 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Personally I would never use cloud storage.

Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if you're
doing high-end graphics or video work, then external Thunderbolt or
more internal storage would be better since it's a bit faster.

More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Alan

2024-03-06 23:01:51 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Personally I would never use cloud storage.
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if you're
doing high-end graphics or video work, then external Thunderbolt or more
internal storage would be better since it's a bit faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard system
Applications folder.

Huh?

Give an example of one such application.

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 01:04:36 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

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

JR

Alan

2024-03-07 01:17:01 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?

To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire folder
to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...

...and it seems to work fine.

:-)

André G. Isaak

2024-03-07 01:25:58 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire folder
to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.

But will creative cloud continue to notify you when updates are
available? It looks at /Applications to see which software you have
installed.

Same goes for anything obtained from the App Store -- remove them from
/Applications and the App Store will no longer notify you that updates
are available since it won't seem them as being installed.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Alan

2024-03-07 01:29:40 UTC

Post by AndrÃ© G. Isaak

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.

But will creative cloud continue to notify you when updates are
available? It looks at /Applications to see which software you have
installed.

Are you sure about that?

Post by AndrÃ© G. Isaak
Same goes for anything obtained from the App Store -- remove them from
/Applications and the App Store will no longer notify you that updates
are available since it won't seem them as being installed.

Really? Show it.

André G. Isaak

2024-03-08 01:35:05 UTC

Post by AndrÃ© G. Isaak

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.

But will creative cloud continue to notify you when updates are
available? It looks at /Applications to see which software you have
installed.

Are you sure about that?

Really? Show it.

I'm certain in case of App Store apps unless things have changed since
Monterey (this is the main reason why I stopped storing applications on
external drives). I'm not certain with respect to Adobe CC, but I
strongly suspect it. It's not important enough for me to do an experiment.

Either of these claims could be easily tested if you chose. Pick some
application installed via the app store. Restore an earlier version via
time machine. Copy it from your /Applications folder to another drive
and then delete it from /Applications. Check to see if the app store
will recognize that it needs to be updated. Ditto for Adobe CC.

Applications which check for updates when launched will generally still
update even if located in a nonstandard location. Applications that rely
on a separate application (like App Store.app or Creative Cloud.app) not
so much. They tend to determine the current version based on what's in
the /Applications folder.

And I've run into other applications which experience strange behaviour
when installed outside of /Applications though unfortunately I can't
think of an example since I long ago stopped doing so.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 03:58:26 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire folder
to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)

Report back to use after it has (or hasn't) updated correctly.

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

JR

Alan Browne

2024-03-07 22:25:35 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire folder
to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)

And where does the license credential reside?

Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run it
with the license credentials in effect?

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

Alan

2024-03-08 01:20:37 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)

And where does the license credential reside?

I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to how
it ran.

Post by Alan Browne
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run it
with the license credentials in effect?

Almost certainly not.

Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years as
you are about proportion?

:-)

Alan Browne

2024-03-08 21:41:26 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)

And where does the license credential reside?

I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to how
it ran.

Post by Alan Browne
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run it
with the license credentials in effect?

Almost certainly not.
Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years as
you are about proportion?

So you don't know where the license credential resides, but my question
is ignorant?

Man, you're a dick. I guess that's a good thing for you.

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

Alan

2024-03-09 00:27:20 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)

And where does the license credential reside?

I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to
how it ran.

Post by Alan Browne
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run it
with the license credentials in effect?

Almost certainly not.
Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years
as you are about proportion?

So you don't know where the license credential resides, but my question
is ignorant?

I didn't say I don't know. I most certainly do.

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

Alan Browne

2024-03-09 14:44:38 UTC

Post by Your Name
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

I'd be willing to bet Adobe's Creative Cloud apps don't like being
anywhere but their designated place in /Applications.

How much?
To be fair, I just moved Adobe Illustrator 2023 (and it's entire
folder to be sure) from Applications to my Desktop folder...
...and it seems to work fine.
:-)

And where does the license credential reside?

I don't know... ...but moving the application made no difference to
how it ran.

Post by Alan Browne
Can you now connect that external drive to a different Mac and run
it with the license credentials in effect?

Almost certainly not.
Are you as ignorant about how macOS has worked for the last 20+ years
as you are about proportion?

So you don't know where the license credential resides, but my
question is ignorant?

I didn't say I don't know. I most certainly do.

Please get your story straight - AAA above.

Post by Alan
What's clear is that YOU have no clue about it.

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

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

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

Alan Browne

2024-03-07 22:23:46 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Personally I would never use cloud storage.
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if you're
doing high-end graphics or video work, then external Thunderbolt or
more internal storage would be better since it's a bit faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

Shouldn't matter, but I doubt a licensed install of, eg, Photoshop
would work very well.

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

Alan

2024-03-08 01:20:53 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Personally I would never use cloud storage.
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if
you're doing high-end graphics or video work, then external
Thunderbolt or more internal storage would be better since it's a bit
faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard
system Applications folder.

Huh?
Give an example of one such application.

Shouldn't matter, but I doubt a licensed install of, eg, Photoshop
would work very well.

Bzzzzzzt.

