What, no thread yet on Apple's latest monstrocities?

[Apocalypse]

But Aggie doesn't seem to fully understand philosophy in the first place.

[Asher]

Aggie is a glorified history instructor, all he does is talk about some dead guy...

[Agathon]

You'd think you'd learn by now, but you philosophy types never really did understand what critical thinking is all about.

I've obviously learned that it's pointless dealing with someone who substitutes speculation and sometimes conspiracy for argument, and who merely repeats the same tired old claims again and again when asked for further reasoning.

It would be interesting if there was any real substantive argument from you, but there almost never is, and if there is, it just gets swamped by the silly stuff you say, and in the end it gets boring having to type out the same responses hundreds of times.

Similarly, it gets boring to try and be fair and open minded in the face of your complete inability to be objective about anything about which anyone disagrees with you. Do you remember the review that I posted where the reviewer said he thought Apple's ipod was still the best, and you spent pages arguing that it said the opposite? In the Asherworld perhaps, but not in the halls of the sane.

Sure, you might provide stuff that looks good to some of the impressionable people on here, but it doesn't wash with me. Most of the time it's mildly irrelevant, other times it's just made up or rumour, like your "itunes spontaneously deletes people's music" thread. Most of the time, it's speculation backed up with prejudice or sociopathy, or both.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
But Aggie doesn't seem to fully understand philosophy in the first place.

As if I'd care what you thought on the matter.

[Kuciwalker]

Enough to quote him.

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by Agathon

SP

Does that not mean "sad *****"?

It does where I come from. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

No, I think I misunderstood you. Did you seriously say that doubling a Mac's RAM from 256 MB won't improve performance when running OSX?

SP

[Agathon]

No, I think I misunderstood you. Did you seriously say that doubling a Mac's RAM from 256 MB won't improve performance when running OSX?

Misunderstanding both ways. I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.

I said that the mac mini with its much faster processor will get better performance with 256, than my old G3 with 512. I've no scientific reasons for saying this, only I happen to have recently used an equivalent to the mac mini with 256 and performance was much better. Not big news, but that's all I meant.

Having said that, doubling the RAM on the G4 will make quite a difference. Depends if you care that much I suppose.

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by Kontiki


I can't think of the last time I've purchased a durable good where "superficials" didn't enter into the equation.

Seriously, why are you harping on this? Do you buy clothes? Do you always buy clothes that are the most practical and durable things available, or do ever buy something just because it looks good but maybe costs a little more?

I always get to Value Village too late for the stuff that looks good.

SP

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
But Aggie doesn't seem to fully understand philosophy in the first place.

I'm interested now...

..what is it that I don't understand?

That predictions about future contingents are generally not thought to be the province of philosophy?

That most of the stuff in these threads is idle speculation, rather than proof?

[Fve Crathva]

Originally posted by Agathon

No, I think I misunderstood you. Did you seriously say that doubling a Mac's RAM from 256 MB won't improve performance when running OSX?

Misunderstanding both ways. I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.

I said that the mac mini with its much faster processor will get better performance with 256, than my old G3 with 512. I've no scientific reasons for saying this, only I happen to have recently used an equivalent to the mac mini with 256 and performance was much better. Not big news, but that's all I meant.

Having said that, doubling the RAM on the G4 will make quite a difference. Depends if you care that much I suppose.

Ah, I get it. I'm not so sure that's the case though. If I remember correctly, the G4 and G3 both use 166 MHz memory busses, so any memory-bound process will still have to wait the same amount of time.

SP

[Agathon]

Ah, I get it. I'm not so sure that's the case though. If I remember correctly, the G4 and G3 both use 166 MHz memory busses, so any memory-bound process will still have to wait the same amount of time.

No idea. I know that the G4 was a lot quicker than my machine though. OS X is a weird animal (terrible pun). You can have 25 apps open and it doesn't slow down as long as you aren't actively doing something with them.

[Asher]

That's because the memory is pathetically slow, about 4 years old by PC standards.

[Fve Crathva]

I dunno, they're using PC2700, which is still pretty common in cheap machines.

SP

[Asher]

The bus is still 166MHz is it not?

[Fve Crathva]

Well, yes, but you said memory.

SP