Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Two points
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:29:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <viidfc$2ntnt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <lqu2q4Fa9h6U1@mid.individual.net> <vidd61$18mjb$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2024 20:29:49 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b499e84969a0f1a8280dc29a5b367795";
	logging-data="2881277"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/9IaP/HFWZyvXnIOZLOgr8EETbz+x75hI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MQaPK4/Hgs//gB9LTRlkrKWO8EA=
In-Reply-To: <vidd61$18mjb$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2766

On 11/29/24 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:
> 
>> 2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were made
>> from notebook equipment, and they are crap.
> 
> Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now a
> glorified notebook anyway.

Which makes it sound like notebooks haven't advanced in the past 20 
years to be as powerful as many desktops.  It would behoove you to check 
performance benchmarks prior to being so immediately dismissive.

Case in point, what's your own personal desktop PC's hardware specs 
today, and what numbers does it CPU post in the likes of Geekbench?

>> So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.
> 
> Is that ARM-based? Is it as expandable as the old x86-based Mac Pro? If
> no, then don’t call it a “workstation”.

The moniker of "workstation" is a bit more nebulous these days, as more 
and more task workflows can be adequately performed by core hardware 
instead of needing specialized expansion cards.

And case in point, Joel was bragging about his i5-10400 CPU the other 
day, which in Geekbench posts roughly 1450 single-/5500 multi- scores.

<https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i5-10400>

I don't recall which generation of Mac Studio Scott has, but the lowest 
performing one ever sold (2022 M1 Max) Geekbench scores are 1780/12650, 
which are +23% and +130% greater than the above Intel desktop CPU.

<https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14470909>

And FYI, if we move up to the latest Apple Notebook, the 2024 MacBook 
Pro with the M4 Max CPU, its 3900 / 25000 ... that's +170% and +350%.

Time for a paradigm shift, grandpa.

-hh