Wrong!

Alan Browne

2024-03-07 22:22:33 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Personally I would never use cloud storage.

Why not? It's very convenient to have some data available at multiple
places at any time.

Just don't treat it as a backup.

My business "daily" ops data is always on cloud. Just not backed up there.

Post by Your Name
Additional external USB drives are fine for most people, but if you're
doing high-end graphics or video work, then external Thunderbolt or more
internal storage would be better since it's a bit faster.
More internal drive space can also be needed if you run lots of apps
since some do not like to be stored / run outside of the standard system
Applications folder.

Most apps don't matter where they are run from. The executable can be
on volume x while the user data is on volume y. Large commercial,
complex apps, esp. with a license, will often be different of course.

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

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 01:03:05 UTC

Post by Your Name
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop
up from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is
just wonderful - but expensive!

Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio
Display is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle,
backlight consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and
camera quality. It's worth every penny I paid for it.

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent)
need to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so
much internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage
place of choice. (I'm assuming you have a really good Internet
connection.)

iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.

iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of your
devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically synced
(transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete something from
one device, it gets deleted from all of your other devices and iCloud.
There are more suitable services available for generic cloud file
storage.

I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause me
to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in doing
that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.

I have multiple virtual machines, Docker containers, video editing
projects, and lots of other things on my Mac that simply aren't suitable
for cloud storage.

I back up my Apple mobile devices to my computer rather than the cloud.

The list goes on...

Like I said, I realize my needs aren't representative of most users. And
I don't mind paying for more internal storage on my Macs.

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-07 09:33:18 UTC

Post by Your Name
The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop
up from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is
just wonderful - but expensive!

Best display I've ever owned. I have it sitting next to a 5K LG
UltraFine display, and it's striking how much better the Studio
Display is in just about every way: color accuracy, viewing angle,
backlight consistency, overall build quality, audio quality, and
camera quality. It's worth every penny I paid for it.

Thank you. That's really good to know. :-)

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent)
need to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

Is it possible for you to explain, in simple terms, why you need so
much internal storage rather than using the iCloud to be a storage
place of choice. (I'm assuming you have a really good Internet
connection.)

I don't think that is right. I believe iCloud can and does store material
without necessarily sending it to other Apple devices.

Post by Jolly Roger
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause me
to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in doing
that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.

I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small
monthly fee.

Post by Jolly Roger
I have multiple virtual machines, Docker containers, video editing
projects, and lots of other things on my Mac that simply aren't suitable
for cloud storage.

OK - thanks for explaining.

I've learned something new today!
https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container/

Post by Jolly Roger
I back up my Apple mobile devices to my computer rather than the cloud.

I glibly accept Apple's free service which seems to work as designed. Setting
up a new iPhone nowadays is a doddle! Just place the new one next to the old
one and "voilà - it's done!

HOW do you back up your mobile devices to your computer?

Post by Jolly Roger
The list goes on...
Like I said, I realize my needs aren't representative of most users. And
I don't mind paying for more internal storage on my Macs.

Understood. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond.

--
David

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 16:42:05 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of your
devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically synced
(transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete something
from one device, it gets deleted from all of your other devices and
iCloud. There are more suitable services available for generic cloud
file storage.

I don't think that is right.

It is right that's iCloud's primary purpose is synchronization.

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos, contacts,
reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app settings, and so on
are all synchronized between all of your devices. Add one and it appears
on all of your devices. Remove one from one device, and it gets removed
from iCloud and your other devices.

Post by Jolly Roger
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause
me to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in
doing that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.

I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a
small monthly fee.

Nothing wrong with that. It's good to have choices.

Post by Jolly Roger
I have multiple virtual machines, Docker containers, video editing
projects, and lots of other things on my Mac that simply aren't
suitable for cloud storage.

OK - thanks for explaining.
I've learned something new today!
https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container/

Post by Jolly Roger
I back up my Apple mobile devices to my computer rather than the cloud.

I glibly accept Apple's free service which seems to work as designed.
Setting up a new iPhone nowadays is a doddle! Just place the new one
next to the old one and "voilà - it's done!
HOW do you back up your mobile devices to your computer?

Apple has instructions on their website, which you can find with quick
web search for "back up iphone".

Post by Jolly Roger
The list goes on...
Like I said, I realize my needs aren't representative of most users.
And I don't mind paying for more internal storage on my Macs.

Understood. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond.

Sure.

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-07 20:26:59 UTC

I don't think that is right.

It is right that's iCloud's primary purpose is synchronization.

OK - Being able to take a photograph on my iPhone and have the image almost
instantly available on my iMac and iPad is one of the best aspects of using
Apple.

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

I totally accept that!

However, I can store any other item I wish.

Post by Jolly Roger
I don't store my entire photo library in iCloud. Doing so would cause
me to pay a monthly or yearly subscription, and I'm not interested in
doing that when I have lots of storage right on my Mac.

I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a
small monthly fee.

Nothing wrong with that. It's good to have choices.

Agreed. :-)

Post by Jolly Roger
I have multiple virtual machines, Docker containers, video editing
projects, and lots of other things on my Mac that simply aren't
suitable for cloud storage.

OK - thanks for explaining.
I've learned something new today!
https://www.docker.com/resources/what-container/

Post by Jolly Roger
I back up my Apple mobile devices to my computer rather than the cloud.

I glibly accept Apple's free service which seems to work as designed.
Setting up a new iPhone nowadays is a doddle! Just place the new one
next to the old one and "voilà - it's done!
HOW do you back up your mobile devices to your computer?

Apple has instructions on their website, which you can find with quick
web search for "back up iphone".

Thank you! https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/iphone/iph3ecf67d29/ios

Post by Jolly Roger
The list goes on...
Like I said, I realize my needs aren't representative of most users.
And I don't mind paying for more internal storage on my Macs.

Understood. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond.

Sure.

I meant it! ;-)

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 21:32:54 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of
your devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically
synced (transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete
something from one device, it gets deleted from all of your other
devices and iCloud. There are more suitable services available for
generic cloud file storage.

I don't think that is right.

It is right that's iCloud's primary purpose is synchronization.

OK - Being able to take a photograph on my iPhone and have the image
almost instantly available on my iMac and iPad is one of the best
aspects of using Apple.

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos, contacts,
reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app settings, and so on
are all synchronized between all of your devices. Add one and it
appears on all of your devices. Remove one from one device, and it
gets removed from iCloud and your other devices.

I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.

Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted from
your other devices.

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-07 22:24:20 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.
iCloud's primary purpose is synchronizing content between all of
your devices. If you add a file to iCloud, it is automatically
synced (transferred) to all of your other devices. If you delete
something from one device, it gets deleted from all of your other
devices and iCloud. There are more suitable services available for
generic cloud file storage.

I don't think that is right.

It is right that's iCloud's primary purpose is synchronization.

OK - Being able to take a photograph on my iPhone and have the image
almost instantly available on my iMac and iPad is one of the best
aspects of using Apple.

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos, contacts,
reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app settings, and so on
are all synchronized between all of your devices. Add one and it
appears on all of your devices. Remove one from one device, and it
gets removed from iCloud and your other devices.

I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.

Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted from
your other devices.

Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.

If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone and/or iPad.

See:- Loading Image...

HTH

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 23:04:03 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove one
from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your other
devices.

I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.

Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.

Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone and/or iPad.
See:- https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png

No, that's incorrect. iCloud Drive is not a generic cloud file storage
service. Things you add to iCloud Drive are made available to all of the
Apple devices that are logged in with the same Apple ID.

Apple's webpage about it:

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/109344>

Go ahead and try it for yourself. 😉

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-07 23:21:18 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove one
from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your other
devices.

I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.

Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.

Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone and/or iPad.
See:- https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png

"Made available to" ......... I accept that. But not installed upon.

Post by Jolly Roger
<https://support.apple.com/en-us/109344>
Go ahead and try it for yourself. 😉

I have! :-)

I can ALSO access my Apple iCloud from my Windows laptop!

Jolly Roger

2024-03-08 01:38:22 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove
one from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your
other devices.

I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.

Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.

Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone and/or iPad.
See:-
https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png

"Made available to" ......... I accept that. But not installed upon.

I'm not sure what you are here arguing about. When I take a photo on one
device, it is transferred to my other devices. When I add a contact on
one device, it is transferred to my other devices. When I add or change
a calendar event, the same thing happens on my other devices. iCloud is
primarily a synchronization service, but it does other things as well.
You seem to want to argue that because iCloud Drive doesn't always
automatically download changes to each device that somehow means it's
just like any other cloud storage service, but that's simply not the
case. Most data in iCloud is synchronized to all of your devices, and if
you delete something from iCloud Drive it gets deleted everywhere else.
It is *not* a generic cloud storage service.

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-08 08:44:34 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
I believe iCloud can and does store material without necessarily
sending it to other Apple devices.

That's not its primary purpose though. As exampled, photos,
contacts, reminders, calendars, iCloud Drive documents, app
settings, and so on are all synchronized between all of your
devices. Add one and it appears on all of your devices. Remove
one from one device, and it gets removed from iCloud and your
other devices.

I totally accept that!
However, I can store any other item I wish.

Yes, but the default behavior is if you delete it, it gets deleted
from your other devices.

Perhaps you are not aware of changes made to iCloud.
If you put Documents into iCloud, they are not added to iPhone and/or iPad.
See:-
https://i.ibb.co/ZfPsSjg/Screenshot-2024-03-07-at-22-19-10.png

"Made available to" ......... I accept that. But not installed upon.

We are in agreement!

Post by Jolly Roger
You seem to want to argue that because iCloud Drive doesn't always
automatically download changes to each device that somehow means it's
just like any other cloud storage service, but that's simply not the
case. Most data in iCloud is synchronized to all of your devices, and if
you delete something from iCloud Drive it gets deleted everywhere else.

I don't want to argue at all!

Post by Jolly Roger
It is *not* a generic cloud storage service.

There is VERY little difference - but the iCloud is smarter than most! ;-)

Alan Browne

2024-03-07 22:27:39 UTC

I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small
monthly fee.

Yeesh! I do hope you have separate copies on physical media that you
can access.

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

dgb (David)

2024-03-07 22:39:41 UTC

I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small
monthly fee.

Yeesh! I do hope you have separate copies on physical media that you
can access.

In the days of photographs taken with a camera I have physically printed
copies. I also have dozens of CD's containing what I considered 'important'
photographs.
With the advent of the iPhone and Apple's iCloud I make do with nothing more
than Time Machine backups. Try as I might, I cannot envisage Apple failing to
keep my images safe in their iCloud.
If that makes you cringe, please tell me why!

Alan Browne

2024-03-07 23:07:39 UTC

I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small
monthly fee.

Yeesh! I do hope you have separate copies on physical media that you
can access.

You can never rely on a third party to do what is best for you.

iCloud is _not_ a backup service.

Various famous cases of photo sites losing troves of photos due to
various reasons. Not even time for people to get their photos off.

I would rate Apple as very unlikely to lose your data, but the chances
that they do is a non-zero probability no matter how small.

And probably more likely is that you may end up in a situation where you
don't have access to iCloud when when you need it.

Time Machine is not the most reliable backup you can have - it's mighty
convenient after a whoopsie, but it's not infallible (or at least the
external media isn't).

You need to have static offline backups as well. And that is more work
and maintenance. If your photos are precious - treat them as precious.

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

dgb (David)

2024-03-08 08:36:46 UTC

I do store all of my photo library on iCloud and I'm happy to pay a small
monthly fee.

Yeesh! I do hope you have separate copies on physical media that you
can access.

You can never rely on a third party to do what is best for you.

Indeed! I understand where you are coming from!

Post by Alan Browne
iCloud is _not_ a backup service.

I understand that. Thanks.

Post by Alan Browne
Various famous cases of photo sites losing troves of photos due to
various reasons. Not even time for people to get their photos off.

I was taught a saluatory lesson many years ago when I had a hard drive failure
.... and no back-up!

Post by Alan Browne
I would rate Apple as very unlikely to lose your data, but the chances
that they do is a non-zero probability no matter how small.

OK - I'll accept that!

Post by Alan Browne
And probably more likely is that you may end up in a situation where you
don't have access to iCloud when when you need it.

I'd be lost without my Internet connection! ;-)

Post by Alan Browne
Time Machine is not the most reliable backup you can have - it's mighty
convenient after a whoopsie, but it's not infallible (or at least the
external media isn't).

Indeed. I have had my WD My Book back-up drive fail on me!

Post by Alan Browne
You need to have static offline backups as well. And that is more work
and maintenance. If your photos are precious - treat them as precious.

Yes indeed. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

--
David

Alrescha

2024-03-07 15:47:08 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.

The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device with 128
GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you want.

dgb (David)

2024-03-07 15:53:28 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.

The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device with 128
GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you want.

That is my understanding too! :-)

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 16:50:38 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.

The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device
with 128 GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you
want.

Not arbitrarily, no.

For instance, with iCloud Photos you can store more data in your iCloud
account than will fit on a given device. You can enabled Optimized
Storage to make more space available on your device by storing
low-resolution copies of the remaining photos on it, where
full-resolution photos are downloaded as needed.

But you can't upload 500 GB of photos to iCloud and not have them on any
of your devices because iCloud isn't an alternate generic cloud storage
solution you can use in that manner. And that's because it's primary
purpose is data synchronization between all of your devices.

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

JR

Alrescha

2024-03-08 07:23:43 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
But you can't upload 500 GB of photos to iCloud and not have them on any
of your devices because iCloud isn't an alternate generic cloud storage
solution you can use in that manner.

Of course you can. You dump those files into iCloud and let iOS/macOS
evict them from local storage over time (or you can do this yourself).
They don’t have to take up space anywhere else.

Your Name

2024-03-07 22:18:58 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are suggesting.

The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device with 128
GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you want.

iCloud definitely *is* a storage option, Apple even says so:

"Store, organize and collaborate on files and folders
with iCloud Drive. Easily upload, delete or recover
files."

iCloud, if you use the syncing options, is not is a backup solution
though. It's too easy for a file / photo to be deleted from a device
and then it disppears from all your devices (although there is a grace
period where you can get it back).

Jolly Roger

2024-03-07 22:58:37 UTC

Post by Jolly Roger
iCloud isn't an alternate storage location the way you are
suggesting.

The default setting isn’t the only setting. You can have a device
with 128 GB of storage and 2 TB of data in iCloud if that’s what you
want.

"Store, organize and collaborate on files and folders with iCloud
Drive. Easily upload, delete or recover files."

You're playing word games. What you store on iCloud Drive is also
synchronized to your devices. What you delete from iCloud Drive is
deleted from your other devices as well. It is, in fact, primarily a
synchronization service.

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-10 18:00:24 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

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

dgb (David)

2024-03-10 18:17:41 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

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

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

Jolly Roger

2024-03-10 22:23:18 UTC

That is my understanding too.

My Professor friend has done exactly that! The Studio Display is just
wonderful - but expensive!

Post by dgb (David)
With iCloud storage being relatively cheap, there's no (apparent) need
to have lots of on-board storage nowadays.

Personally, I can't really function without at least 2 TB of internal
storage, but I know I'm not representative of the average user.

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

Fuck off, troll.

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-13 07:55:52 UTC

Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive

An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

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

I hope this helps!

--
David

Jolly Roger

2024-03-13 16:40:07 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

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

Post by dgb (David)
I hope this helps!

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

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

JR

dgb (David)

2024-03-13 17:10:10 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.

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

Post by dgb (David)
I hope this helps!

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

Then help me with this, please.

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

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

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

And/or

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

Please advise.

Thanks.

Alan

2024-03-13 17:46:43 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.

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

Post by dgb (David)
I hope this helps!

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

Then help me with this, please.

Why would anyone help an asshole like you?

Jolly Roger

2024-03-14 00:03:16 UTC

Post by dgb (David)
Desktop & Documents Folders in iCloud Drive
An explanation for "Jolly Roger"!

I know more about iCloud Drive than you ever will.

I didn't write the article.

I don't give a shit.

Post by dgb (David)
I hope this helps!

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

Then help me with this, please.

Nah. Fuck off.

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

JR

Your Name

2024-03-06 20:55:46 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our
local Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of?
How does each make you /feel/ please?

Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).

Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to
change it. However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on
to Sonoma. I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide
another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using
an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux Mint and it does this quite well. I'm
impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac! Good for you!
:-)
(ACW added for info to others)

The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

That is my understanding too.

You can buy a build-to-order Mac Mini or Mac Studio with up to 8TB
internal storage from the Apple Store or a reseller ... if your bank
account can stand it.

Long gone are the good old days of easily being able to add RAM or
change drives or graphics cards in a Mac. It not even possible in the
so-called "Mac Pro tower", making that just another pointless Mac
model. :-(

dgb (David)

2024-03-06 21:20:12 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

I have 27 inch iMac. I've looked and played with a new M3 iMac in our
local Apple Store.
When you have each one of them there in front of you, regardless of the
technicalities, which screen do you prefer to be sitting in front of?
How does each make you /feel/ please?

Hard to answer.
The resolution quality of the M3 iMac is to the point where pixels
cannot be resolved with the naked eye. It is magnificently crisp and
contrast perfect at the default setting of 2240 x 1260. All fonts look
perfectly smooth. Very easy on the eyes.
It is usable at 2560 x 1440, but only if the screen is pretty close (at
least with my eyes - I don't need glasses to read, but this rez on the
24" iMac is just a little too tight (unless I would increase font sizes
which would be pretty much a return to the other resolution)). This is
likely more a personal thing so YMMV.
4480 x 2520 is not usable, really. Again one could blow up the font
sizes for reading - but not much point to it. Perhaps in some graphics
usages and workflow this would be a useful resolution.
I would have preferred 27". On the i7 iMac 27", 2560x1440 and it's very
nice. Lean in and you can see pixels. Lean in mind you. It's a very
nice display on that old 2012 iMac (not Retina). For all non-video
work, the 2012 iMac suited my needs just fine.
Still a killer processor. But.
When editing/rendering 1080p video of any length, it is too tedious.
Such on the M3 iMac is a whiz. (Though I still wish it was a higher
spec in number of cores). As a benchmark, it is almost 3x faster to
Handbrake a video on the M3 v. the i7 iMac (2012).
At some point I will gut the 27" of everything but the power supply and
display panel and add an adaptor to turn it into an HDMI or DisplayPort
display.
So in the end one makes adjustments to "real estate" on the screen,
sizing of App windows, what goes to the side display (which I've changed
to a Samsung 27" that I normally use for home lab use (Rasp Pi
development). It's so wide, that I only use the right 60% of it when
using this iMac M3).

Thank you so much for all the interesting detail, Alan.
My own is a 2017 iMac with a Retina display and I really don't want to
change it. However, I'm using macOS Ventura 13.6.4 and cannot move on
to Sonoma. I'm living in the hope that Apple may one day provide
another 27 inch desktop computer before this one dies! I'm also using
an old 24 inch iMac to run Linux Mint and it does this quite well. I'm
impressed with your intention to repurpose your old iMac! Good for you!
:-)
(ACW added for info to others)

The current reports say Apple are not planning on making a new 27in
iMac or iMac Pro any time soon. There are dubious rumours that pop up
from time to time, including going to 32in iMac.

That is my understanding too.

You can buy a build-to-order Mac Mini or Mac Studio with up to 8TB
internal storage from the Apple Store or a reseller ... if your bank
account can stand it.

Ha! Understood. :-)

Post by Your Name
Long gone are the good old days of easily being able to add RAM or
change drives or graphics cards in a Mac. It not even possible in the
so-called "Mac Pro tower", making that just another pointless Mac
model. :-(

Thank you for emphasising that. Many folk get caught out by this.

Alan

2024-03-05 21:50:32 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Alan Browne

2024-03-05 23:22:27 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.

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

Alan

2024-03-06 00:17:54 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.

Sorry, but given how easy it would be to post screenshots and you
punking out on doing so...

...I'll take what you've claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

:-)

Jörg Lorenz

2024-03-06 09:08:47 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.

Sorry, but given how easy it would be to post screenshots and you
punking out on doing so...
...I'll take what you've claimed with a (large) grain of salt.
:-)

He is totally lacking credibility.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Alan Browne

2024-03-06 22:14:25 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.

Sorry, but given how easy it would be to post screenshots and you
punking out on doing so...
...I'll take what you've claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Imagine my consternation.

Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

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

Alan

2024-03-06 22:24:05 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line.
:-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load
of apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds
yours on this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.

Sorry, but given how easy it would be to post screenshots and you
punking out on doing so...
...I'll take what you've claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...

...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

Alan Browne

2024-03-07 22:16:50 UTC

claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.

What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

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

Alan

2024-03-08 01:36:00 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.

Good. You're bright enough to know that.

Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim is
on the one who MAKES the claim?

Or that when someone refuses to do something simple to support a claim...

...it makes others think he has something to hide?

<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gBtTjBw9RZdogtopDdJjyYiMzO1-yPAK/view?usp=share_link>

Alan Browne

2024-03-08 21:45:52 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.

Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim is
on the one who MAKES the claim?

Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.

Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac? Then you can prove me wrong.

I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe me.
I have the numbers in front of me. And that's just the facts.

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

Alan

2024-03-09 00:40:47 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.

Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
is on the one who MAKES the claim?

Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.

No... ...that's not the way it has ever worked.

Post by Alan Browne
Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac? Then you can prove me wrong.
I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe me.
I have the numbers in front of me. And that's just the facts.

If you actually had the numbers in front of you...

...and you were technically competent (maybe that's the problem)...

...it would be trivial to prove your claims.

But you don't.

Alan Browne

2024-03-09 14:46:39 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.

Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
is on the one who MAKES the claim?

Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.

No... ...that's not the way it has ever worked.

Post by Alan Browne
Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac? Then you can prove me wrong.
I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe
me. I have the numbers in front of me. And that's just the facts.

If you actually had the numbers in front of you...
...and you were technically competent (maybe that's the problem)...
...it would be trivial to prove your claims.
But you don't.

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

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

Alan

2024-03-11 16:23:12 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.

Good. You're bright enough to know that.
Are you bright enough to understand that the onus to support a claim
is on the one who MAKES the claim?

Or if one claims I'm wrong to show so themselves.

No... ...that's not the way it has ever worked.

Post by Alan Browne
Do you own an Apple Silicon Mac? Then you can prove me wrong.
I have nothing to prove to you and I don't care if you don't believe
me. I have the numbers in front of me. And that's just the facts.

If you actually had the numbers in front of you...
...and you were technically competent (maybe that's the problem)...
...it would be trivial to prove your claims.
But you don't.

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

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

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

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

Bud Frede

2024-03-09 12:49:14 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Browne

2024-03-09 15:27:19 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bud Frede

2024-03-09 22:20:15 UTC

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

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

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

Alan

2024-03-11 16:24:05 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main memory
on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped IO to some
extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high, so that is
good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

Testing you won't actually show...

Alan Browne

2024-03-11 21:53:28 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main memory
on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped IO to some
extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high, so that
is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

Testing you won't actually show...

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

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

Alan

2024-03-11 22:50:51 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped IO
to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very high,
so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

Testing you won't actually show...

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

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

Alan Browne

2024-03-11 23:29:08 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v. memory
allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped
IO to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very
high, so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

Testing you won't actually show...

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

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

I guess you don't.

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

No. Because: Get over yourself.

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

Alan

2024-03-12 00:38:34 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v.
memory allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped
IO to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very
high, so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

Testing you won't actually show...

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

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

I guess you don't.
I could post the screen shots. Certainly. Am I obliged?
No. Because: Get over yourself.

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

But you are JUDGED on what you do.

Alan Browne

2024-03-12 22:33:38 UTC

Post by Alan
claimed with a (large) grain of salt.

Post by Alan Browne
Imagine my consternation.
Fact is I have an Apple Silicon iMac and the numbers are plain to see.

The numbers are what you CLAIM to have seen...
...but won't show screenshots to corroborate.

I have no obligation to do so.
What you can do is go get your self an Apple Si Mac and see for yourself.

It's not all that fantastic as my experience in same setup v.
memory allocation shows.
Past architectures (lower end intel) already had GPU using main
memory on the order of 1 - 2 GB. Other devices used memory mapped
IO to some extent. Of course the current memory bandwidth is very
high, so that is good.
Apple Si "upped the ante" - but the hype from Apple hasn't stood testing.

Testing you won't actually show...

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

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

I guess you don't.
I could post the screen shots. Certainly. Am I obliged?
No. Because: Get over yourself.

"Obliged"? Where did I ever suggest you were "obliged", sunshine?
But you are JUDGED on what you do.

You're not qualified.

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

Alan

2024-03-12 23:07:07 UTC

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

Testing you won't actually show...

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

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

I guess you don't.
I could post the screen shots. Certainly. Am I obliged?
No. Because: Get over yourself.

"Obliged"? Where did I ever suggest you were "obliged", sunshine?
But you are JUDGED on what you do.

You're not qualified.

I thought you were "done".

:-)

Jörg Lorenz

2024-03-06 09:07:57 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.

Post by Alan Browne
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.

Idiot.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Alan Browne

2024-03-06 22:20:02 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.

Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?

Post by Alan Browne
Or look up the numerous articles online that discuss the same thing.

Idiot.

Stop looking in the mirror - it's bad for your ego.

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

Alan

2024-03-06 22:24:31 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line.
:-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.

Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?

The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.

Alan Browne

2024-03-07 22:18:17 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line.
:-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.

Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?

The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.

Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.

I'm not much into proving anything to you. You're simply not important.

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

Alan

2024-03-08 01:37:00 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product
line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.

Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?

The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.

Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.

Which you will spend time writing about...

...rather than just post a couple of screenshots.

Post by Alan Browne
I'm not much into proving anything to you. You're simply not important.

You are certainly proving that by this reply.

:-)

Alan Browne

2024-03-08 21:47:03 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product
line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.

Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?

The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.

Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.

Which you will spend time writing about...
...rather than just post a couple of screenshots.

Post by Alan Browne
I'm not much into proving anything to you. You're simply not important.

You are certainly proving that by this reply.

Yes, thanks for confirming you're not important. Unexpected humility
from you.

Now, do you own an Apple Si Mac or not?

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

Alan

2024-03-09 00:41:22 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should
just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product
line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

Post the screenshots.

Go buy an Apple Silicon Mac and find out for yourself.

A lot of claims and no proof: You are a Troll.

Just the numbers I see. Do you have an Apple Silicon Mac?

The numbers you CLAIM to have seen.

Numbers I'm seeing right now actually on this home Apple Si iMac.

Which you will spend time writing about...
...rather than just post a couple of screenshots.

Post by Alan Browne
I'm not much into proving anything to you. You're simply not important.

You are certainly proving that by this reply.

Yes, thanks for confirming you're not important. Unexpected humility
from you.

You think THAT is what it confirms...

...you answering again?

LOL

Jörg Lorenz

2024-03-06 09:06:20 UTC

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

QED: You live in you own bubble and you do not understand anymore what
happens around your bubble.

Your Mac-selection does not impress anybody at all. My selection of Macs
is bigger and all run on the same OS-version. Even one of this barbecue
grills with an Intel-processor is part of it.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Alan

2024-03-06 22:24:50 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

QED: You live in you own bubble and you do not understand anymore what
happens around your bubble.

Not at all. And the observations I make are simply that: observations.
They are just the numbers that show for similar operating conditions (my
typical any-time-of-day app load).

Show the screenshots...

Alan Browne

2024-03-06 22:18:15 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

Your contribution in this thread: Completely inadequate and no
understanding of the Silicon-Architecture at all.

Since I have an M3 iMac and it uses more memory for the same load of
apps compared to my i7 iMac, my understanding of it exceeds yours on
this - as it does on most subjects.

QED: You live in you own bubble and you do not understand anymore what
happens around your bubble.

Not at all. And the observations I make are simply that: observations.
They are just the numbers that show for similar operating conditions (my
typical any-time-of-day app load).

Post by JÃ¶rg Lorenz
Your Mac-selection does not impress anybody at all. My selection of Macs
is bigger and all run on the same OS-version. Even one of this barbecue
grills with an Intel-processor is part of it.

Between home and work I have a lot of Macs.

But, if you Google away, you will find a lot of people showing that the
Apple Silicon Macs do not live up to Apple's hype over not needing as
much memory as an intel Mac.

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

Tyrone

2024-03-05 17:48:16 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.

The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone
needs a $4000 laptop.

Post by Alan Browne
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low
end MacBook.

Post by Alan Browne
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.

Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance beats
any commodity RAM plugged into slots over here and a commodity SSD plugged
into another slot way over there.

All while using way less power too.

Alan Browne

2024-03-05 20:02:46 UTC

Post by Tyrone

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.

The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone
needs a $4000 laptop.

Post by Alan Browne
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low
end MacBook.

Post by Alan Browne
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.

Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance beats

The RAM is not integrated onto the chip. It is soldered onto the chip
carrier. It is commodity LPDDR5 memory from a memory supplier. In the
case of my M3 iMac, the supplier is Micron[1].

Indeed some people have changed the RAM on their Apple Silicon Macs by
heating up the RAM carriers and putting in larger RAM of the same kind.
(This requires a lot of skill and the proper solder masks to carry off).

The SSDs are completely separate chip carriers soldered to the motherboard.

RAM performance is better due to it being directly mapped to the various
IO functions, as such many operations need only pass a pointer to a
memory block for output or input rather than shuffle blocks of data
between device and system memory (or v-v). This accounts for a large
amount of performance gain.

However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded at
all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac at any
given time (on the order of 2 GB more).

[1] From System Information | Memory:
Memory: 24 GB
Type: LPDDR5
Manufacturer: Micron

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

Alan

2024-03-05 21:51:45 UTC

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.

The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone
needs a $4000 laptop.

Post by Alan Browne
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low
end MacBook.

Post by Alan Browne
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.

Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The
RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance
beats

The RAM is not integrated onto the chip. It is soldered onto the chip
carrier. It is commodity LPDDR5 memory from a memory supplier. In the
case of my M3 iMac, the supplier is Micron[1].
Indeed some people have changed the RAM on their Apple Silicon Macs by
heating up the RAM carriers and putting in larger RAM of the same kind.
(This requires a lot of skill and the proper solder masks to carry off).
The SSDs are completely separate chip carriers soldered to the motherboard.
RAM performance is better due to it being directly mapped to the various
IO functions, as such many operations need only pass a pointer to a
memory block for output or input rather than shuffle blocks of data
between device and system memory (or v-v). This accounts for a large
amount of performance gain.
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded at
all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac at any
given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
Memory:    24 GB
Type:    LPDDR5
Manufacturer:    Micron

1. Do they have the same amount of RAM?

2. Do they run the same version of macOS?

Alan Browne

2024-03-05 22:48:57 UTC

On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne"

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.

The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone
needs a $4000 laptop.

Post by Alan Browne
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low
end MacBook.

Post by Alan Browne
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.

Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The
RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the performance
beats

The RAM is not integrated onto the chip. It is soldered onto the chip
carrier. It is commodity LPDDR5 memory from a memory supplier. In
the case of my M3 iMac, the supplier is Micron[1].
Indeed some people have changed the RAM on their Apple Silicon Macs by
heating up the RAM carriers and putting in larger RAM of the same
kind. (This requires a lot of skill and the proper solder masks to
carry off).
The SSDs are completely separate chip carriers soldered to the motherboard.
RAM performance is better due to it being directly mapped to the
various IO functions, as such many operations need only pass a pointer
to a memory block for output or input rather than shuffle blocks of
data between device and system memory (or v-v). This accounts for a
large amount of performance gain.
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded
at all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac
at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
   Memory:    24 GB
   Type:    LPDDR5
   Manufacturer:    Micron

1. Do they have the same amount of RAM?

Yep. 24GB.

Post by Alan
2. Do they run the same version of macOS?

Nope. The i7 is a few versions back. Can't go further. I see where
you're going with that but it would not account for 1 .. 2 GB of RAM.

That said, the claim with Apple Silicon was that you didn't need near as
much memory. That is BS.

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

Alan

2024-03-06 00:18:33 UTC

On Mar 5, 2024 at 9:12:45 AM EST, "Alan Browne"

Post by Your Name
New models of a Mac that is rather pointless. It's now even less
differentiated from the MacBook Pro models. Apple should just drop the
"Air" and "Pro" names and have a single "MacBook" product line. :-\
Apple Announces New MacBook Air Models With M3 Chip
<https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/04/apple-announces-m3-macbook-air/>
Apple Quietly Releases New M3 MacBook Air Lineup
<https://www.idropnews.com/news/apple-quietly-releases-new-m3-macbook-air-lineup/209627/>

Look at the options and memory (RAM and storage) for the real story.

The "real story" being that the Air is the low end MacBook. Not everyone
needs a $4000 laptop.

Post by Alan Browne
The low end version of this has 8GB of RAM. Wholly inadequate.
512 GB of SSD. Barely adequate.

For you perhaps. More than adequate for most people. Again, this is the low
end MacBook.

Post by Alan Browne
16 GB is barely adequate and 24 GB is the most you can get. And
compared to commodity value of memory (even of this level), it's grossly
expensive. Worse for SSD.

Except that Arm Macs don't use commodity anything. The
RAM/CPUs/GPUs/NPUs/SSD
are all custom and integrated onto a single chip. So the
performance beats

The RAM is not integrated onto the chip. It is soldered onto the
chip carrier. It is commodity LPDDR5 memory from a memory supplier.
In the case of my M3 iMac, the supplier is Micron[1].
Indeed some people have changed the RAM on their Apple Silicon Macs
by heating up the RAM carriers and putting in larger RAM of the same
kind. (This requires a lot of skill and the proper solder masks to
carry off).
The SSDs are completely separate chip carriers soldered to the motherboard.
RAM performance is better due to it being directly mapped to the
various IO functions, as such many operations need only pass a
pointer to a memory block for output or input rather than shuffle
blocks of data between device and system memory (or v-v). This
accounts for a large amount of performance gain.
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded
at all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac
at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
   Memory:    24 GB
   Type:    LPDDR5
   Manufacturer:    Micron

1. Do they have the same amount of RAM?

Yep. 24GB.

Post by Alan
2. Do they run the same version of macOS?

Nope. The i7 is a few versions back. Can't go further. I see where
you're going with that but it would not account for 1 .. 2 GB of RAM.

It very well could.

That said, the claim with Apple Silicon was that you didn't need near as
much memory. That is BS.

So post the screenshots.

Bud Frede

2024-03-09 13:18:36 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
However, when I work I always have the same basic list of apps loaded
at all times. With the i7 iMac it uses less memory than the M3 iMac
at any given time (on the order of 2 GB more).
Memory: 24 GB
Type: LPDDR5
Manufacturer: Micron

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

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

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

Bud Frede

2024-03-09 13:09:00 UTC

Post by Tyrone